________________
Through acts of worship a Jain may hope to secure such results as karmakşaya (destruction of karma), bodhi-labha (attaing enlightenment) or samadhimarana (holy death in meditation), but as far as worldly gains are concerned, the Jina is past granting any boons; it is unbecoming to even entertain such thoughts in his presence. It is true that this situation makes it possible for the Hindu divinities and Jain demi-gods (yaksas) to creep into the Jain temples in the guise of doorkeepers (dvära-palas) or guardian deities (4äsana-devatäs), catering to the emotional needs of the weaker sections of the Jain laity. But the informed Jain pays no more attention to them than he would to a distinguished guest visiting the temple; for he firmly believes that one reaps the fruits of one's own karma, whether good or evil; no one can add to or take away from another's karma, not even the mightiest of the gods, for they too are subject to the same law. Karma is a psycho-physical complex; although neither holy nor sacred, it is nevertheless a power to be reckoned with, a power which is not to be propitiated but rather to be challenged by the aspirant and overcome by his insight and pure conduct. The Jain äcāryas who struggled against the bhakti movements contended that Iévara and karma are not compatible; the God will always be invested with powers labeled as "sacred", to intervene in the automatic operation of karma, to nullify its effects and finally to set it aside as mere illusion. They argued that such a belief destroys the roots of Universal ethics and justice; instead of making a man self-reliant and motivated to develop his innate powers, it makes him a fatalist resigned to the mercy and favour of a higher power. Therefore they attempted to depict the Hindu trinity of Brahma, Visņu and Siva as a collection of sham gods (kudevas), not to be depended upon for salvation. Further, they exerted great effort in dealing with the two human avataras, Rāma aud Kṛṣṇa, for these could not be dismissed as mere myth, and their cults had become a real threat to the integrity of the Jain laity. The Jain ācāryas had no difficulty in accepting the hero of the Ramayana, whose life had been nearly ideal, except for the deplorable act of killing the demon king Rävana, an act which was the main purpose of the Rāmavatära. They could not let him kill Ravana and yet not take the consequences of going to hell! Therefore they very ingeniously drafted a Jain Ramayana and saw to it that Ravana was killed not by Rama but by his younger brother Lakṣmaṇa, and the latter was cosigned to hell. They made Rama renounce the world in the time-honoured fashion of Jain ascetics, and accepted him as an arhat and a siddha, a true model for the Jain laity. The controversial Krsna, however, did not fare so well. The Mahabharata is filled with accounts of his trickeries as a statesman; he had killed countless humans and demons. The Jain äcäryas tried as best as they could to paint a more flattering picture of Krsna in their Puranas (e. g. the Harivartapurana of Jinasena), making him at contemporary of one of their Tirthankaras named Neminatha, but finally had no alternative but to send him to purgatory to suffer the consequences of his actions. They did predict however, that when he emerges from purgatory in the near future, Kṛṣṇa will be a Tirthankara and will be worshipped by both gods and men.
- 531
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
