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

 

 

Doha: "Bahuvidhi Mithya gehankari, malin bhyo nij bhav
            Tako hot abhav hey, sehajroop darsav"
 
[ Due to deep false belief, knowledge and conduct of different kinds, our natural disposition has become foul. When such delusion is destroyed then automatically natural form of self-qualities get manifested]
 
As described earlier, this mundane being is found indulging in wrong belief-knowledge-conduct since eternity. Due to that, bearing the sorrows in the world, he, rarely, in the human state of existence, attains the power of having distinct belief etc. There, if by indulgence in the specific causes of wrong belief, etc., he fosters the same wrong belief, etc., then getting rid of sorrows becomes extremely difficult.
 
For example, some person is sick; if he after getting some relief, starts taking unwholesome diet then it will be very difficult for him to get rid of that disease. Similarly, this Jiva is having wrong belief etc., if he after obtaining some greater power of knowledge etc., starts indulging in the specific cause of perverse belief etc. then his liberation (from karmic bondage) will become extremely difficult. Therefore, as a physician, by pointing out the details of unwholesome diet, advises the patient not to take those things, similarly, by explaining the specific causes of wrong belief etc. he is advised not to indulge in those causes.
 
Here the false belief etc., dispositions, which are found from eternity, are to be known as Agraheet-Mithyatv (not newly adopted false belief etc.) because those are not newly adopted. And their supporting causes further boost up those wrong belief etc.; such supporting causes are to be known as Graheet Mithyatv i.e., newly adopted false belief etc.
 
The Agraheet type of false belief etc. has already been described earlier. Now the Graheet (newly adopted) type of false belief etc. is being discussed here :-
 
Faith in the untrue deity (Kudeva), untrue preceptor (Kuguru), untrue religion (Kudharm) and imaginary principles (false Tattvas) is false belief (Mithyadarshan). And the study of such untrue scripture (Kushastras) with due respect, wherein the attachment, etc. passions are fostered by way of wrong interpretation, is false knowledge (Mithya Jnan). And the conduct in which the indulgence in passions is fostered and acceptance of such conduct is termed as religion is false conduct (Mithya Charitra). Now the details of these (perversities) are being explained:-
 
Indra (heavenly God), Lokpal (so-called protecting deity) etc., monotheistic Brahma, Rama, Krishna, Mahadeva, Buddha, Khuda, Peer, Paigamber etc., Hanuman, Bhairon, Kshetrapal, Devi, Dahadi, Sati etc., Sheetala (so-called Goddess of smallpox), Chauth (4th lunar day), Sanjhi, Gangaur, Holi (burning the heap of wood) etc., sun, moon, planets, Auta- ancestors, peripatetic gods, cow, snake etc., and fire, water, tree etc., and weapon, inkpot, utensils etc., many things are there (in India particularly) which the misbelievers worship; then by having wrong faith in them they want to fulfill their object but those things are not the causes of fulfulling the objects. Therefore, this type of faith is called newly adopted false belief (Graheeta mithyatv).
 
`How their belief is wrong, this is now being described:-
 
Analysis of the Theory of Ubiquitous Monotheism (Addvait Brahma)Many people believe Addvait Brahma (monism) as to be the ubiquitous and the creator of whole world but no such person is there. First, they believe him ubiquitous but all kinds of substances are distinctly separate and their nature are perceived distinctly separate; how to believe them as one? The following are the different ways of believing him to be ubiquitous:
 
The one way of such belief is this: Though all things are separate-separate but conjecturing them altogether some common name is given. For example, the horses, the elephants etc. are separate-separate but their collective name is army reality there is no such thing as army different from horses etc. So in this way all substances which are termed Brahma, that Brahma is not proved to be a distinct entity; it is mere imagination.
 
Another way of such belief is this: From individual point of view all things are separate-separate, but those are conjecturally treated as one from common character point of view. For example, one hundred horses are there; from individual point of view, those are separately- separately one hundred only. Seeing their common features, they are collectively treated as one class but that class is not something different from those individual horses. In this way, looking at some common specific features of all substances, if their collective name is one Brahma, then in reality no separate existence of Brahma is proved.
 
A third way of such belief is this: Though all substances are separate from each other, owing to their conglomeration, one lump is formed, that is called one. As the molecules of water are separate-separate, on their getting conglomerated, their collective name is called sea etc. and on getting the conglomeration of the molecules of clay, it is termed as `pot' (Jar) etc. But in these examples, there is nothing like a separate sea or a separate pot different from the molecules from which they are formed. Thus, all kinds of substances are separate-separate, but" sometimes by getting conglomerated those (substances) become one and that is Brahma. If this is to be accepted then no Brahma is proved to be something separate distinct entity.
 
A fourth way of such belief is this: Though the limbs are separate-separate, yet he who has those limbs is one corporal form. As the eyes, hands, legs etc. are separate-separate but the man who has those limbs is one human being. Thus, all these substances are limbs and the one who possesses these, in the corporal form is one Brahma. This whole universe in gigantic form is the limb of Brahma - this is what they believe. But, if there be any gap in the form of disconnection between hands, legs, etc., limbs of the human body, there remains no oneness; only on their remaining connected, those are collectively called one body. In the universe, the substances are seen mutually disconnected from one another; how then to believe in its oneness? Even if in such disconnected state of existence oneness is believed, then where would the separateness of all substances be believed?
 
Question: In the center of all substances, the limbs of Brahma, in the subtle form, are existing, by means of which all remain connected.
 
Answer: Whichever limb is connected to whatever other limb, does it remain connected so with it or continues getting connected with the other different limbs by breaking repeatedly? If the first side of the argument is accepted then the sun etc. make movement; with them by which subtle limbs it gets connected, those will also move. And due to their movement, the subtle limbs, which remain connected with the other massive limbs, will also move; in this way, the whole universe will become unstable. As on pulling any one limb of the body all the limbs get pulled, similarly, by making movement etc. of any one substance, all the substances will start making movement. But this does not seem to be logical. And if the second side of the argument is accepted then due to breaking of the limbs the separateness is definitely caused; how would then oneness remain existing? Therefore, how can it be possible to believe Brahma to be the oneness of the whole universe?
 
Another way, of such belief is this: Originally he was one, later on became many, again becomes one, so he is one. For example, water was one but in different utensils it got divided, when it meets again, it becomes one. And as there was a lump of gold, later on it was turned into bangle, ring, etc., it again becomes the lump of the gold by reunion. Similarly, there was one Brahma, later on he modified into many forms and again he will become one, therefore he is one.
 
In this way, the monist believes the oneness. Here our query is that when he assumed different forms then he remained united or got disconnected? If he will say that `He' remained united then the aforesaid fault will arise. If he will say that `He' got disconnected then at that moment there remained no oneness. Further, they (the monists) call water, gold etc. as to be one even on their getting separated but this (oneness) is stated from one specific point of view. But here the class of all kinds of substances does not appear to be as one. Some are animate and some are inanimate; thus, the substances are of various kinds; how can their class be described to be as one?
 
Further, they believe that originally he was one, later on he got separated; so as a stone turns into pieces by splitting up, similarly. The Brahma, got turned into pieces. Further, the monist believes that those pieces get reunited; so does their character remains separate there or it becomes one? If, it remains separate then, there, those are assuredly separate by their individual characteristics and if they become one then the inanimate things also will turn into animate beings and the animate beings will turn into the inanimate things. When many (different) things become one thing, it will be necessary to call them many in some moment and one in some moment; then it will not be possible to say- "there is one eternal infinite Brahma"
 
And if he will say that by creation or non-creation of the universe the Brahma remains one and unchanged, therefore the Brahma is eternal & infinite, then our question is -"In the universe, the earth, the water etc. are seen. Are all these things created newly and separately or the Brahma himself has obtained these forms? If these are created newly and separately then these things are separate and Brahma remains separate. This means there is no ubiquitous Addvait Brahma. And if the Brahma has transformed himself in the form of these things then sometimes he became universe and sometimes remained as Brahma; how did then he remain unchanged?
 
Further, he says that whole of the Brahma does not transform into the universe, its some portion only transforms. There, we ask him-' as one drop of the sea is transformed into poison then from gross-vision point of view it is beyond perception but from one drop point of view the sea has changed. Similarly, Brahma's one portion on getting separated transformed into the universe; nothing is comprehensible there by gross-vision but on thinking minutely the Brahma has changed from the one portion point of view. This change has not occurred to anything else.
 
In this way, believing the universal form of Brahma is nothing but a fallacy only.