MokshaMargPrakashak …27

 

UbhayaBhasi (Mixed ) Mithya Drishti

Now, those who take recourse to both Nishchaya-Vyavahara both the nayas (UbhayaBhas), such Mithya Drishtis are described-

Those Jivas who believe thus- In Jina faith Nishchaya -Vyavahara two naya are described; hence we should accept both- with such consideration, just as only NishchayaBhasi dependent was described, they adopt Nishchaya  in that way and just as only VyavaharaBhasi dependent was described, they adopt Vyavahara that way.

Although in such acceptance there is mutual opposition between the two nayas even then what to do? – The form of both nayas has not been understood truly and in Jina faith  two nayas are described, hence any one cannot be discarded; therefore with delusion, both are treated as means. Those Jivas also should be known as Mithya Drishti.

Now difference of their practices is described- Internally who has not recognised the right Nishchaya-Vyavahara MokshMarga by taking decision ; following Jina-order they believe the Moksha Marga to be of two kinds -Nishchaya-Vyavahara form,  but Moksha Marga is not of two kinds; its narration is of two types. Where the true Moksha Marga is described as Moksha Marga, that is Nishchaya Moksha Marga and the one which  is not really Moksha Marga but is nimitta to Moksha Marga and is coexistent , which is called Moksha marga in Upachar sense, that is Vyavahara Moksha Marga since the characteristics of Nishchaya-Vyavahara are everywhere like this- the true narration is Nishchaya : Upachar narration is Vyavahara. Hence from aspect of description the MokshaMarga are of two types. One is Nishchaya MokshaMarga and other is Vyavahara Moksha Marga; in this way believing two types of Moksha Marga is Mithya.

He considers Nishchaya and Vyavahara both as venerable, which is delusion only since the forms of Nishchaya and Vyavahara is mutually contradictory. In Samaysar it has been told-

“ Vyavahara is unreal ; does not narrate the true form, from  some aspect in Upachara sense the narration is unreal while the Shuddha Naya which is Nishchaya , that is real; the way the thing exists, it describes the same. 

-          In this way the forms of both are mutually contradictory.

There you believe thus – Experience of Shuddha Atma like that of Siddha, that is Nishchaya and Vrita-Sheel-Sanyam etc. form activity is Vyavahara, but such belief is not right since it is not so that some dravya bhava is called Nishchaya and another dravya bhava is called Vyavahara.

Description of singular dravya bhava in its own form is Nishchaya Naya while in Upachara sense the description of one dravya bhava in the form of another dravya bhava is Vyavahara. For example the pot of mud is called as ‘pot of mud’ in Nishchaya and in conjunction with Ghee, in  upachar sense the same pot is called as ‘pot of ghee’ which is Vyavahara- know the same elsewhere.

Therefore if you believe something as Nishchaya and something else as Vyavahara then it is delusion.

And in your belief also the contradiction of Nishchaya-Vyavahara is seen- if you believe yourself to be Shuddha like Siddha then why do you engage in Vrita etc.? If you wish to be Siddha with the means of Vrita etc. then the experience of Shuddha Atma in present would be Mithya.

-          Thus both nayas are contradictory; hence both cannot be venerable.

Here question- In Samaysar etc. the experience of Shuddha Atma is called Nishchaya; the Vrita-tapa-sanyam etc. are called Vyavahara; we also believe thus.

Its clarification- The experience of Shuddha Atma is true MokshaMarga; hence it is called Nishchaya. Here indifferent from own nature and different with respect to other’s bhava- that should be known as meaning of Shuddha word. Believing the worldly person to be  same as Siddha- such delusion form meaning is not meaning of Shuddha word.

There Vrita-Tapa etc. are not Moskha Marga; from aspect of nimitta etc. in Upachar sense they are called MokshaMarga; hence they are called Vyavahara MokshaMarga. Thus from aspect of being real-unreal they are called Nishchaya-Vyavahara. They should be accepted thus only, but believing both to be real Moksha Marga and venerable is Mithya Buddhi.

Then he says- We keep ‘shraddhan ‘ of Nishchaya and perform activities of the Vyavahara form – thus we adopt both of them.

He is told- This too is not right since shraddhan of Nishchaya should be in Nishchaya form and Vyavahara in Vyavahara form. With shraddhan of just one naya only, it results in Ekant Mithyatva and in activities there is no purpose of Naya. The activity is manifestation of dravya. The dravya which manifests, its activity should be narrated as belonging to it, that is Nishchaya naya and if it is described as that of other dravya then it is Vyavahara naya-in description with such intent the both naya are acceptable; the activity alone is not naya form.

In this way acceptance of both naya together is Mithya.

Then what to do?

That is told- Believing what has been described from aspect of Nishchaya naya as true, adopt shraddhan of the same and what has been described from aspect of Vyavahara as untrue, renounce its shraddhan. The same is told in Samaysar Kalash-

“Since all Himsa etc. and Ahimsa etc. have adhyavasaya, hence renounce all of them – thus it is told by JinaDeva. Hence I believe that all Vyavahara dependent upon others have been made to be relinquished. The saint people adopting one Param nishchaya only in proper way in perturbation free form should remain steady in Shuddha gyan-ghan form own glory. “

Bhavartha- Here Vyavahara has been made to be renounced; hence adopting Nishchaya engaging in own glory form is appropriate.

And in ShatPahud it is told-

“ The one who sleeps in Vyavahara, that Yogi keeps awake in own objective and the one who keeps awake in Vyavahara, he sleeps in his own objectgive. “

In this way giving up shraddhan of Vyavahara naya, adopting shraddhan of Nishchaya naya is appropriate.

‘ Vyavahara naya  describes mixing  own dravya-other dravya, their bhavas and cause-effect etc. with one belonging to other ‘,  with such shraddhan Mithyatva results ; hence it should be relinquished. And Nishchaya naya describes them truly without mixing one in another’ – with such shraddhan Samyaktva is attained; hence that should be taken recourse to. 

Here question- If it is so then why in Jina Marg both nayas have been asked to be accepted? 

Its reply- In Jina Marg somewhere the addressal is with the primacy of Nishchaya naya, that should be known as – ‘truly it is thus’ and somewhere the addressal is with the primacy of Vyavahara naya, which should be known as- ‘ it is not so ; from aspect of nimitta etc. the Upachar has been used’ – know thus.

In this way the acceptance of both naya is knowing them such. Believing the description of both nayas as true ‘ it is this way as well as that way’ – such delusion form manifestation is not told for acceptance of both nayas.

Question again- If Vyavahara naya is untrue then why its preachment is given  in Jina Marg? Only Nishchaya naya should  have been described.

Its answer- Same argument is put forth in Samaysar. There, this is the reply-

“ Just as a Mleccha without usage of Mleccha language cannot follow the meaning ; in the same way without Vyavahara, the preachment of Reality is not possible; hence the preachment of Vyavahara is done.”

And in the commentary to this Sutra it is told- “ For adopting this Nishchaya, the preachment is given with Vyavahara but the Vyavahara naya is not worthy of adopting.”

Here question- without Vyavahara how can the preachment of Nishchaya not be possible and why Vyavahara naya should not be followed? Please tell-

Its answer- From aspect of Nishchaya, the soul is different from other dravyas, indifferent from own bhavas, self established substance; those who do not recognise it, if they are told thus, then they cannot understand it. Hence they are told by means of Vyavahara naya by means of relationship of body etc. other dravyas, human-narak-prithvikaya etc. form different jivas ; then manushya is jiva, naraki is jiva etc. with different forms the jiva was recognised.

Or by differentiating in undifferentiated thing , the gyan-darshan etc. guna-paryaya form specifics of jiva were narrated ; then the knower is jiva,  seer is jiva etc. with different forms the jiva was recognised.

And from aspect of Nishchaya the Veetrag bhava is MokshaMarg ; those who do not recognise it, if they are told thus then they would not understand it; hence by means of Vyavahara naya with Tattva Shraddhan-Gyan, from aspect of elimination of nimitta of other dravya, the specifics of Veetrag bhava of the form of Vrita-Sheel-Sanyam  etc. were elaborated then they could recognise the Veetrag Bhava.

In this way elsewhere also, ‘ without Vyavahara, the preachment of Nishchaya is not possible’ – know thus.

Here in Vyavahara, the Nara-Narak etc. paryaya itself is called Jiva, but one should not accept paryaya only as Jiva; paryaya is conjunction form of Jiva-pudgala. There Jiva dravya is different in Nishchaya , that only should be known as Jiva. In conjunction with Jiva the body etc. also are called as Jiva in Upachar sense, that is mere statement; in reality body etc. are not jiva- such should be the shraddhan.

Or in undifferentiated Atma the divisions of Gyan-Darshan etc. were carried out, but they should not be believed to be divisions form itself, since the divisions have been carried out for explaining only. From aspect of Nishchaya the soul is undifferentiated only, that only should be accepted to be the Jiva substance.  The divisions have been told from aspect of name, numbers etc. which are mere descriptions ; in reality they are not different – such shraddhan should be carried out.

There from aspect of elimination of nimitta of other dravya, Vrita-Sheel-Sanyam etc. are called as Moksha Marg, but they themselves should not be believed to be Moksha Marg since if the acceptance-renunciation of other dravya could be done by soul then soul would become doer-destroyer of other dravya , but any dravya is not subordinate to another dravya ; hence soul by renouncing own ragas etc. bhava only becomes Veertagi ; hence  Nishchaya Veetrag Bhava only is Moksha Marg. Veetrag bhavas and Vritas etc. have cause-effect relationship in some aspect; hence Vritas etc. are called Moksha Marg which is mere statement; in reality external activity is not Moksha Marg- such should be the Shraddhan.

In this way elsewhere also Vyavahara naya should not be adopted- know thus.

Here Question- Vyavahara naya is useful only for giving preachment to others or does it serve own purpose also?

Its answer- So long as self does not recognise the thing defined by Nishchaya naya , till then with Vyavahara Marg the thing should be recognised. Hence in lower state for self also the Vyavahara naya is meaningful. But believing Vyavahara as mere Upachar, the right decision of the thing should be done then it would be meaningful, but  like Nishchaya, believing  Vyavahara to be true, the thing is ‘like this only’ –such shraddhan would be adverse.

The same is told in PurusharthaSiddhiUpaya-

“ For explaining to the Agyani, Muniraj preaches using Vyavahara naya which  is untrue. The one who knows only Vyavahara, for him the preachment itself is not suitable. And just as – the one who does not know real lion, for him cat itself is lion; in the same way for the one who does not know Nishchaya, for him the Vyavahara itself becomes Nishchaya.

Here some witless person says – you call Vyavahara as untrue-despicable hence why should we engage in Vyavahara activities of Vrita-Sheel-Sanyam etc? We will give them up.

He is told- The name of Vrita-Sheel-Sanyam etc. is not Vyavahara; believing then  to be Moksha Marg is Vyavahara, that you should give up and have such shraddhan that these (vrita-sheel-sanyam etc.) have been called Moksha Marg in Upachar sense, knowing them to be externally assistant since they are dependent upon other dravya and the true Moksha Marg is Veetrag Bhava which is dependent upon own  dravya. In this way know Vyavahara to be  untrue, despicable. By giving up Vrita etc. the Vyavahara does not become despicable.

Then we ask you- what shall you do after giving up vrita etc.? If you engage in Himsa etc. form then even the Upachar of Moksha Marg is also not possible ; what benefit you will gain with such activities? – you shall attain Narak etc. ; hence such acts are witless only and eliminating manifestations in Vrita etc. form, engaging  in only Veetrag detachment bhava form is better; which cannot be possible in lower state; hence abandoning Vrita etc. means , being promiscuous is not appropriate. In this way in Shraddhan believing Nishchaya to be venerable and in activities believing Vyavahara to be venerable, that too is Mithya Bhava only.

There this jiva, for adopting both nayas, sometimes experiences self as Shuddha, like Siddha, raga-free, soul with Keval Gyan etc.; adopting Dhyan posture he engages in such thoughts but he is not thus : ‘ with delusion, definitely I am thus only’- with such belief he gets satisfied. Possibly he describes thus in words but Nishchaya naya describes the thing to be in real form . How can it be called Nishchaya if he believes self to be what he is not visibly? Just as the unreality of NishchayaBhasi jiva was described earlier, in the same way know here.

Or he believes thus- Soul from aspect of this naya is this way, from that naya it is that way, but soul is, what  it is, like that only. He does not recognise the intent of the description by means of naya. For example- soul from aspect of Nishchaya is like Siddha , adorned with Keval Gyan etc., and free of dravya karma-No karma-Bhava Karma. From aspect of Vyavahara naya soul is worldly, having MatiGyan etc. , having dravya karma-no karma-bhava karma – thus he believes, but one soul does not have two such forms : ‘ adorned with one bhava and devoid of the same bhava ‘ – how can it be possible in one thing? Hence such belief is delusion.

Then how is it ? Just as king and pauper, from aspect of being Manushya are same ; in the same way Siddha and worldly , from aspect of Jiva-ness are same; if sameness from aspect of Keval Gyan etc. is believed then that is not so; worldly has Matigyan etc. only from aspect of Nishchaya and Siddha has Keval Gyan.

However- the worldly has MatiGyan etc. with the nimitta of karmas; hence from aspect of swabhava if worldly is said to have shakti of Keval Gyan then there is no fault. Just as the pauper has capability of being king ; in the same way know of this shakti also.

And Dravya Karma-No Karma are generated by Pudgala; hence from aspect of Nishchaya the worldly is different from them but if like Siddha from aspect of cause -effect he believes in absence of this relation also then it is delusion only. Bhava Karma is bhava of soul , that is belonging to soul from aspect of Nishchaya but occurs with nimitta of karma; hence in Vyavahara it is said to be belonging to karma. Like Siddha believing worldly jiva also not to be having raga etc. and believing them to be belonging to karma alone only – that is also delusion.

In this way , believing same thing to be from aspect of naya, i.e. from aspect of one  bhava to be ‘this way as well as that way’  is Mithya Buddhi. But from aspect of different bhavas, the description of nayas applies – knowing thus , believing the thing to be correctly is true shraddhan; hence Mithya Drishti believes thing to be Anekant form but does not recognise the true bhava – know thus.

And this jiva adopts Vrita-Sheel-Sanyam etc.  but he believes them to be cause of Moksha in Vyavahara – therefore he considers them as venerable ; hence the way earlier Vyavahara dependent jiva was told as unreal , in the same way know these also to be unreal.

There he believes thus also- appropriate Vrita etc. activities are worthy of undertaking but one should not have mine-ness with them , but where self is karta,  how to avoid mine-ness with them ? If self is not karta then ‘ they are worthy of undertaking’- how such bhava can be had? And if he is Karta then it is own Karma , then karta-karma relationship is automatically there; hence such belief is delusion.

Then how is it? – the external Vrita etc. are dependent upon body etc. other dravya , self is not karta of other dravya; hence one should not have buddhi of being doer in them , nor that of mine-ness.

There the acceptance-renunciation in Vritas etc. form Shubhopayoga is dependent upon self, he is himself karta of them; hence one should believe being doer as well as having mine-ness, but know this shubhopayoga as cause for bandh only and not that of Moksha, since bandh and Moksha are opponents ; hence same bhava be cause of punya bandh as well as that of  Moksha- such belief is delusion.

Hence where both Vrita-NonVrita are without vikalpa,  without having any objective of acceptance-renunciation of other dravya- with such detachment  Veetrag shuddhopayoga, that is only Moksha Marg. In lower state several jivas have mixture of shubhopayoga and Shuddhopayoga; hence in Upachar sense the Vrita etc. form Shubhopayoga is called Moksha Marg.

Upon consideration of thing, Shubhopayoga is harmful only for Moksha since the one which is cause for bandh; that only is harmful for Moksha for sure- have such shraddhan.

In this way believing shuddhopayoga only to be venerable, make efforts for the same and knowing shubhopayoga-ashubhopayoga to be despicable, make efforts for renouncing them .

If shuddhopayoga is not possible, then abandoning ashubhopayoga engage in shubhopayoga only, since compared to shubhopayoga the ashubhopayoga has greater ashuddha-ness. If shuddhopayoga is there then it remains witness to other dravya only, hence there is no objective with other dravya.

If Shubhopayoga is there then activities of external Vrita etc. occur and if Ashubhopayoga is there , then activities of external non-Vrita etc. occur. Since Ashuddhopayoga (Shubha-Ashubha Upayoga) and the activities of other dravya have nimitta-naimittik relationship ; hence firstly with renunciation of Ashubhopayoga , Shubhopayoga occurs and then with renunciation of Shubhopayoga, Shuddhopayoha occurs- such is the tradition of sequence.

There  someone may believe that the Shubhopayoga is cause for Shuddhopayoga but just as with abandoning  of Ashubhopayoga the Shubhopayoga occurs, in the same way with abandoning of Shubhopayoga the Shuddhopayoga is attained- if such cause -effect relationship is not there then cause for shubhopayoga would be established to be Ashubhopayoga.

Or, DravyaLingi has supreme Shubhopayoga , but no shuddhopayoga ; hence in reality he does not have cause-effect means there. Just as patient was having strong illness, later he became mildly ill then that mild illness is not cause for being free of illness.

However- with mild illness if he makes efforts to being illness free, then it would be achieved, but knowing the mild illness as beneficial, if he makes efforts for retaining it then how can he be free of illness? In the same way the Kashayi had strong Kashaya form Ashubhopayoga, later he had mild Kashaya form Shubhpayoga  then that Shubhopayoga is not cause for having  Kashaya free Shuddhopayoga.

However this is true that upon having Shubhopayoga if efforts for shuddhopayoga are carried out  then it would be attained, but if knowing shubhopayoga itself to be beneficial, efforts are made for its retention then how can shuddhopayoga be attained?

In this way the Shubhopayoga of Mithya Drishti is not cause for shuddhopayoga; with Samyak Drishti having Shubhopayoga , he may attain Shuddhopayoga in near future- with such concept, in some places the shubhopayoga is also called as cause for shuddhopayoga- know thus.

This UbhayaBhasi jiva considers self as practitioner of Nishchaya-Vyavahara form MokshaMarg. There he believed soul as Shuddha as described above, that he believed as attainment of  Samyak Darshan; knowing thus he believed as attainment of Samyak Gyan; manifested in such thoughts is the attainment of Samyak Charitra- thus he considers as attainment of Nishchaya jewel trio. But I am directly ashuddha then how he believes/considers/thinks  self as Shuddha ; thus with such irrational thoughts he gets satisfied with delusion.

There other than Arahant etc. he does not believe in other devas etc. and he has learnt the divisions of Jivas etc. in accordance with Jain Shastras ; he believes in them only and not others, that became Samyak darshan; and he engages in practice of Jain Shastras , which became Samyak Gyan and further he practices Vrita etc. form activities, that became Samyak Charitra – thus he believes self to have  attained Vyavahara jewel trio. But Vyavahara is name of Upachar , that Upachar is also applicable when the real Nishchaya jewel trio are cause . The way Nishchaya Jewel trio is attained, if he practices that then Vyavahara can be possible , but he has not recognised the true Nishchaya Jewel trio then how can he practice? In accordance with order he practices seeing others; hence he did not attain Nishchaya-Vyavahara Moksha Marg.

Later Nishchaya-Vyavahara Moksha Marg would be described; with that as means only the Moksha Marg could be attained.

-          Thus this jiva believes-knows NishchayaBhas but believes Vyavahara means also to be beneficial ; hence being promiscuous he does not manifest in Ashubha form; engages in Vrita etc. form Shubhopayoga; hence he attains last Graveyak state and if with excessiveness of NishchayaBhas the activites of Ashubha form occur then he may traverse to KuGati also ; dependent upon manifestations the result is obtained but he remains enjoyer of the world only; without attaining true MokshaMarg , he cannot attain true Siddha state.

In this way the Mithya Drishtis following NishchayaBhas-VyavaharaBhas- both (UbhayaBhas) were described.

Continued…..