INTRODUCTION

After reading “Garjana” (Roar), you too must roar.
You are a lion, not a sheep—prove it.

When it is cold, you reach for a blanket; when it is hot, you use a fan, an AC, or a cooler. In poverty, money seems to be the solution, and for safety, a home feels essential. In loneliness, one seeks friends and family; to maintain modesty, clothing appears necessary.

A human being believes he has a definite solution for every problem. He generally knows the purpose and use of every object, and understands clearly what result each action may produce. When hungry, food is required; when thirsty, water is needed.

Such basic understanding is found even in those who are considered dull-witted or mentally unstable. But there is one subject in which a very large section of people remains confused—that subject is Dharma.

Many times, it is astonishing to see that a person who has absolutely no understanding of dharma considers himself the wisest and begins delivering lectures on it.

Whenever the question has been publicly asked—“Explain dharma. Why do we need dharma? For what purpose should one practice dharma? What are its benefits? And what happens if one does not practice it?”—the answers have almost always been varied and unclear.

At such times, I felt that people are most ignorant about that which is most essential. What is needed the most is understood the least.

Today, the presence of many religions in the world, and within each religion numerous sects, has placed the young generation in a state of deep confusion. If they are not given clear guidance, they will adopt atheism or irreligion as their dharma—indeed, many already have.

Some people say, “Dharma must be practiced because it gives peace.” I say, Dharma does not merely teach peace—it teaches revolution as well.

Many people display “miracles” in the name of dharma and reduce its vast meaning into something narrow and restricted. But I say: Miracles are merely a by-product of dharma; its true essence is concealed in Namaskār—reverence, humility, and right conduct.

Many keep presenting only the theoretical side of dharma. Yet Guruji (Pujya Pandit Pravar Shri Dhairyasundar Vijayji M.S.) from his very first effort beautifully integrated the ideal principles of dharma with practical conduct. He presented not only theory but also living, practical application.

Some people excel at painting dharma with the colors of isolationism and extremism. But they forget that dharma shines in the pure white of Anekāntavāda and the spirit of peace. This forgetfulness is their greatest mistake.

Some highlight only one aspect of dharma—“meditation”—and thus commit the wrong of keeping innocent seekers away from the many other dimensions of dharma. In contrast, Guruji has made an extraordinary effort to create balance by integrating all domains—knowledge, meditation, action, and more.

Some individuals continuously expose the weaknesses of a few followers and engage in the dirty work of defaming dharma itself. In such a situation, Guruji achieved remarkable damage control by highlighting the positive dimensions of dharma and the profound transformations seen in its sincere practitioners.

Today, the number of people walking the path of atheism has reached into the crores. To re-establish the prestige of a world-benevolent dharma in their hearts is, in truth, an admirable and highly challenging task.

On OTT platforms today, many web series boldly proclaim ideas such as “God is Dead.” Through such portrayals, subtle yet powerful mind-hacking and mind-controlling programs are being executed on a mass level.

In such a storm, anyone who strives to keep the lamp of faith from being extinguished appears truly heroic.

In earlier times, debates between two religious traditions were organized. But today, an invisible war is being fought between dharma and adharma, between theism and atheism.

Confusing information packaged as science, unnecessary details labelled as education, and alluring content disguised as entertainment are collectively draining today’s youth of purity, faith, and wisdom.

At such a moment, the one who brings them back from the path of downfall is indeed great—and even the one who merely tries to stop their decline is worthy of deep respect.

Even reading just the list of questions in this book prompts one to thank the author, for he has brilliantly documented the very “allergy to dharma” that troubles today’s youth.

If dharma is truly sweet and delightful, why do we not find it appealing? If dharma is filled with immense energy, why does it create aversion in the minds of the youth? If the primary fruit of dharma is happiness, then why do practitioners of dharma still encounter suffering?

The answers to such questions await readers in the “Garjana” series. (And this is only Part 1.)

With heartfelt wishes that, after reading Garjana, you too will rise and roar.

— Da. Pandit NirMohSundar Vijay
13/06/2024 — Ranebennur (Karnataka)

Identity of True Religion / Identifying True Religion

Respected Guruji, Vandana…

For many years, a question has continued to stir within me. In this vast world, we see innumerable religions — each with its own philosophy, its own practices, and its own distinct methods of worshipping their chosen deities. The ordinary person, caught in this diversity, often remains perplexed, asking within: Which is genuine and which is false?

Samkit, Dharmalabh…

Indeed, your reflection is true. When it comes to both religion and love, countless souls in this world have been led astray by delusion. And here, the common man is both guilty and yet blameless.

Yes — blameless, for he is but uninformed. Yet guilty, for ignorance can never be a shield. As the eternal law reminds us: “Ignorance is no excuse.” One cannot claim innocence merely because one does not know. Thus, it becomes essential — even obligatory — to awaken, to seek, to know.

Birth may place us within a particular fold of faith, making us adherents by heritage. But as maturity dawns, it becomes our sacred responsibility to journey beyond mere accident of birth and earnestly seek the path of the true religion — the path that liberates, that enlightens, and that unites the soul with Truth.

Gold appears yellow; yet if one mistakes brass for gold merely because of its color and purchases it at a high price, the loss is entirely one’s own. Others will call such a person foolish. In the same manner, if under the mere label of “religion” one accepts a path blindly, without the light of discernment, then the folly will be one’s own—this much is certain.

The word Dharma has been interpreted in many ways. In the Samavayanga Sutra, nine distinct meanings of Dharma are described. Here, I shall present five of them — simple, practical, and useful for our understanding.

1. Vatthu Sahāvo Dhammo — The inherent nature of a substance is its Dharma.

For example: the nature of fire is to burn. Thus, burning is the Dharma of fire. In the same way, freedom from passions (Vītarāgata), infinite knowledge and perception, and boundless energy are the inherent attributes of the soul.

At present, these qualities of the soul remain obscured due to the bondage of karma. To manifest them, one must engage in the pursuit of Dharma through conscious effort and discipline.

2–3. Noble practices and virtuous deeds. Any noble observance or virtuous action that leads us toward realizing the true nature of the soul is itself Dharma. As we continue to engage in such practices, the innate qualities of the soul gradually begin to unfold within us.

4–5. Conduct and discipline.

To perform virtuous deeds, external aids such as wealth, strength, and favorable circumstances may be required. But for the practice of right conduct and moral discipline, it is indispensable to renounce sinful acts. Such renunciation too becomes a means for attaining the soul’s true nature — and thus, a form of Dharma.

Is there scope for change within Dharma?

Respected Guruji, Vandana…

The clarity you have given regarding Dharma has removed many of my misconceptions. Yet one question still remains.

According to time and circumstance, it sometimes feels that what the great founders of religion once prescribed may require certain adjustments. For example, Lord Mahavira instructed monks to endure cold, heat, and other hardships. But in today’s age, the human body’s strength and endurance have declined. In such times, some modification of these rules seems necessary. Yet, if we make such changes, will this not create a gap between preaching and practice? What then is the solution?

Samkit, Dharmalabh…

It is precisely to resolve this dilemma that the third test has been given — the Fire Test (Tāpa Pariksha).

Even a person of ordinary intelligence will never engage in any action without purpose. How then can the conduct of the Supreme Being — the most exalted among men — ever be purposeless or without aim? Whatever the religion, it always has a goal. That goal may be short-term, confined to this very life, or it may be eternal and transcendent.

On the journey towards that ultimate destination, many obstacles are bound to arise, especially when the path is long. In order to reach the goal, certain necessary adjustments may indeed be made.

Take for example the highway: when traveling towards a city, you may find that roadwork blocks the direct way. At such a time, you may have to take a diversion, even through a rough or muddy road. One cannot stubbornly insist, “Only this highway must carry me to my destination; I will not take a dirt road!”

The meaning is clear: in order to reach the final goal, one must wisely adapt to circumstances, even if it means taking a path less smooth for a time.

In the same way, one must also understand the demands of time and accordingly make slight adjustments in the framework of conduct.

Yet the destination itself remains unchanged, predetermined from the very beginning. No alteration is ever made to that ultimate goal. Rather, we may say: “It is precisely in order to reach that goal that we have chosen the diversion,” for otherwise we would have remained stranded on the highway itself.

For all followers of the Jina’s teaching, the Lord has declared the supreme destination — the eradication of attachment (rāga) and aversion (dveṣa). Every discipline and practice prescribed within the Jina’s order has no other ultimate purpose than this — the dissolution of passions.

Therefore, when in the prescribed path of conduct (utsarga-ācāra) some adaptation is made for the sake of attaining this higher aim, such a modification is called apavāda-ācāra — an exceptional rule of conduct.

To illustrate: in business, one may sometimes incur a small loss on an item in order to avoid a far greater loss later, and even thereby secure profit. Suppose outdated stock lies unsold in a shop: today it may be cleared by accepting a loss of 2 rupees. If left unsold, tomorrow the loss may amount to 20 rupees. In such a case, the 2-rupee loss is not truly a loss — in fact, in view of the larger picture, it amounts to an 18-rupee gain.

In the same way, the Lord has prescribed certain disciplines for monks in order to safeguard the first Great Vow — the Mahāvrata of complete abstinence from violence (Ahimsa). For instance, a monk may not accept food that has been specially prepared for him, for the violence incurred in its preparation would bind him with sin.

Yet, if due to illness or physical infirmity, some food becomes rare or unavailable, and it must be specially prepared by a householder and then consumed, the scriptures allow an exception. This is called Apavāda-Ācāra — exceptional conduct.

On the surface, such a practice may appear to incur the blemish of violence. But since the body is the very instrument of Dharma, its preservation becomes essential. Thus, while adhering to Ahimsa as far as possible, the monk may temporarily adopt a practice contrary to the general rule (Utsarga). Once the body regains health and strength, such contrary practice is relinquished. With repentance (prāyaścitta) he cleanses himself of sin, and once again resumes strict observance of Ahimsa with renewed firmness.

This flexible arrangement of conduct is what is called the Anekānta — the doctrine of manifold viewpoints — in the path of discipline. Even here, if the aspirant chooses to remain steadfast, bearing illness with patience and without violating the vow, the scriptures fully permit this as well. In such matters, one must think from many angles, with many perspectives.

In short, the religion that embodies Anekānta, the balanced view that accommodates circumstances without losing sight of the ultimate goal, is the religion that passes the Fire Test (Tāpa Parīksha). Such a Dharma is like pure gold refined in fire — one hundred percent genuine. Such a Dharma must be embraced.

By contrast, any religion or sect that is rigid, inflexible, and mechanical in its laws — confined merely to its rituals and blind discipline without wisdom — cannot pass the Fire Test. At the same time, one must also guard against the misuse of Anekānta. If flexibility is stretched to extremes, devoid of wisdom, and becomes an excuse for license, then such a religion, sect, or individual strays from the very goal itself. In that case, not only does it fail the Fire Test, it also collapses in the Cut Test (Cheda Parīksha).

Here, the discussion of all three tests is now complete. A religion that embodies the ideal, proper conduct, and the path to achieving the ultimate goal through Anekānta successfully passes the Kas, Cheda, and Tāpa tests. Here, we have discussed the three tests in a very concise form. In the scriptures, this subject is treated in hundreds of pages, so we could not fully cover it. Yet even this brief explanation will awaken your discernment sufficiently, enabling you to select the appropriate religion or sect with ease.

Do not take these points as criticism of any religion or sect. We are merely providing guidance. In fact, all these points pertain to the fundamental framework of every religion. If someone alters this framework to serve personal interests, that responsibility lies with the individual, not with us.

As a follower of Jain Dharma and a saintly person, you may be reading this from my perspective. But I wish to make it very clear that I am speaking entirely without prejudice.

The Jina’s teaching is endowed with a profoundly generous and elevated vision. This is why the Ṣaḍdarśana Samuccaya, written by the venerable Acharya Bhagavant Shri Haribhadrasurishwarji, has been included in the Indian government’s philosophy curriculum. At the conclusion of this work, he writes: “I have explained the doctrines of Sāṅkhya, Buddhism, Mīmāṁsā, Vaiśeṣika, Jainism, and others. Now, use your own discernment to select what is right.” How transparent and unbiased! Even while presenting Jain philosophy, nowhere in this entire text is there favoritism toward one’s own view. The Jina’s teaching is not only non-violent in conduct (pravaṛtti), but also non-violent in disposition (vṛtti). It never harms the faith of anyone by calling it false.

Is there only one God in the world?

Respected Guruji, Vandana…

You have given very good guidance on the subject of choosing the right religion. But, some people say: Sarva Dharma Samabhava (all religions are the same)… that everyone has given different names to God in their own way, but in reality, there is only one God in the world. Is this true?

Samkit, Dharmalabh…

Before answering your question, I would like to clear up a misunderstanding of yours by asking you a question. Based on the answer to this, you will be able to properly understand both your question and its answer.

If you have read my previous letter, you must have understood that only that religion can be called true in which:

• the ideal is defined as supreme,
• there is a proper code of conduct in accordance with that ideal, and
• through Anekant (the doctrine of multiple perspectives), there exists a path to reach the ultimate goal.

This means that if a religion does not speak of the ideal, or if it does not provide a way of life in accordance with the ideal, or if it speaks of both the ideal and conduct but lacks Anekant, then that religion is not real but fake.

Now tell me yourself—can such a fake religion ever be equal to the true religion?

So, you tell me: how can there be samabhava (equivalence) between a fake religion and a true religion?

Are those who distinguish between religions actually creating conflict among them?

Respected Guruji, Vandana…

Please don’t take my words in a wrong sense. When you make distinctions such as “true religion” and “false religion,” won’t people feel hurt? By writing in this way, are you not spreading disharmony and creating conflict among people? We have always heard that “Religion does not teach us to bear enmity among ourselves…” But you seem to be saying something opposite to this.

Samkit, Dharmalabh…

Understand one thing clearly: when it comes to differentiating between what is genuine and what is fake, the truth must be revealed. Tell me yourself—if a person examines diamonds, gold, or silver and declares which is real and which is fake, is he creating enmity? Or if a food inspector catches adulterated ghee, milk, cheese, or khoa and has the offender arrested, is he holding enmity toward that person?

No, in fact, he is rendering a great service to society. In the same way, we say that the one who examines religion and points out the difference between true and false religion is actually performing a great service for all lovers of religion.

If adulterated milk or ghee enters the market, the loss is physical. If counterfeit gold or silver appears, the loss is financial—limited to this one lifetime. But if a false religion is accepted, then birth after birth is ruined. That is the greatest loss of all.

Respected Guruji, Vandanā…

You are right — it is indeed necessary to examine and discern true religion. But won’t those who follow a false religion feel hurt by such an examination? After all, religion teaches us not to trouble even the smallest of living beings, like ants or insects.

Samkit, Dharmalābh…

What we are suggesting is to examine and distinguish between the true and the false — not to go and announce to anyone, “You are following a false religion.” That is not our intent at all. The person concerned should not even get a hint that you have examined their faith. One must never cause pain to anyone’s heart.

That is why we say — it is not “sarva-dharma samabhāva” (treating all religions as equal), but “sarva-dharma sammana” — respect for all religions.

Equal Regard for All Religions — or Respect for All Religions?

Respected Guruji, Vandanā…

If we say “equal regard” or “respect,” does it make any difference? Both appear to be the same.

Samkit, Dharmalabh……

There is, in fact, a great difference between the two. When you say “equal regard” (Sarva Dharma Samabhava), you are making the mistake of considering all religions to be the same.

Think about it — can a religion that preaches the sacrifice (kurbani) of large living beings be considered equal to one that teaches compassion even towards the tiniest creatures in water and on earth?

Our approach should be based on humanity — that is, we should not insult the followers of any other religion; instead, we should respect them.

True religion never teaches hatred; it teaches us to give everyone due respect or disregard according to their actions.

Here, disregard does not mean contempt — it means maintaining emotional distance from wrong conduct, yet still wishing for the spiritual welfare of that person.

Now, coming to the second point — people often say, “There is only one God in the world; different religions have simply given Him different names.”

But this idea stands invalid in light of the reasoning we have just discussed.

If someone asks you — “Why are there different religions? Why are their practices and disciplines not the same?” — your answer will naturally be — “Because the founders of those religions are different; therefore, their practices are also different.”

From this very answer, it is clear that each religion has a different founder, which is why their principles and disciplines differ. And generally, the founder of each religion is regarded as God or as a messenger of God.

Yes, you may rightly say that — “The founders of religions are not themselves God, but messengers or representatives of God.”

It is quite possible that the divine messenger originally conveyed the right teachings, but later, some followers — either deliberately or unknowingly — altered or distorted those teachings, resulting in a corrupted form of conduct and practice.

The omniscient Acharya Bhagwant Shri Hemachandrasurishwarji Maharaj, in the Vitaraga Stotra, has said: “Only that being can truly be called God who is free from attachment (rāga), aversion (dveṣa), and delusion (moha), and who is endowed with the wealth of pure virtue (puṇya).”

1. Every sin committed in this world arises from attachment, aversion, or delusion.

2. True religion — the one that brings about the supreme welfare of the soul — can only be established by one who is completely free from attachment, aversion, and delusion.

Therefore, if you consider your God to be free from attachment, aversion, and delusion — even if you call Him by a different name — we have no objection. Such a being can indeed be accepted as God.

However, those who insist that all religions and all Gods are the same — and who attempt to convince others of this idea — are, perhaps unknowingly, committing a great error that leads people away from the true path of religion.

Saying “All religions and all Gods are one” may sound easy and pleasant, but proving it through reasoning and factual evidence is impossible.

Even if such people may have good intentions — such as promoting harmony and goodwill among communities — their statement actually confuses the seeker.

A person will neither truly understand the religion into which he was born, nor will he be able to sincerely accept another. And even if he does, it may be only for personal gain or convenience.

Such a person ends up like “the washerman’s dog — belonging neither to home nor to the riverbank.”

Instead of seeking false equivalence, one should adopt respect for the followers of all religions and maintain a sense of fairness and dignity toward the divinities they revere. In this way, we can uphold unity within diversity.

Just as the natural environment remains healthy and vibrant due to biodiversity, so too can our world flourish with religious diversity — when accompanied by tolerance, understanding, and mutual respect.

This harmony will transform the human world into a realm of divine bliss.

And if you wish to help someone understand your faith, do so selflessly — without any hidden motive or greed.

If the other person is willing to engage in a sincere and healthy discussion, reason with them joyfully. But the moment you feel that the dialogue is turning into an argument or conflict, fold your hands respectfully and end the discussion right there.