Jainworld
Jain World
Sub-Categories of Passions
About This Book (Translator's Prelude)
Peculiarity of Jainism
Introduction
Prologue
Nature of Mundane Existence
  Miseries of Mundane Existence and Bliss of Liberation 
  Exposition of False Belief Knowledge and Conduct
  Analytical study of different religions
  Refutation of False Deity-Preceptor-Religion
  X-ray of Jaina-misbelievers
  Nature of Sermons
  Nature of Liberation Path
  Nature of Noble Peaceful Death
  Rahasyapoorna Chitthi (Spiritual Letter)
  Glossary

Analytical Study of Different Religions

 

 

Similarly, many self-contradictory statements are found in the scriptures of other faiths (non-Jaina religions); so, what to do?

 

Keeping in view the old tradition somewhere they have supported good conduct for the sake of creating faith in people and at other places they have supported bad conduct for the sake of fostering passions, sensuous pleasures, etc., so how can their words be treated as authentic when such contradictions are found?

 

The words of other sects (non-Jaina faiths) which foster forbearance, chastity, contentment, etc., are found in Jaina- faith too and the contradictory statements found in their scriptures are imaginary.  Due to faith in their words ,which are found in accordance with Jainism people start believing their contradictory words also.  Therefore, one should not believe in the scriptures of other religions even if they contain some good aspect. As food mixed with poison is not wholesome, similarly one should be vigilant here also.

 

Further, if any aspect of good conduct is not found in Jaina- faith but is found in other faiths, or some prohibited aspect of conduct is found supported in Jaina-faith and is not found in other (non-Jaina) religions, then one can respect the scriptures of other sects, but this never happens so, because nothing is hidden or unknown in the omniscient's knowledge. Therefore, by giving up belief of other religions, one must develop staunchly firm belief in Jaina-faith.

 

An Analytical Study of Swetamber Jaina Sect

 

Due to bad times, lot of imaginary scriptures are written by the passionate Jivas in the garb of Jaina-faith also. The same is being discussed here:-

 

Someone, belonging to Swetamber Jain sect, composed the Sutras (aphorisms) but proclaimed them to have been written by Ganadharas. (The great Ascetics who possess four types of knowledge and translate & compile omniscient's revelation) Our question to them is- "You maintain that Aacharanga, etc. Shastras (scriptures ethics, etc.) presently available in your sect are written by Gandharvas.  So, whether these were written in the same measure in which they are available or were written in greater measure?" If those were made in the same measure as are available with you then the extent or measure of the words (Padas) of Aacharanga, etc. in your Shastras is described to be eighteen thousand, so can you prove its authenticity?

 

What is the measure of Padas (words)? If you will call the end of declension to be a Pada (word) then the word will become more than the aforesaid measure and if you say that the word itself is an authentic measure then there are more than fifty-one crore couplets of that one Pada only. So, in comparison to this measure, your scriptures are of very small measure. Therefore, this is not possible.  Moreover, the measure of Dasha- Vaikalika etc. is described to be lesser than that of Aacharanga, etc., whereas in your sect these are found in greater measure, so how is it possible?

 

Further, you may say - "Originally the Aacharanga, etc. were more in measure but due to bad times, we have prepared these Shastras by taking out several Sutras (aphorisms) from them". But firstly the incomplete Shastras are not authentic. And also there is a rule that if a big book (shastra) is written then in that everything is described in detail and if a small book (Shastra) is written then the same things are described there in short but the link is not disturbed and if only some description is extracted from any big book then the link is lost and the sequence of the description is broken. But in your aphorisms (books) the link even of the stories, etc.,

appears to be inter-connected and the discontinuity is not seen.

 

Moreover, the intellect of Ganadharas (chief ascetics) would definitely be more than that of other composers (writers); there should be more meaning in less words in the books written by them, but in the books of your sect, there is no profoundness even as is found in the works of other composers.

 

Further, whosoever writes the book, he does not mention his name in the style "so and so says", rather mentions "I say so", but in your Sutras Hey Gautama!" and "Gautam says" -such words are written.  But such style of addressing is possible only when someone else is the writer of that book. Therefore, these Sutras are not written by the Ganadharas, but some other persons have written them.  You want to establish authenticity of your imaginary works (scriptures) by the name of Ganadhara, but the intelligent persons believe only after investigating; they do not believe in mere statements.

 

Further, they say thus also- "There have been some saints who according to Ganadhara-Sutras possessed the knowledge of ten Purvas; they have composed these sutras"  Here we ask- "If new books were written then new names should have been kept? Why are the names of the Angas, etc. are kept?  For example- someone pretends to prove his wealth by keeping the name on his residence of some big wealthy person.  So, your effort seems to be like this.  Had you been truthful you should have named your scriptures in the name of their real author, a practice followed in Digamber-Shastras.  Why had the fallacy been created by keeping the name of Angas, etc. as written by Ganadharas?  Hence, your Sutras (aphorisms) are not the words of Ganadharas or of the knowers of the Purvas.  Further, for creating faith in these Sutras whatever description is in line with Jina's (omniscient's) religion, that is assuredly correct, the Digambers also describe in the same way.

 

And whatever imaginary compositions are made, in them there appears to be contradiction in the earlier and latter statements and are also found to be incompatible with direct knowledge; the same is being explained hereunder:-

 

Negation of Liberation by Other than Digambers Jaina-path

 

The Swetamber believe that the other sectarians, the house-holders, the woman and the untouchable low caste persons (Shoodras etc.) can attain liberation directly by the same birth, but it is not possible.  The unity of right belief knowledge and conduct constitutes the right path of liberation; but they- the Swetamber describe the differentia of right belief as follows:-

 

"Arhanto mhadevi javjeevan suhasanro gurunro

Jinpanratan tatam aismatam mye ghiyam"

 

So, how is the believing of Arhanta-Deva, true monk, preceptor and the Tattvas preached by the omniscient Jina possible in other sectarians?  When even right belief is not possible how would then the direct liberation be possible?

 

IF you will say that by having faith in the inner-self they attain right belief; so, when even praising of the perverse- path followers is described to be a transgression of right belief, then after attaining the right belief, how will one remain the follower of the perverse-path?  After attainment of right belief, the right conduct gets generated on accepting the five great vows (Maha vrata); how would it be feasible in the follower of other (non-Jains) path?  If right conduct is possible even in the followers of perverse-path then Digambar Jain-path and the other paths both become equal.  It is, therefore, wrong to say that attainment of liberation is possible by the followers of other (non-Jaina) paths?

 

The Negation of Liberation to Householders

 

They, the Swetamber describe attainment of liberation even in householder's life; but right conduct is evolved only on giving up all sorts of sinful activities of injury, etc., then on giving up all sorts of sinful activities how is the householder's life possible?  If you will say that "the internal renunciation has been achieved", but here in Jaina- path renunciation takes place through all the three (mind, body and speech) channels of activities, then how could renunciation be possible through body?  Moreover, in Swetamber even on keeping the external paraphernalia (belongings and possessions) the Mahavrat one takes the resolve of renouncing the external things only; without renunciation the great vows (Mahavrat) are not possible and without Mahavrat the sixth, etc. stages of spiritual development (Gunasthan) cannot be achieved, how would then the liberation (Moksha) be possible?  It is, therefore, wrong to say that the Moksha is also possible to householders.

 

Negation of Woman Attaining Liberation

 

Further, they- the Swetamber describe direct liberation to woman also; but who cannot commit the sin resulting in the birth in seventh hell, how can she effectuate perfectly pure (passionless) disposition instrumental for attaining liberation?  Because of one who has firm determination only can effectuate sin or religion of the highest order. Moreover, it is not possible for a woman to meditate fearlessly in lonely place and to renunciate all paraphernalia's, etc.  If you will contend- "Attaining of liberation in one unit of time by all the three sexes-male, female and neuter is described in the scriptures; therefore, we believe (direct) liberation to woman also".  But here in

this context, is he a Bhava-Vedi (psychically having the feeling of any of three (sex-passions) or is a Dravya-Vedi (physically having any of the three sexes)?  If he is a Bhava-Vedi then we too believe so, and if he is a Dravya-Vedi, then in the world the male and female persons are seen many and the neuter persons are seen rarely, then the question is that how are so many neuter persons possible attaining the Moksha (liberation) in one unit of time? Hence, the interpretation from Dravya-Veda (physical sex) point of view is not correct.

 

Further, you will say that the sex-passions are described to be persisting up to the ninth Gunasthan; but this statement is also from the Bhava-Veda (psychic-sex feeling) point of view.  If the statement would have been from the Dravya-Veda (physical-sex) point of view then asserting the existence of sex-passion up to the end of fourteenth Gunasthan would also become possible.

 

Therefore, believing direct liberation to woman is false.

 

Negation of Liberation to Shoodras

 

Further, they- the Swetamber assert that the untouchable ignoble low caste persons (Shoodras) can also attain liberation; but how would the householders offer food, etc. to slaughterers, etc. respectfully?  It is against the set public tradition.  And the auspicious thoughts are not possible in the ignoble (low caste people.)  Moreover, the rise of low status determining karma is only up to the fifth Gunasthan; how would the liberation be attained without ascending the upper Gunasthan?  If you will say that after accepting the continence he is said to have attained the high status karma.  If it be so then rise of low and high status determining karma would be governed by accepting continence or not accepting continence.  But on believing so the incontinent men even Tirthankaras, Ksatriyas  etc. (of noble high status family) could be found having the rise of low status determining karma.  If you will believe them to be having the rise of high status karma due to birth in high status family then you should accept the rise of low status karma in ignoble (slaughterers), etc. due to birth in low status family.  In your scriptures (Sutras) also the existence or rise of low status karma is accepted up to the fifth Gunasthan only; so, there will assuredly be contradiction in describing the imaginary things; hence, believing liberation to Shoodras (ignoble/slaughterers, etc.) is false.

 

Thus, they- the Swetamber have described the attainment of liberation by all human beings; so the purpose of such description is to appear to be benevolent in everyone's eyes and by giving allurement of liberation to propound their

imaginary faith.  But on deep thinking all such description appears to be false (fabricated).