In this way, those who
are not recluse (votaries) and spend their wealth in sinful acts are advised
to build the Chaityalaya etc. And those who cannot engross their Upayoga
(active consciousness) in the injuriless acts like Samayika etc. are not
restricted to perform worship, etc.
You may further argue-
"Why shall we not keep engaged our- selves in injuriless Samayika etc. acts
only? Why should we engage ourselves in acts like worship, etc. instead of
religious (injuriless) activities like Samayika etc.?
Answer: If injuriless
religious state could be achieved by giving up sinful acts committed through
body only then one should do so only, but injuriless state is evolved on
relinquishment of sins from thoughts and dispositions. Hence, whose thoughts
do not get engrossed in Samayika etc. without recourse to other objects he
tries to engross his Upayoga (active consciousness) in worshipping, etc.
There one's Upayoga gets concentrated by taking recourse to different means.
If one does not engross his Upayoga there (in worship- ping acts) then his
Upayoga will wander in impious acts which will be harmful. Hence, it is proper
to engage oneself in such acts (like worshipping, etc.)
And you say- "Great
sin is caused by indulging in Hinsa (injury) for the sake of religion and less
sin is caused by indulging in Hinsa elsewhere, i.e., in occupations, etc." But
firstly this is not the doctrinal statement and does not seem logical too;
because by believing so the Lord Indra who performs Abhisheka (bathing
ceremony of babe Tirthankara) by large quantity of water in Janma-Kalyanaka
(auspicious birth ceremony of babe Tirthankara) and devas (heavenly gods) who
indulge in many activities like pouring of flowers in Samavasarana and waving
the whisk (over the head of Jina) etc. acts will prove to be the great sinner.
If you will say-
"Their demeanour is of such type only," but the activity always bears its
fruit. If it is a sin then Indras etc. being right believers, why shall they
indulge in such act and if it is a pious act then why do you forbid it?
Here we ask you- "The
kings, etc. went to offer obeisance and invocation to Tirthankar, even they go
to far off places for the obeisance of monks, they move on the road for
listening to discourses, so injury is involved in the way; food is offered to
the co-religionists, necessary rituals (cremation and consecration, etc.) are
performed on death of a monk. When a householder becomes monk, celebration
takes place. All these practices are seen even today; so in all these acts
injury is involved, but these acts are meant for the purpose of religion, no
other purpose is there. If great sin is caused here in these acts, then you
should negate all such acts done in the past. And now also those householders
who perform such acts should relinquish them. And if these are religious
acts, then, why do you confuse people by propagating that injury involved in
religious acts is a great sin?
Therefore, it is
proper to believe that if by spending some money, lot of money can be earned,
then it is worthwhile; similarly, if some injury, etc. sin is involved in such
activities which lead to the evolution of high degree of religious thoughts
and dispositions then such acts are worthwhile. If a greedy, person spoils his
work by not spending even a small amount of money, then he is a fool.
Similarly, due to fear of some injury, great pious acts are forsaken, then he
is assuredly a sinner. And if someone, by sacrificing more money, earns some
money or does not earn at all, then he is a fool. In the same way, if someone,
by indulging in highly injurious acts, creates lot of sins and engrosses
himself somewhat in invocation, etc. religious activities, or does not engross
at all, then he is assuredly a sinner. And as someone earns wealth without any
sacrifice and afterwards unnecessarily spends money, then he is a fool.
Similarly, if one's Upayoga remains engaged in religious activities involving
no injury, then it is not desirable to engage one's Upayoga in the religious
activities where injury is envolved.
Thus by considering
the state of one's thoughts and dispositions, one should engage himself in
those acts which are beneficial to him; but one-sided view is not efficacious.
Moreover, Ahinsa (non-injury) alone is not the only part of religion; the main
part of religion lies in lessening of the attachment, etc. passions. Hence,
one should engage himself in such acts which result in lessening of
attachment, etc. passions in one's thoughts and dispositions.
Further, they (the
Shwetamberas) encourage the householders to practice chiefly the conventional
conduct of Samayika (equanimity), Pratikramana (repentence), Proshadha
(fasting) etc. even without adopting the means of Anuvratas (small vows of
non-killing etc.). But Samayika lies in the evolution of the state of
equanimity devoid of attachment-aversion; it does not consists in merely
reciting the hymns or in standing and sitting postures of the body.
You may, further, say-
"This is better than other impious acts". This is true but in Samayika he
takes a vow of not indulging nor causing others to indulge in any activity
involving injury through mind, speech and body, but various undesirable
thoughts continue arising in the mind and sometimes undesirable actions take
place through speech and body also; there the vow is broken. So, instead of
breaking the vow, it is better not to take the vow, because breaking the vow
is a big sin.
Further we ask-
"Someone does not take a vow even and recites the hymn in his own language and
keeps engaged his Upayoga in it by knowing its meaning. And someone other
takes a vow but does not observe it judiciously and reads the religious text
in Prakrit (or in Sanskrit) language, etc. but he does not know its meaning.
So, without knowing its meaning, his Upayoga does not remain fixed there, then
the Upayoga wanders elsewhere. Who is more religious person in-between these
two? If you say that the first one is more religious, then, why, do not preach
accordingly? And if you say that the other fellow is more religious, then this
could be justified only because of reading hymns but religiosity is not
established according to his thoughts, but rather sin is proved due to breach
of vow.
Therefore, one should
indulge in activities which keep his Upayoga pure. That vow which can be
followed should be taken. One should read such religious texts which he can
understand. There is no benefit in keeping the name by tradition only.
And Pratikramana
consists in repenting and not repeating the fault committed in the past, but
simply by expressing Michchhaami Dukkadam, i.e., ("May my wrong deeds be
condoned") the vicious deeds are not nullified; only on evolution of (pure)
thoughts capable of making the vicious deeds false, the vicious deeds are
fahsified; hence, reciting alone is not efficacious.
Further, in the text
of Pratikramana there is a statement that- "Whatever inappropriateness in the
observance of twelve vows, etc. might have been caused be nullified". But
without taking the vow, how is it possible to do Pratikramana of them? One who
has not observed the fast if he tends to nullify the faults which are deemed
to have occurred in the observance of fast then this is mere impossibility.
Hence, how can such reading of text be meaningful?
Further, in Proshadha*
too, they do not observe properly the vow taken as they do in Samayika.
Therefore, the aforesaid fault arises. Moreover, Proshadha is the name of
Parva, i.e., an auspicious day but the indulges in sinful activities even on
the day of Parva for many hours and afterwards he takes the vow of Proshadha.
There is no harm in keeping engaged in pious activities for as long a time as
is possible. But taking the vow of Proshadha and not following it properly is
not justifiable. The Proshadha consists in keeping oneself totally devoid of
injury throughout the Parva day. If observing the fast even for a few hours
could be called Proshadha then call Samayika also as Proshadha, otherwise show
scriptural proof that so much is the time of the small Proshadha. In all these
there appears to be the purpose of keeping people confused under the
pretention of real great Proshadha.
*Thus is concluded the
fifth chapter throwing light about different religions and sects in the Moksha
Marg Prakashak Shastra.
And the text of taking
vow (Akhadi) is read by someone and some other takes the vow. But in the text
of vow the statement is- "I forsake", therefore, the one who forsakes, he only
should read the text. If he is unable to read the text, then he should speak
in the spoken language itself but this custom is for the sake of following the
tradition.
Further, (in
Shwetamberas) great stress is laid on taking vows and inducing others to take
vows but there is languidness in following (the vows) appropriately and there
is no prudentiality of keeping one's thoughts pure (passionless). By observing
the fasts etc. in painful state of mind and with greed, etc., he believes that
religion (passionlessness) is evolved but the fruit is obtained according to
one's thoughts and passions.
In this way, they talk
of many fabricated things which are not possible in the Jaina-religion.
This is the
Shwetambera sect found in Jainas; that also describes the characteristics of
Deva (omniscient Lord), Tattvas (Jiva etc. essential principles) and the path
to liberation, etc. contrarily. Hence, it is a nourisher of wrong faith, etc.
So, it is worth giving up. The nature of the true Jina-dharma will be
described later on, one should follow the right path to liberation as shown
therein. By treading over the right path of liberation, one will attain the
spiritual benediction.
