Refutation of False Deity-Preceptor-Religion

 

Here someone asks- "What is the reason that none else except that Nigrantha (naked possessionless monk) is believed to be the Guru?

 

Answer: Excepting the Nirgrantha, no other Jiva possesses the supremacy in all respects. For example, if a greedy person delivers lectures on Shastra then the listeners regard him superior because he delivers discourses whereas the discourser regards the listeners superior because they offer him wealth, cloths, etc. Although out wardly the discourser is superior yet being greedy internally he does not possess superiority in all respects.

 

Question: "The Nigranthas also take food."

 

Answer: The Nirgranthas do not take food with inferiority complex and greed passion by praising the donor; so, their supremacy is not affected. The greedy only suffers from complexes.

 

Therefore, the Nirgranthas only possess supremacy in all respects; no other Jivas excepting the Nirgranthas are meritorious in all respects; therefore, superiority and inferiority are to be considered only from the viewpoint of possession of merits and demerits respectively. Therefore, dauntless adoration is not possible.

 

Moreover, excepting the Nirgranthas whatever religious conduct is observed by other Jivas (so-called monks) can be followed in the same degree or of higher degree even by the householders, then in such a case who should be regarded as Guru? Therefore, only those Nirgrantha monks who have no external and internal possessions and attachments are to be known as true Gurus (real preceptors).

 

Here someone may ask- "Such Gurus are not found here in the present time, hence as the installation of Arihanta God is his idol, similarly, the installations of the Gurus are these sanctimonious persons?

 

Answer: For example, if someone treats the portrait of a king to be the king then that portrait is not a rival of the king but if some ordinary person wantshimselfto be treated askingthen thatperson is the rival of the king; similarly, if someone makes the installation of Arihanta God etc. in stone, etc. then that idol is not a rival of him, but if some ordinary person wants himself to be treated as monk then such a person is the rival of the monks. If even in this way, the installation be possible then get yourself be treated as Arihanta also.  And if an ordinary person is installed as a true monk then at least outwardly he must possess the characteristics of a true monk but the true monk (Nirgrantha) is totally possessionless naked homeless ascetic whereas the so-called monks (Gurus) are having lot of possessions - how such installation is possible?

 

Question: In the present time the Shravakas (Jaina house- holders), too are not found as they ought to be; therefore, the monks are also not found as they ought to be. (So, we worship them).

 

Answer: In the scripture the term Shravaka is used for all Jaina householders (irrespective of whether he is a votary or a non-votary).  King Shrainika also was an incontinent (non- votary) but in Uttar-Purana he has been stated as the best Shravaka .  In the twelve kinds of assembly halls (in omni scient Jina's Samavasarana) one arena is meant for Shravakas but all of them were not votaries. If all were votaries then the number of the non-votaries (incontinent persons) should have been specified separately, but it is not specified; hence,  all Jaina householders are given the name of Shravaka.  But the term monk (Guru) has nowhere been used for any person except the Nirgranthas.

 

Further, the Shravakas (all Jaina householders) are stated to possess eight basic right, i.e., eight primary moral characters called Mulgunas. Therefore, the eating and taking of wine, meat, honey and five types of Udumberas figs-fruits (which contain Trasa Jivas) is not found in the Shravakas; so, somehow Shravakaship is possible, but the monk's basic rites (Mulgunas) are twenty-eight which are not seen in the sanctimonious persons; hence, the monkship is not at all possible from any point of view. Further, in the household- ers state Jambu-Kumar, etc. are described to have indulged excessively in the acts of injury, etc., but after accepting monkhood (asceticism) none indulged in any acts of injury, etc., nor kept any possessions and attachment; therefore, your above-stated argument cannot be maintained.

 

Further, it is stated in the scripture that four thousand kings after adopting asceticism (monkhood) along with Lord Adinathji, became corrupt later on; Then Devas (gods of heaven) warned them- "If you will follow wrong conduct after accepting Jina-Linga (Nirgrantha monkhood), we will punish you. After giving up Jina-Linga you may indulge in whatever practice you like." Therefore, those who follow wrong conduct after accepting Jaina-monkhood are Punishable. How could such persons be revered?

 

What more to say ! those who indulge in perverse practices after accepting Jina-Linga (Nirgrantha monkhood) they are great sinners. Other Jivas who attend on them and worship them are also great sinners. There is a story in Padma-Purana Shastra that one devout Shravaka (named Shreshthi) did not offer food to the monks possessed of supernatural power (of moving in sky) by believing them corrupt under suspicion. How is then offering of food, etc.  possible to those who are clearly corrupt?

 

One may say- "In our inner-self we have true belief, but out- wardly due to fear of public censure we respect them, therefore, we will reap the fruit according to our inner belief?"

 

Answer: In Ashta-Pahuda Shastra paying regard due to shy-ness is negated, this was stated earlier. If someone forcibly makes you bow your head with folded hands then one can argue that it is not according to our inner-self. But if you yourself offer salutation, etc.  due to pride-passion, etc., then how not to attribute involvement of inner conscious in such act? For example, if someone internally believes meat- eating as bad but for the sake of pleasing the king, etc.  he eats the meat, then how could he be treated as a votary (continent)? Similarly, if someone internally believes adoration etc. of false preceptors as bad but for the sake of pleasing them and other persons he adores them then how could he be called a true believer?  Hence, on outward renunciation only the internal renunciation is possible. Therefore, for the true believer the adoration, etc. of false preceptors, etc. is not, justifiable from any point of view.

 

In this way, the adoration of false preceptors is prohibited.

 

One may ask here- "How can false belief be attributed to a true believer of Tattvas if he adores the false preceptors?"

 

Answer: As a chaste woman never cohabits with any other man except her husband; similarly, a true believer of Tattvas never offers salutation, etc. to a false preceptor as he does to a true preceptor.  Because he has firm belief, in Jiva etc. Tattvas, i.e., in his belief, there is total negation of attachment, etc. passions, and highest regard for passionlessness. Therefore, he offers salutation, etc. to those monks (true preceptors) only who possess passionlessness knowing them adorable and never offers salutations, etc. to those so-called monks who possess attachment, etc. passions knowing them unadorable.

 

Someone may say- "We offer salutations, etc. to the so-called monks with the same view with which we offer salutations, etc. to the kings, etc.

 

Answer: The kings, etc. have no place in religious tradition, but the preceptor's adoration is a part of religious tradition. Reverence to the kings, etc. is done with the motive of greed, etc.  where the rise of Charitra Moha (conduct-deluding karma) only is possible, but the adoration of false preceptors in place of true preceptors is a contrary practice, because the instrumental cause of right belief in Tattvas is the true preceptor. Therefore, due to shyness if someone adopts perverse instrumental cause then how could he attain staunch belief in Tattvas which is the desired result? Hence, the rise of Darshan Moha (faith-deluding karma) is possible there.

 

Thus ends the discussion of the characteristics of a false preceptor.

 

Exposition of False Religion and Denial of Faith in It

 

Now the false religion is being discussed:-

 

Believing such acts and dispositions to be religion which involve injury, etc. sins and which cause increase in carnal desires, etc. is to be known as false religion. Indulging in the activities of oblation wherein great injury is involved, killing of big animals is caused, sensual pleasures are fostered, cruel concentration is developed due to injurious attitude towards Jivas, desire of fulfillment of selfish ends arises by harming others due to intense greed, believing all such acts to be religious acts is false religion.

 

Further, people take bath, etc. in (so-called) holy places which causes injury to innumerous big and small living beings; it provides relaxation to the body, therefore, it fosters sensual pleasures and increases carnal desires. Thus, one increases his passions out of sport and wrongly believes all such activities to be religion. But all this is the false religion.

 

Further, he gives donation during the period of transition (Samkranti), eclipse and great calamity, etc. and gives donation for the purpose of (neutralizing the effect of) the planets of bad omen, gives donation to the greedy persons by knowing them worthy recipients. In donation he gives gold, elephant, house, sesame, etc.  articles. But Samkranti, etc. are not the religious festivals. By movement of the planets, etc. stellars, the Samkranti (transition), etc. are caused. And donation given for the mitigation of the effect of bad planets, etc. is not religious donation because it is given due to fear and excessive greed, etc. Moreover, the greedy persons are not worthy recipients of donation because the greedy persons cheat through many false tactics, they do not do even a little good.  Benefaction is actually caused only when the donee practices religion with the help of the donation received (But) on the other hand he indulges in sinful conduct. How would benefaction be caused to a person who helps in sinful acts?

 

The same thing is stated in Ravanasara-Shastra:-

 

Sappurisan^.an dan^.an kaptroon^.an phlan^.an sohan va

Loheen^.an   dan^.an jyee viman^.soha savass  jan^.aih                 (26)

 

Meaning:  Giving charity to pious persons is like the splendor of the fruits of Kalpa-Vrikshas (The trees yielding anything desired). This act is splendorous as well as pleasure-giving. And the charity given to greedy persons is like decorating the bier of a dead-body. Though splendor results, yet it causes extreme distress to the owner (kinsmen). Hence, there is no religion in giving charity to the greedy persons.