Errors Concerning the Seven
Shri Jogidasji Khandelwal of the Godika
sect was the father of Pandit Todarmalji and Rambha Bai his mother. He was
married and had two sons, Harishchandra and Gumaniram. Gumaniram was a
great revolutionary genius. Though Panditji spent most of his life in
Jaipur, he had to go to Sindhana for sometime to earn his livelihood. He
worked with a money-lender of Delhi, there.
Traditionally his age was only
twenty-seven years, but looking to his literary achievements and knowledge
and on the basis of the latest proofs and references, it is settled now
that he lived up to the age of forty-seven. It is practically certain that
he died about the Vikram Samvat 1823-24 and as such, he must have been
born in V. S. 1776-77.
He received ordinary education in the
Spiritual Tera Panthi Style of Jaipur, but his deep scholarship was mainly
due to hard work and genius, which he distributed very liberally. He was a
great intellectual having sharpness of understanding and a studious
nature. He knew Prakrit, Sanskrit, Hindi and Kannada. In Samvat 1821,
Pandit Raimaiji wrote in his letter of invitation for the Indradhwaj
Ritual, "It is very difficult to find a man of his intellect these days.
All the doubts about religious matters are removed after meeting him".
About his studies he himself writes in
the Mokshamarg Prakashak, "I have acquaintance of Samaysar, Panchastikaya,
Pravachansar, Niyamsar, Gomattasar, Labdhisar, Triloksar, Tattvarthasutra,
with the commentaries, Kshapanasar,Purushartha-siddhiupaya, Asthapahur,
Atmanushasan and many other scriptures describing the conduct of monks and
householders, and Purans having stories of great personalities. In his
life he wrote, in all, twelve books, big and small, which contain about a
lac verses and about five thousand pages.
Some of these are commentaries of
popular sacred books while others are independent works of his own. These
are found both in prose and poetry. Chronologically they are the
1. Rahasyapurna Chitthi- (V. S. 1811)
2. Gomattasar Jivakand-Hindi commentary
3. Gomattasar Karmakand-Hindi commentary
4. Arthasandarshiti Adhikar ( Gyan
5. Labdhisar-Hindi commentary ( V. S.
6. Kshapanasar-Hindi commentary
7. Gomattasar Puja
8. Triloksar-Hindi commentary
9. Samosharan Rachna Varnan
10. Mokshamarg Prakashak (Incomplete)
11. Atmanushasan-Hindi commentary
The last was completed by Pt. Daulat Ram
Kasliwal in V.S. 1827. His prose style is pure, fully developed and
comprehensible. The most beautiful form of his style can be seen in his
original work-Mokshamarg Prakashak. His language, originally Brij, has the
stiffness of Khari Boli and also local colour. It is strong and fine
enough to express forcefully his ideas and feelings.
The present lesson has been taken from
the seventh chapter of Mokshamarg Prakashak. To know more about him one
should read "Pandit Todarmai-Vyaktitva and Kartitva" and for knowing
details of errors concerning the seven fundamentals, one should study the
seventh chapter of Mokshamarg Prakashak.
The Seven Fundamentals
As long as people or beings do not have
the internal understanding of the seven fundamentals including the soul,
they cannot achieve the goat of right faith. Even after studying Jain
scriptures, a person having wrong faith does not have the real
understanding of the elements.
Soul and Non-soul Elements
1. Engaged in the pursuit of the self,
the being understands the division of the moving and non-moving creatures
and other milestones of the spiritual growth, as also the different
manifestations of the matter substances, but does not exactly have the
ability of discrimination between the self and the non-self and the path
leading to full detachment as described in the spiritual scriptures.
2. Even when he knows them, his
knowledge is based on the religious texts but does not have full faith in
knowing one's own self and not to mix that with others and to keep one's
self unmixed with others.
3. Like other people having perverted
faith, this one also treats religious teaching, fast and other activities
depending upon the body as one's own.
4. He discusses the element of soul as
described in the religious books, but does not realise that that soul is
himself and the body and other outside objects are totally different. He
experiences that body and soul are different entities, as if he is-talking
of some third persons.
5. He treats the joint activities of the
soul and the body as one and does not follow that matter is just an
indifferent cause of the activity of the soul and the soul in its turn is
again an indifferent cause of the activity of the matter. He does not
realise the inherent difference between the two activities.
1. He regards violence and other sinful
influxes as undesirable, but treats non-violence and other merit influxes
as desirable. Both of them, however, are undesirable being instrumental to
bondage of the soul.
2. The desirable state is that without
any bondage, where one only knows and sees and remains perfectly detached.
As long as this state is not achieved, one may indulge in merits, but he
should have faith that this also leads to bondage. If such a state is
treated as path to liberation, that faith is totally wrong.
3. He does not recognise the internal
nature of wrong faith and other influxes, and considers that their outward
form is real influx, e.g.
(a) He treats adopted wrong faith only
as false belief, but does not understand the, eternal inherited wrong
faith as such.
(b) He regards outer violence and
indulgence in mind and senses as non-abstinence, but does not realise that
recklessness is the root. cause of violence, and desire is at the root of
indulgence in subjects of senses and mind.
(c) He considers passions to be outward
anger etc.; but does not realise that attachments and aversions, that
remain in intention, are the real enemies.
(d) He regards outward movement of body,
speech and mind as such, but has no idea of the intrinsic power of such
4. Attachments and aversions that cause
wrong faith are, in fact, real influxes. Since he does not recognise them
as such he commits errors as regards influxes.
1 . He treats sinful manifestations as
bad and leading to demerit bondage, but thinks that feelings of merit
bondage are desirable. Distinction of merits and demerits lie only in the
non-destructive karmas, destructive karmas are all demerits and even when
one indulges in merits, destructive karmas are attracted and stay with the
soul. As such, how can merit, being instrumental to bondage, be desirable
for the soul on its upward march ?
1. He treats merit influxes i.e.
non-violence etc., as stoppage, but does not realise that once and the
same activity cannot lead to merit bondage and stoppage.
2. He does not exactly understand that
abstinences of various kinds are instrumental to merit bondage alone, e.g.
(a) Not wishing ill of others, observing
silence and abstaining from movements are treated as control of body and
mind. He does not pay attention to diversions of auspicious attachments.
The real control of body and mind lies in perfect detachment that leads to
loss of activity automatically.
(b) Likewise, he treats his wishful
attempts to avoid injury as Samiti abstinence, but does not know that
violence in intention is sinful and if desire to avoid injury and protect
creatures are regarded as stoppage, what would lead to merit bondage?
Monks, having some attachment, move about and perform other actions, but
since they are not deeply moved by those actions, they are not accused of
recklessness as such. They also serve their purpose of movements etc.
without causing pain to other creatures, and as such they remain
(c) He may not indulge in anger and
other passions for fear of bondage and with the temptations of heavenly
life and complete liberation, but the inner desires for passions persist
and he still regards himself as observing rules of conduct like
forbearance. The tendency to regard substances as desirable or otherwise
is stopped with the real understanding of the elements. Then anger etc. do
not rise in the soul and therein lies real religion.
(d) Due to meditation on the
transitoriness of worldly affairs he regards body and other possessions as
evil, but his indifference towards these is actuated by aversion. Real
indifference is not to indulge in attachments and aversions, after
realising the real nature of the substances.
(e) Not to try to satisfy hunger etc.
when they rise, is treated as Parishahjay abstinence by him, without
taking into consideration the mental agony caused by these. Real
abstinence is not to be happy or unhappy in the face of agreeable or
unagreeable situations and remain a detached observer only.
(f) He regards renunciation of violence
etc. as real conduct and observances of the great rules of conduct as
desirable. Tattvarthasutra describes observance of great rules of conduct
and partial observance thereof, both as influxes. How can influxes be
desirable? Being instrumental to bondage the great conventional rules of
conduct cannot be regarded as conduct. Real conduct is the state of being
unattached without a dint of passion. Monks observe those great rules as
soft passions, but do not regard them, as conducive to the state of
Gradual Dissociation Element
1 . He does not realise that Tapa
abstinence lies in complete detachment. Absorbed in outward activities, he
considers himself to be engaged in Tapa abstinence and thinks that this
would lead to gradual dissociation of bondage.
2. He does not know that the state of
detachment is real dissociation. The merit activities lead to bondage
only. Intrinsic religion is detachment, which is instrumental to
Complete Liberation Element
1. He treats the bliss of heavenly life
and complete liberation alike, when heavenly bliss is dependent upon
senses, while the bliss of the completely liberated soul is psychic only.
2. He thinks that the same stage of mind
can lead to the heavenly state as that of the completely liberated soul,
disregarding the truth that merit leads to heavenly life and complete
detachment to the state of complete liberation.
In this manner perverted belief
regarding the seven fundamentals persists even after reading Jain
by Dr. H. C. Bharill
thyself. One's own soul is the only object worth
knowing, worth seeing. Now, what this soul cannot be explained.
It cannot be expressed in words. This object, the soul, which
is worth knowing, the only object worthy of
knowledge, it can only be felt. This soul which is worth
feeling about is all knowledge and bliss. So you
take away you vision from all external objects, from their
nature as also from disturbances in the soul, and fix
this vision straight on thy soul. Do it ! Do it ! Do it !
Tirthankara Mahavira and His Sarvodaya
Dr. H. C. Bharill