It was a wonderful discussion. I wanted to join in between but couldn’t at that time. I have 5-6 points to discuss, and it was becoming too long, so instead of putting them in one post, have put them down in different posts -
3 Likes
1. On Verbal Testimony (शब्द प्रमाण)
The statement needs to be understood in the context in which it was said. The context was -
So those who believe in the verbal testimony (शब्द प्रमाण) of a scientist and not of a Tīrthaṅkara are not consistent in their position. Because just as they do not have any direct access to what was said by an omniscient (unless they become one), similarly, they would never carry out any experiment to test the claim of a scientist. And I am sure none of us had ever taken the pains to observe the current solar system via telescope.
So arbitrarily choosing one (the words of a scientist), and denying another (the words of the scriptures / omniscient being) is nothing but hypocrisy, or in a sophisticated tone - inconsistency.
So my purpose was not to appeal for faith in Tirthankaras. It was rather to point out the inconsistency among those who seek for a scientific validation for anything and everything and unless they find one, they would keep treating it as a dogma.
4 Likes
2. On the Scientific Method
All truths are easy to understand once discovered, the task is to discover them.
- Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, Galileo Galilei
Science is not the name of discoveries. It is about how you discover them. Much of the modern science has taken Francis Bacon’s (1561-1626) method as the point of departure for further discoveries. Science is, thus, an art or a method of discovering facts. However, it does not, and will never, claim any such discovery as ultimate and final. At best, the scientific method allows you to propose a hypothesis which no scientist would ever mind in replacing if he / she finds a better one. Thus, being committed to such a method of falsifiability / testability, scientific discoveries become less reliable (and this does not imply those discoveries are worthless). This is how it works for science. And they are very much comfortable with it. A scientist, by definition, ceases to be one when s/he looks for absolute claims about reality - they call it hypothesis for a reason. So why does a philosophical or a religious doctrine must have a scientific validation? I mean, it’s okay if you provide one, but it should not be the norm.
4 Likes
3. On the Myth of Objectivity
(this is a bit technical, if you wish you may skip this part :p)
One of the prominent point that works in favour of Science is that it is alleged to be objective. By objective, it is meant that any hypothesis or experiment or theory is out there accessible to others and not something that only I have a privileged access to. It also implies that the enquirer should avoid any presuppositions or prejudices while carrying out a research. Thus it appeals to reason rather than faith.
However, this objectivity of science was over-emphasized to the extent that human element in any research or discovery came to be bracketed off altogether. Philosophers of Science, especially Karl Popper, whose work has highly influenced the thinkers which were to come later on the scene (Kuhn, Lakatos and Fayeraband), have made a serious attempt to show how scientific method cannot be absolutely objective. Here, I cite Popper -
The belief that science proceeds from observation to theory is still so widely and so firmly held that my denial of it is often met with incredulity. Twenty-five years ago I tried to bring home the same point to a group of physics students in Vienna by beginning a lecture with the following instructions: ‘Take pencil and paper; carefully observe, and write down what you have observed!’ They asked, of course, what I wanted them to observe. Clearly the instruction, ‘Observe!’ is absurd…
A hungry animal … divides the environment into edible and inedible things. An animal in flight sees the roads to escape and hiding places… Generally speaking, objects change… according to the needs of the animal. … For the animal, a point of view is provided by its needs, the task of the moment, and its expectations: for the scientist by his theoretical interests, the special problem under investigation, his conjectures and anticipations, and the theories in which he accepts as a kind of background: his frame of reference, his 'horizon of expectations’.
- Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, Karl Popper
3 Likes
4. On Krambaddh Paryaay
As far as Krambaddh Paryaay (henceforth, KBP) is concerned, I don’t know how this -
Can necessarily lead to this -
I would like to draw attention towards just one thing which had been discussed earlier as well - we should not confuse ‘what is the case’ with ‘what ought to be’. Although one can derive both by having a proper understanding of KBP, but more or less, when you talk of KBP, the emphasis is on the former rather than the latter. We get confused when we try to equate the ‘ought’ with the ‘is’ - which is as good as becoming a God - because then there is no other ‘ought’ situation that remains to be achieved. All goals have been accomplished (कृतकृत्य). The ‘ought’ and ‘is’ have become one.
However, in our case, there is a huge difference between what ‘ought’ to be and what ‘is’. So in pursuit of happiness, we are expected to narrow down that gap to a minimum. Will discuss more on this in the last part.
1 Like
5. On Misinterpretation
Saying that Kanji Swami had misled that person is as good as saying Rishabhdev had misled Marichi - which I think none of us would agree with. If someone chooses to misinterpret and decide as per one’s own fancies (Marichi / the person who denied going to temple by citing KBP), what can they (Rishabhdev / Kanji Swami) do?
Disclaimer: The example is only for illustration purposes. I have no intention of comparing Kanji Swami with Rishabhdev.
On a side note, if at all that person would have met Kanji Swami, something similar like this might have had happened -
Once Pt. Liladhar Ji, a very learned scholar, had gone to a place during Paryushan for delivering discourses. A letter came which informed that he gave statements like - ‘there is no difference between a temple and a graveyard’ and ‘an idol and a dead body both are same’ (implying that they are pudgal [matter] or that they are alien to self). Kanji Swami asked him to leave the place immediately to the effect that he will not begin his discourse till Liladhar ji leaves the place.
Source: दृढ़ता, निर्भीकता, स्पष्टवादिता अध्यात्म प्रभावना नायक.pdf [unedited and not for publication, English translation is mine], Pt. Shri Sumat Prakash Ji
The problem with understanding Kanji Swami is that there are many people talking about what he said but hardly anyone goes and sees how he lived his life and in what context any given statement was made. It would be a nice exercise to read his pravachans (vitragvani.com) and try to arrive at an interpretation which is not self-contradictory. Also, when you read his pravachans on Ashtpahud (as of now, only the first volume is available in Hindi), there would be very few instances where he talks of - पुण्य being हेय, and that, महाव्रत etc. is just a शुभ भाव, and therefore, a cause of bondage. I would also suggest reading what are his views on मुनिराज and how much he revered them from the book - धन्य मुनि दशा.
4 Likes
6. On Hypocrisy or Having Double Standards
Yes, I absolutely agree with this part. And anyone who takes pains in getting to the essence of KBP will inevitably come across this dilemma
Should I be sad? Because when I think of KBP, I find no reason to cry for something which has already gone, right? So then how can one have both?
Let me quote Kanji Swami first, who himself agrees with what you have said, and would then discuss this further. These are some excerpts from the interview of Kanji Swami which was taken in public by Dr. Bharill in Mumbai on 28th April, 1979 -
प्रश्न: आप समझाते भी जाते हैं और कहते भी जाते हैं कि हम कहाँ समझाते हैं?
उत्तर: कौन समझाता है? कहा न कि भाषा के कारण भाषा होती है, विकल्प के कारण विकल्प होता है और उस समय भाषा और विकल्प का ज्ञान भी अपने कारण होता है । इसमें हमारा कर्तापना कहाँ रहा?
प्रश्न: इसीलिए तो लोग कहते हैं कि आपकी करनी और कथनी में अन्तर हैं?
उत्तर: (अत्यंत गंभीर होकर) वस्तुस्वरूप ही ऐसा है, हम क्या करें? जैसे श्रद्धान, ज्ञान और वचन हैं, वैसा चारित्र भी होना चाहिए; वह अभी नहीं है; पर श्रद्धा में फेर नहीं है । करनी और कथनी का यह अन्तर तो है ही । पर यह अन्तर तो क्षायिक सम्यग्दृष्टि भरतादि चक्रवर्तियों के भी था । चतुर्थ गुणस्थानवर्ती सभी ज्ञानियों के होता है - इसमें हम क्या करें?
प्रश्न: यदि यह श्रद्धा और चारित्र का भेद मिट जावे तो बहुत अच्छा रहे ?
उत्तर: मिट जाये तो क्या कहना? हम भी तो निरंतर यही भावना भाते हैं, पर तीर्थंकर ऋषभदेव के भी ८३ लाखपूर्व तक चारित्रदोष रहा था । एक गुण दूसरे गुण में दोष उत्पन्न नहीं कर सकता । अन्यथा सम्यग्दर्शन नहीं हो सकता । चारित्र और वीर्य में दोष है, परन्तु सम्यग्दर्शन में दोष नहीं है ।
- क्रमबद्ध पर्याय¹, डॉ. हुकमचन्द भारिल्ल, pp. 114-115
All three questions point towards the problem of double standard. And he acknowledges that this is inevitable. It is quite possible to have a belief which is not exactly in sync with the conduct. We are not always conscious of our believes but they guide, more or less, all our thought process. However, one should not expect them to be always in sync in the lower stages of गुणस्थान.
In the case of a सम्यग्दृष्टि (a person whose beliefs regarding fundamental verities are correct), a line is drawn beyond which s/he would never go. Technically speaking, he would never have कषाय of the level of अनन्तानुबन्धी. This gives a kind of logical consistency to the entire doctrine. Because if KBP was all about just the belief part which has nothing to do with what I think / say / do, then it would surely lead to serious consequences.
¹ Translations are also available in - English, ગુજરાતી and मराठी.
6 Likes
How can you ensure that everyone will see their last phase as it might be possible that his life will be end earlier. It is not escapism from realities of life rather it is a determination of true values of realities (rather it is in our mind that what we see from the Indriya is real but many Gyanis do not believe in Indriya Gyan, Indriya Gyan does not show reality ).
2 Likes
Text removed
1 Like
Bad consequences of future and distraction/anxiety of present. People themselves accept that their life would have been better if they had not had all such habits.
1 Like
When I read of krambadha paryaya, it makes me independent, in control of my actions.I do not feel escapism nor any one else does it. It means you are negating ‘purshartha’ then your argument might be self defeating… youths do everything correctly… why is you feel helpless with krambadhaparyaya but I feel empowered?
1 Like
चारों अनुयोगों की कथन शैली का और उनके अपने अपने विषयों का व्यवस्थित और योग्य अध्ययन/समझ ही हमारे इन प्रश्नों का समाधान दे सकती है। अतः मोक्ष मार्ग प्रकाशक जी का अध्याय -8 अवश्य अवश्य पढ़ने योग्य है। आपके बहुत से प्रश्नों का समाधान होगा।
3 Likes
That is indriya gyan &
Many people do not feel anxious while doing sin.
All I can say is that trade off is worth. As someone rightly said,
Better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied. And better to be a Socrates dissatisfied than a human being satisfied.
- J. S. Mill
So its better to live a life of double standard for sometime rather than living a life of one standard albeit an ignorant one.
2 Likes
What is double standard? Double standard points to malicious intent to discriminate or treat one party unfairly or unjustly.
Hence can anyone please explain what is double standard here??
Pl go through this post and the ones which are quoted in it -
I agree that it is not with a malicious intent, but there is a disparity in what one believes and what one actually does.
1 Like
Text removed
A point to think-
Acharya Samantbhadra Swami in his great text Aapt Mimannsa, acknowledged Sarvagyata and Veetraagta as the differentiating qualities as the basis for the worship of Aapta (Tirthankar).
Linking this to the current discussion-
वंदे तद्गुण लब्धये
Note: Sarvagyata incorporate the Krambaddha paryaya concept within itself and similarly Veetraagta incorporate shuddhopayog and saamya-bhav in itself.
1 Like
Text removed
You will definitely like these lekh by Prof. Veersagar ji Delhi. He provided a very positive outlook of the current time in terms as an opportunity to promote Jainism internally and externally.
आराधक ही प्रभावक होता है - हम इस सूक्ति को चरितार्थ करें, यही भावना।
2 Likes