Shri Jogidas Khandelwal
of the Godika section was the father of Pandit Todarmalji and Rambha Bai,
his mother. He was married. He had two sons-Harishchandra and Gumaniram.
Gumaniram was a genius and a great revolutionary like his father. Most of
his life w as spent in Jaipur, but he had to go to and settle in Singhana
for his livelihood, for some time. He worked under a money-lender of Delhi
Traditionally his age
was determined to be twenty-seven only, but looking to his scholarship,
knowledge and literary achievements and on the basis of the latest
references and proofs it is certain that he lived up to forty-seven years.
It is certain that he died about the Vikram Samvat 1823-1824. As such he
must have been born in the Vikram Samvat 1976-77.
He received ordinary
education in the Tera Panth 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 Rajmalji wrote in his letter of invitation to the Indradhwaj
ritual, "It is very difficult to find a man of his intellet 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 with
Samaysar and its commentary, Panchastikaya, Pravachansar, Niyamsar,
Gomattasar, Labdhisar, Triloksar, Tattvarthasutra, Kshapanasar,
Purusharthasiddhiupaya, Ashta Pahud, Atmanushasan and many scriptures
describing the conduct of monks and householders and Purans having stories
of great personalities. according to my own understanding and knowledge".
In his life, he wrote in
all twelve books, big and small, which contain about a lakh of 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 following :
(1) Rahasyapurna Chitthi
(2) Gomattasar Jivkand
(3) Gomattasar Karmakand
(4) Artha Sandrishti
(5) Labdhisar Hindi
(V. S. 1818)
(6) Kshapanasar Hindi
(7) Gomattasar Puja
(8) Triloksar Hindi
(9) Samosharan Rachna
(11) Atmanushasan Hindi
Purusharthasiddhiupaya Hindi Commentary (incomplete)
The last was completed
by Pt. Daulatram 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 Mokshmarg Prakashak. His language,
orginally, Brij, has the stiffness of Khari Boll and also local colour. It
is strong and fine enough to express forcefully his ideas and feelings. To
know more about him one should read, "Pandit Todarmal : Vyaktittva and
Kartrittva". The present lesson has been taken from the seventh chapter of
Mokshamarg Prakashak. For knowing details of real and conventional
perspectives, one should study the seventh chapter of Mokshamarg Prakashak.
-Father, you told me yesterday
that the three Gems are the path to liberation from the worldly miseries.
Are there not two paths to liberation i.e., real and conventional ?
-No, son, there are not two
paths to liberation. The description of the path is of two kinds. The real
unconventional path is the real path to liberation and that which is not a
path to liberation, and yet, being an accompaniment or indifferently
instrumental to it is the conventional path. Real and conventional
perspectives are described as such everywhere.
True description is real
and imposed exposition is conventional. Samaysar says, "Conventional
perspective is unreal, because it does not expound the true nature of
things. Real perspective is truthful, because it exposes the nature of
things in a correct manner."
-I have been thinking that
experience of the pure soul like that of the siddhas is real perspective
and indulgence in rules of good conduct and abstinence are the
-This is not correct, because the
name of some one substance and its feelings is not real and that of others
is not conventional perspective. To express the intrinsic spirit of a
substance - as that only, is real perspective and to impose the
modification of other substances on the same is conventional description,
e.g., to refer to an earthen pot as made of clay is real perspective,
while to refer to it as sugar pot is conventional.
-The experience of pure soul has
been treated as real and observance of rules of good conduct and
abstinence as conventional perspectives in Samaysar.
-The experience of pure soul is
real and unconventional path of liberation and so it has been called as
such. Rules of conduct, abstinence and penance etc. are not a path to
liberation; they have been treated as such a path, from the viewpoint of
indifferent accompaniments and so they are called conventional
Exposition of the path
of liberation from real perspective should form the basis of our faith and
the same from the conventional point of view should be treated as untrue
and worth not having any faith therein.
-So shall we preserve the belief of
the real perspective for our liberation and accept the conventional for
our activities in this world '?
- No, my son, real and
conventional expositions should be treated as they intrinsically are.
Perspectives have no place in activities. Activities are the behaviour of
the substances. To regard the activity of a substance as its own is the
real perspective and to regard the same as of others is called
conventional perspective. So our faith should be that the exposition of
the real perspective is truthful, while that of conventional perspective,
being an imposed one, is untrue.
-Why did you say that we should
stick to the faith of real perspective and leave that of unreal
- Conventional perspective
describes substances mixing the self and its activities and causes with
the non-self and its behaviour. To regard it as real is wrong faith and as
such, it is to be abandoned. The real perspective exposes the elements as
they intrinsically are and does not mix them with one another. To have
faith in such exposition is the right faith, which is desirable.
-Then why do Jain scriptures
propound the acceptance of both these perspectives ?
-The acceptance of both the
perspectives means that we should treat the exposition of the real
perspective as 'Truth is like that', and where conventional point of view
is predominent, to regard it as not intrinsically true, but that the
exposition is imposed or due to some sort of connection with other
indifferently instrumental objects.
-If you regard conventional
exposition as undesirable, people will discard rules of good conduct,
-The naming of observances,
rules of conduct and abstinence etc. are not conventional perspective, but
treating them as path to liberation is such. We should stop to treat them
as a path to liberation. If you leave good conduct and other merits, you
will indulge in violence and other vices and that would be more harmful.
It is, therefore, not correct to stop following rules of conduct,
abstinence etc., while it is also not correct to treat them as leading to
liberation of the soul.
-If it is like this, why do
scriptures accept the conventional perspective at all ?
-A barbarian cannot be explained
things, except in his own language. Likewise, spiritualism cannot be
expounded without taking recourse to conventional exposition. Therefore,
scriptures include conventional expositions as such. We may have to take
recourse to the language of the barbarian to explain our ideas to him, but
it is not desirable to become barbarians ourselves. Likewise, conventional
perspective, being an expounder of spiritualism has a place in scriptures,
but it is not to be followed or accepted as true.
-How does conventional perspective
expound the real aspect ?
-We cannot see with our eyes the
length and breadth of the Ganges, that rises in the Himalayas and falls in
the Bay of Bengal. To know its length, breadth and curves of flow, we have
to take help of a map. The Ganges of the map is not the real Ganges; we
can know details of the Ganges, but cannot quench our thirst with the help
of the map, we shall have to go to the bank of the real Ganges to quench
conventional point of view is like the Ganges of the map, we can
understand the elements, but cannot have experience of the soul with its
help. For knowing and experiencing the intrinsic soul, we have to take
recourse to the subject of the real perspective i.e., our pure soul. Thus,
conventional perspective is desirable only for purposes of knowing the
different attributes of our soul.
Dr. H.C. Bharill