When asked, they say-
"The Shravakas observing the vows of Pratimas are not possible in this era".
Behold! Shravakas religion is difficult and the monk's religion is easy "-such
contradictory statements are given by them. And they advocate less belongings
and possessions to a Shravaka of eleventh Pratima and more belongings and
possessions to a monk, so this is impossible. Further, they say - "Shravakas
give up this Pratima after observing it for a short period." But, if this
pious practice is excellent, then, why will a devout person leave the higher
grade of conduct an if it is a low grade practice, then why will he accept it
? All this is not at all possible.
Further, they support that householder's religion is possible by offering
salutation, etc, to the false deities and preceptors, etc. They argue that
they do not salute them with some religious attitude; it is merely a worldly
formality. But in the doctrines even the act of praising and invocating them
is stated as the transgression of the right belief and here for pleasing the
householders, they do not oppose such practice of salutation.
Further, if you will say- "We salute them because of fear, shamefulness,
sport, etc"., then on the ground of these very reasons, you should not regard
sin even in their indulgences in the acts of unchastity, etc.; only know them
to be sin internally. Thus, contradiction will arise in all religious
this way, no prominence is given to forsaking of indulgence in the great sin
like Mithyatva (false belief) and prominence is given to the sin of injury to
air beings by denying the practice of speaking with uncovered mouth, so this
is clearly a non-sequential discourse. Moreover, the aspects of religion are
many; out of them, they emphasise only compassion towards other beings, but in
this also they do not have any prudentiality. The prominence is not given to
the practice of filtering of water, cleaning of food grains, etc., non-eating
of impure things, non-indulgence in trading activities involving injury, etc.
Negation of Mukha-Patti
(A Clothpiece for Covering Mouth)
they give importance to the acts of tieing of a clothpiece over the mouth,
using less amount of water in ablution but the organisms are created due to
the contact of the spittle with the dirty clothpiece tied over the mouth; they
are unmindful of these acts and lay stress on avoiding the injury to air
beings, a lot of air is exhaled through the nose but they do not bother about
it. And according to their scripture, if care is to be taken while speaking
only, then why do they always keep it over the mouth ? While speaking they
should take care of it. If they say- "We forget, then the question is that
when even this much is not remembered how will then other aspects of religion
(rituals) be followed? And they advocate use of less amount of water in
ablution, etc. but the necessary is done by the monks also; hence, the
householders should also do the ablution as per their status. Observing the
act of Samayiaka (meditation) etc. without doing ablution after sexual
intercourse, etc., sin is caused due to disrespect, madness, etc. Thus, the
practices they stress, too, are not strictly followed. And they observe many
of the aspects of compassion correctly, forsake eating of vegetables, etc.,
consume less amount of water; so we do not negate them.
Refutation of the
Negation of Idolatry
And they (a group of
Shwetamberas) refute Pratima (installation of omniscient's idol), Chaityalaya
(temple of Arhantadeva, Jina) and rituals of worshipping, etc. by holding
one-sided view of Ahimsa (non-injury). But in their own shastras (scriptures)
description of Pratima (Jina's idol's worshipping) etc. is found; that aspect
they hide with bigotry feeling. In their Bhagwati-Sutra Shastra there is found
the description of a monk possessing supernatural powers; therein it is
written that he went to Merugiri (mount Meru) and offered salutation to Jina
's idols. The meaning of this is that there he makes obeisance to the
Chaityas and the word Chaitya is popular in the sense of Pratima (Jina's
idol). And they obstinately hold that the word Chaitya is used to denote
knowledge, etc., so, it has a different meaning, its meaning is not the
Pratima. Our question is - "By repeatedly going to the land of Merugiri and
continent Nandishwara he offered obeisance to the Chaitya, but how is the
meaning of offering obeisance to knowledge, etc. possible there? The obeisance
to knowledge, etc. is possible everywhere. The offering of obeisance to the
particular adorable Chaitya is possible there only where it is found and
nowhere else found. So, such possible meaning could be Pratima (Jina's idol)
only, because main meaning of the word Chitya is Pratima only which is famous.
By this meaning only, the name as Chaityalaya (Jina's temple) is possible, why
to hide it by showing obstinacy?
Moreover, adoration by
heavenly gods by going to Nandishwara continent, etc. has been described in
their scripture at several places. And the description of naturally existing
Pratimas (Idols of Jina) in the universe are found in the scripture, so, such
uncreated existence is found from beginningless time. That uncreated
(self-existing) formation is not for the purpose of sensuous pleasures, etc.
and there in the abodes of heavenly gods, Indras, etc. the purposeless
formation is not possible. What do Indras, etc. do to see it? To see the
purposeless formation in their temples, either they might be becoming
apathetic with it and feeling unhappy but this is not possible; or by seeing
suck attractive formation they might be fostering the objects of senses but it
is not possible that by seeing the Arhanta's idol the true believers would
foster their objects of senses. Therefore, the only possibility is that they
do their adoration, etc. only there.
In their scripture
there is a story of Suryaabha Deva; there the ritual of worshipping Pratimaji
(Jina's Idol) is specifically described.
For concealing it they
say- "Devas ' duty is of such type only". So, this is true but there is always
found some fruit of the duty or activity (that one does). So, what is its
result - religion or sin i.e., virtue or vice. If religion is its result then
it would mean that elsewhere there used to be sin and here the result is
religion; so, how could this be treated similar to others? This is befitting
act. If sin is its result, but he recited the hymn of Namotthunam. Why did he
then recite the hymn of salutation which is the place of sin?
And one thought arose
here is this that in the recitation of the hymn Namotthunam there is
invocation of Arhantadeva; so they recited this hymn before the Jina's idol;
hence the act of Arhantas' adoration done before the Jina's Idol is logical.
They further say-
"Such act is possible for Devas (celestial beings) only and not for human
beings because in making idol, etc., injury is caused by human beings." But in
their own shastras there is such description that Queen Draupadi started
worshipping the Jina's idol as was done by Suryaabhadeva; hence, such act is
also the duty of human beings.
Another idea arose
here that if the tradition of making Chaityalayas (Jina's temples) and
Pratimas (Jina's idols) was not prevalent, then, how did Draupadi queen
worship the Jina's idol? And if the tradition was prevalent then were the
makers of the temples, etc. religious persons or sinners? If they were
religious persons then such act of worshipping, etc. is commendable for
householders and if they were sinners, why did then they make these things
when there was no purpose of enjoying the sensual pleasures? And Draupadi
recited the hymn of Namotthunam there and per-formed the worship, etc.; was
this done for mere fun or religion? If this was done for mere fun, then she
was a great sinner. How could there be sportive act in the religion? And if
she did this as a religious practice, then others also ought to worship and
adore Jina's idol.
Further, they put up
such false logic- "As by installation of Indra's idol, our purpose from Indra
is not served, similarly by installation of Arhanta Jina's idol, our purpose
is not served. If the Arhanta God does good of some person by considering him
as his devotee then what you say can be accepted, but He is totally
passionless. The devotee himself obtains the auspicious fruit by his thoughts
and dispositions of devotion. For example, if someone, by seeing the idol of
woman made from wood or stone, develops affection by becoming lustful then he
will have the bondage of inauspicious karmas; similarly, if someone, by seeing
the idol of Jina made from metal or stone, develops the feeling of devotion by
religious attitude, then, why will he not have the bondage of auspicious
karmas? There they say- "We will develop auspicious thoughts by devotional
feelings towards Arhanta God even without His idol." Our logic is- "The type
of thoughts which arise by seeing the form (idol) do not arise by remembering
indirectly (the Arhanta God). This is why the lovers of woman make the
portrait of woman in this world also; therefore, by taking the recourse to
Jina's idol, special types of auspicious thoughts and dispositions are
generated due to specific devotional feelings.
argues- "One may see the idol but what is the purpose in worshipping it?"
Answer: For example,
if someone after making the effigy of some Jiva destroys it, then he commits
the type of sin similar to that of killing that Jiva and if someone after
making the effigy of some Jiva spoils it with the feeling of aversion, then he
gets the fruit of the type similar to that of actually harming that Jiva. In
the same way, if someone by making the idol of Arhanta God worships it with
religious devotion and regard, then in him rises the auspicious thought as
similar to that of worshipping the real Arhanta God and he gets the same type
of fruit; under the feelings of intense devotion and regard one worships the
idol of Arhata God due to non-availability of Darshan (seeing) of actual
omniscient Lord Arhanta Deva. This devotional regard results in the bondage of
auspicious karmas of very high order.
Further, they put up
such illogical argument- "It is a mockery of a person to offer him those
articles which he has relinquished, therefore, worshipping Arhanta Deva by
offering sandal, etc. before His idol is inappropriate.
accepting the monkhood (homeless ascetic life) all kinds of possessions and
occupations were renounced (by the Shravaka), and after attainment of
omniscience Lord Indra created Samavasarana (omniscient's preaching arena),
Chhatra (umbrella) and Chamvar (flapper) etc. for adoring Tirthankara Deva.
Was this a mockery or adoration? If this was a mockery, then the Indra
committed great sin. But this is not possible. If by all this he adored Lord
Arhanta Deva then in the worshipping of the idol of Arhanta Deva the devotee
does the adoration only. And mockery lies in offering to a non- omniscient
person the things which he has already forsaken because it may result in
upsetting him; but no fault lies in putting before the omniscient or His idol
the best faultless articles with devotional feeling. Upsetting is not caused
to them. Rather due to religious devotion the devotee is benefitted.
They further say- "The
injury (Hinsa) is caused in making the idol, in constructing the temple (chaityalaya)
etc., in doing the worship, etc. where as the religion is Ahinsa (non-
injury); therefore, great sin is caused in believing religion by committing
Hinsa (injury); we, therefore, forbid, these rituals."
Answer: There is a
statement found in their own shastras:-
kallanram, succha janreyi pavgan
Ubhyam pi janryai
succha jan saiye tam smayir
Here it is said that
an aspirant should know these three things i) the benediction or virtue, ii)
the vice and iii) the mixed or both virtue and vice. So, the mixed disposition
is possible by mixing (togetherness) of both virtue and vice, hence occurrence
of such kind of act (mixed-disposition) is also established there. Here we
ask- "the mixed-disposition is definitely worse than the virtue or benediction
alone but is the mixed disposition worse or better than the vice alone? If it
is worse, then in this (mixed-disposition) some part of the virtue (religion)
is also mixed, how can it be stated worse than the vice (sin) alone? If it is
better, then indulging in such mixed acts by leaving only vicious and sinful
acts is advisable. Logically also this seems to be correct. No recluse
(votary) gets the temple, etc.
practices Samayika (vow of equanimity) etc. injuriless activities, then by
leaving these activities it is not desirable for him to install the idol, etc.
and perform worship, etc. But as someone builds house for his own residence,
then in comparison to this constructing temple (chaityalaya) etc. is not
inferior act. Injury is caused there but in the case of building of house
there is increase in greed-passion, which is inauspicious attachment, whereas
in the case of building of the temple auspicious attachment is evolved in
place of greed-passion. And the activities of worship etc. are in no way
inferior to the activities of trading, etc. In trading etc., a lot of injury,
etc. is involved, greed, etc. increases, all activities are full of sin only,
whereas in worshipping etc. some injury is involved, greed, etc. decreases and
the religious devotion increases.