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.
Nigranthas also take food."
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:-
dan.an kaptroon.an phlan.an sohan va
dan.an jyee viman.soha savass jan.aih
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.