Brief life sketch of Atmaramji Maharaj

Author(s): S P Jain
Publisher: Z_Vijyanandsuri_Swargarohan_Shatabdi_Granth_012023.pdf

Page 15

becomes illogical. Moreover, 'Sankhya' and 'Meemansa' philosophical systems also do not believe in God as the Creator of the Universe. For example, Kumaril Bhatt says 'No fool will indulge in any work without purpose; what is the purpose of God in creating the universe?' In the light of this, why does one not call these two philosophical systems as atheist, while Jainism is dubbed as athiest. This is entirely due to the fact of either ignorance of the correct position taken by Jainism or to prejudice. As per Jain philosophy a soul has to pass through different forms on account of the karma' deeds committed by him. As soon as he is free of this 'karmic' bondage, he attains 'moksha' i.e. emanicipation. Once a soul has attained emanicipation, he cannot be re-born in the world just as a parched gram does not germinate. This conception of 'moksha' of Jains is the same as advocated by Vedic philosophical systems which say that completely getting rid of 'Agnan' i.e. ignorance or grief and obtaining of peace of mind (parmanand) is emanicipation. Then what is wrong with Jainism when ultimate object is similar?
In his meeting with the king of Limbri, Shri Anand Vijayji explained that Jains do not believe in the opinion that God is the creator of the universe. In doing so, many contradictions creep in. For example, all the tings that we look in the world have body and they were created by one
has a body. A bodyless existence cannot create a body. The sky is bodyless and it cannot create a body. As it is understood that God is without a form or body, then how it can create the universe which has a body existence. And if we say that God has a body, then the question will crop up 'who created God'? This will have no end. Secondly, if a thing is created, the creator of the thing must have a desire and make an effort. If we consider God as the Creator of the universe, then it will have to be admitted that God has desire. This involves contradiction because God is considered above all desires and omni-present (sarva vyapak). Moreover, in creation of a thing, there is always some purpose. Now what possibly can be the purpose of God in creation of the world. If He is purposeles, then creation is not possible. And if he has purpose, then God is something less than Godhead. If for the sake of argument it is said that God created the world with the purpose of rewarding or punishing the good or bad deeds of the living beings, then also it is untenable. It implies that God was actuated by the deeds of living beings into creating the world. This statement does not leave God free and makes him out under the influence of some one but by very definition God is under no body.
A Brief Life Of Atma Ramji Mahraj
15