|
Up-pravartak
Shri Amar Muni |
THERE REALLY CELESTIAL BEINGS?
The seventh Ganadhar, Mauryaputra arrived. His doubt
was "whether the deities and the heaven exist or not". The Bhagavan says
to him,
(indian writing pg 119 angie)
Because you have found these two kinds of contradictory
Vedic statements, you have entertained the doubt whether deities
(celestial beings) exist or not? 'Who has seen the deities who are like
magical and mesmeric beings?' In other words, from the first Vedic
statement one seems to feel that there are no deities and no heaven. The
second Vedic statement says "those who have performed yajnas (sacrifices)
attain heaven; because yajnas work as weapon and they tear off the cover
of sins." From this statement, you get the idea that heavenly beings do
exist.
The absence of heavenly beings is assumed because the
inhabitants of hell being dependent cannot come to this world; but
heavenly beings are deemed to be free and independent to come to this
world, so if they really exist why do they not come here?' Since they do
not come, this shows their absence.
But these are the proofs of the existence of
heavenly beings:
1. Here in the samavasaran (the preaching-castle), the
celestial beings are directly visualized.
2. The jyotish-vimans (planes) are a locality, and so
like a mansion, they must be the abode, the residence of some beings.
These residents are a class of heavenly beings. These abodes are called
vimans (Planes) because the vimans are studded with gems and they
regularly travel through the sky in a fixed manner. Winds, clouds, a ball
of fire etc. are not made of gems. So they are not the residence of any
beings.
Question: Why should we not call it an illusory
structure?
Answer If you believe them to be illusory, even then
the heavenly beings are proved to exist. Who can construct such illusory
things! This kind of construction is beyond the capacity of human beings.
3. Just as jivas experience the fruits of an intense
kind of sins committed by them on going to hell; similarly 'who are to
experience the fruit of the loftiest kind of punya (good deeds?) Say, only
deities. Man whose body is made up of foul smelling substances and who is
subject to the afflictions of old age and disease, cannot be called the
enjoyer of the supreme kind of felicity.
4. Even from the statements made by those who remember
their previous births, the existence of heavenly beings is proved just as
we can get knowledge of the countries and the people and places from the
travellers who visited those countries.
5. Our aspirations are fulfilled by means of the
adoration of Vidya-Mantra. That happens only by the grace of heavenly
beings, just as a king's servants' aspirations are fulfilled by the grace
of that king.
6. Sometimes some human beings speak in a strange
manner or make strange actions. They do not speak or act thus when they
are in a normal condition. So it must be be accepted that this kind of
impossible like distortion takes place because of the entrance of a deity
(heavenly being) into that human body. Just as a mechanical vehicle going
at a normal speed in a particular direction, when takes a strange turn,
and when it so happens there is the inference that 'not the machine
itself, but the person sitting in it has brought about the change'. In the
same manner, a heavenly being that captures a human body makes the human
being act in an abnormal manner.
7. Sometimes, miracles occur in temples. Human beings
get special dreams, they get special revelations. All these things prove
the existence of heavenly beings, who impel them.
8. The word 'deity' is a pure word with a clear
etymological derivation. Therefore, it is necessarily meaningful. The
deity denoted by this 'Dev' word must exist.
Question: The word 'deity' can be applied to a very
affluent person possessing a lot of paraphernelia. He can be called a
deity. Is that not so? We say to someone "Friend see! he is like a deity".
Answer: First, a word denotes prominently an existent
object. Then this word is subordinately used elsewhere for attributive
denotation; and it is a duplicate of the basic thing. If the denoted
subject of the basic word itself is not existent at all, how can there be
an attributive simile? Since a lion exists, we say a brave and courageous
man a 'lion-man' 'narsimha' that is a man like a lion.
`Dev, `Amar, `Girvan, `Divaukas', etc. are independent
alternative names, other words. They are not for mortals but for deities.
If deities were there such austerities as penance and benevolence etc.
become fruitless! If there are no deities, the Vedic statements that
mentioned `soma', `yama', `suraguru' etc. and the vedic statements
inviting the heavenly beings like Indra, will have no meaning at all.
The Reasons why Celestial beings do not come here:
1. The transition of divine love;
2. Divine sensual cravings and attachments;
3. Infinite divine duties (like a polite person
absorbed in some extraordinary duties and endeavours);
4. Independent duties liek those of men (like a yati
who has renounced wordly life );
5. The unbearable smell of the human world.
Yet the Reasons for the coming of Deities: Here
1. The celebration of the JIN KALYANAK SAMAROH
(celebration of crucial events of the Tirthankar);
2. Removal of doubts:
3. Deep attachment for some one;
4. The fulfilment of a promise to carry out awakening
etc.;
5. Enmity;
6. Curiosity;
7. The attraction of the spiritual strength of a
Mahatma;
8. The spreading of Mahatma's glory;
9. Bestowing grace on friends or children;
10.Testing sadhus etc.
For these reasons, deities come to this world. The
introduction of deities as being 'illusory' is to indicate that if even
divine prosperity is transitory, what to talk of human prosperity why
should we indulge in their deep attachment?
This explanation cleared the doubt of Mauryaputra and
he accepted the Charitra-diksa at the feet of Shri Mahavir Bhagavan with
his three hundred and fifty pupils.
