Namokar Mahamantra Ek Anushilan

SR No.: 008360
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Hukamchand Bharilla
Publisher: Todarmal Granthamala Jaipur
Total Pages: 53
Language: English
Classification: Book_English & Spiritual
File Size: 197 KB

Page 13

GREAT HYMN OF OBEISANCE: A CONTEMPLATION
DEVOTION AND MEDITATION
Those who are leaders of the path to liberation, destroyers of mountains of karmas and knowers of all fundamentals (tattavas) of the universe i.e. those persons who are preachers of the welfare of the soul, passionless and omniscient, I salute them for acquiring the above mentioned virtues.
In the above verse, while remembering the virtues of Bhagwan, merely the desire to become Bhagwan has been expressed; no request has been made to Bhagwan to do anything, nor anything has been demanded from him.
In Jain philosophy greater emphasis has been laid on the passionlessness of Bhagwan. When a soul becomes Arhant, then first of all he becomes passionless, thereafter omniscient and even after that when his divine voice reveals then he justifies the adjective of the preacher of the welfare of the soul. Thus it is proved that omniscience is not possible without passionlessness and without passionlessness and omniscience it is not possible to be a preacher of the welfare of the soul.
In the above context the following verse written in the worship of Bhagwan Pasharvanath is quoted -
कमठे धरणेन्द्रे च स्वोचितं कर्म कुर्वति।
प्रभुस्तुल्य मनोवृत्ति: पार्श्वनाथ: जिनोऽस्तु नः ।। Kamthe Dharnendre cha savochitam karam kurvarti,
prabhuastualya manovarti: Pasharvanath: Jinoastu na:
Oh Bhagwan Pasharvanath! Kamat afflicted suffering on you and Dharnendra desired to protect you. They did things, appropriate according to their respective normal behaviour, because Kamat had aversion against you and Dharnendra had attachment towards you and the normal behaviour and tendencies of persons afflicted by aversion and attachment are like this only. But Oh Bhagwan, your mental attitude towards both of them remained the same; neither there was aversion towards Kamat who afflicted suffering on you, nor attachment towards Dharnendra who had the desire to protect you; you kept the attitude of equanimity towards both of them; therefore, I pay my obeisance to you.
Here it is absolutely clear that you did not have attachment towards the one who desired to protect you, nor aversion towards the one who afflicted sufferings on you, it is for this reason that we pay obeisance to you. In case you had indulged in attachment towards Dharnendra and aversion towards Kamat, we would not have paid obeisance to you because all worldly beings do so every day and night and are therefore miserable. If you would have also done like this, then what would have been the difference between them and you?
See, how much difference is there between these two points of view. On the one hand, the philosophies that believe that the God is the doer, mention that Bhagwan takes birth to destroy the wicked, he rushes to protect his devotees, Bhagwan is under the control of devotees, whereas, the Jain philosophy believes that Bhagwan does nothing, Bhagwan is worshipped in his passionless form only. Leave aside doing good to devotees, even if he sees devotees with affection, we are not prepared to consider him as Bhagwan. Similarly, destroying wicked is a different matter, if Bhagwan sees wicked with the eyes of aversion, then we are not prepared to accept him as Bhagwan.
Bhagwan of Jains is mere knower-spectator, with passionless sentiment. He knows everything, but does nothing. No proposition to do anything arises in him; if any proposition to do something arises then he is not Bhagwan. The divine voice that preaches the welfare of the soul also emerges from all parts of his body, in the normal course, for that also he does nothing.
This is the true characteristic of Bhagwan of Jains, but today where do we Jains also know properly this true character of Bhagwan? Copying, what persons believing that Bhagwan is the doer, whether we have also started worshipping Bhagwan in his form as the doer and preserver. This is our ignorance only. If any such narrations have appeared in Jinvani, these should be considered narrations from 'vyavahar' (empirical) point of view. One should not allow his faith to waiver by considering these as real narrations.
When Bhagwan of Jains does nothing for the devotees, then why people would worship him? You are talking about the selfless devotion,
12