16.3. Answer - The
rival group has written- ‘ in one substance by differentiation of objectives
two opposing dharmas are existent. Hence out of those two dharmas, the one
describing each of the dharma separately is one naya. ‘
From this two questions arise-
1. Is the form of substance such that by differentiation of implications two opposing dharmas are
existent?
2. Is accepting implication of each dharma one naya?
These are clarified now-
(1) In any substance no dharma is existent on account of
differentiation of implication, since each dharma is the nature of substance
which is self established. Intentionally giving primacy to one dharma in
implication and treating second dharma as secondary, thus establishing the
substance to promote Vyavahara is different matter. Example- In one
Devadatta the fatherhood and sonhood
etc. nimitta form father, son relations are not contradictory. From aspect of
son, father is there and from aspect of father son is there. There is no contradiction.
In the same way dravya is nitya from aspect of samanya (general) and anitya
from aspect of vishesh ( specific). Hence there is no contradiction.
From this is it clear that sat-asat (present-absent) etc. form dharmas in a dravya are self
established by nature. Only their Vyavahara is carried out with respect to each
other and in this way the naya which deals with the mutual aspect is the
Vyavahara naya. Hence the statement of rival group is against Agam, experience
and logic that ‘ in one
substance by differentiation of implication two opposite dharmas are existent.’
Instead , this only should be decided that in every substance what all dharmas
are existent, they are by nature self established.
(2) The explanation for second question
is that acceptance of a meaning is not called as naya. But in several dharma form
substance, the shruta vikalpa for knowing
the substance by a specific dharma purposefully is called naya.
The rival group have themselves written that ‘no single naya cannot describe
the complete form of substance. Naya just describes substance from aspect of
one dharma.’ Therefore the sentence used by rival group that ‘ out of those two
dharmas, the one accepting every dharma separately is one naya.’ is not right.
Amritchandra- The
highlighting of two mutually opposite capabilities indicating the
vastutva in a vastu (substance) is Anekant. It is clear that any dharma of a
substance has complete absence in another substance. Just as if some jiva has
bhavyatva shakti then he cannot have presence of Abhavyatva shakti. If both
shaktis are accepted in single soul then the vastutva of vastu would be
destroyed.
Those who call the presence of mutually opposite several
dharmas only in a single soul as Anekant – why this statement is unrealistic ,
it gets nicely highlighted by the above example. In a single soul mutually
opposite dharma pair have been accepted together which represent the vastutva
of vastu. Therefore the definition of Anekant form given by rival group is
contrary to Agam.
Clarifications
in respect of Nishchaya and Vyavahara nayas
The rival group has called dravyarthika naya as Nishchaya
naya and Paryayarthika naya as Vyavahara naya. Now this is analysed-
Naya Chakra- Tattva are of two types namely venerable and
despicable. The other dravya as a rule has been called as despicable. The own
dravya also should be known as despicable and venerable by means of naya.
The Mithyatva and Sarag form soul is despicable as a rule.
The people desirous of salvation should know the soul devoid of them as the objective.
Actually the raga bhava generated due to fruition of pudgala
karma is not my nature. I am gyayak bhava like carving in stone. Thus in
Adhyatma, what is the subject of Nishchaya naya, gets known clearly.
Naya Chakra- The one which accepts merely the dravya nature
devoid of ashuddha, Shuddha and Upachar , such Param Bhava Grahi Dravyarthika
naya should be known to people desirous of purity.
From this it is clear
that in Adhyatma Nishchaya naya, all the divisions of dravyarthika naya
described in Agam are not included. From aspect of Moksha Marga only param bhava grahi
dravyarthika naya has been accepted from aspect of gyayak natured soul. Besides these all the divisions-sub
divisions of dravyarthika, paryayarthika and upachar naya have been
incorporated in Vyavahara naya. Only where soul has been called as karta
for ragas etc. agyan bhavas , there that statement has been made from aspect of
soul tainted with agyan bhava only. The soul manifested engrossed in gyan bhava
is only karta of just gyan bhava only. Here gyan bhava implies swabhava.
From this it is clear
that calling Dravyarthika naya as Nishchaya naya and Paryayarthika naya as
Vyavahara naya by rival group is not right. In
Panchastikaya the divisions of naya have been carried out as Dravyarthika and
Paryayarthika from aspect of substance organisation, and here the divisions of Nishchaya and
Vyavahara naya have been made from aspect of Moksha Marga.
Keeping objective in mind only the Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya
also has been incorporated. Here the
meaning of Asadbhoot is clear that jiva does not have colour, jiva is
not the creator of the same even then calling them as jiva is statement of
asadbhoot vyavahara naya. In this way keeping objective in mind everywhere, the
consideration of nayas should be carried out.
Calling the guna dharma of one dravya as own dharma of
another dravya is not the objective of nayas. This is the speciality of naya
gyan that it highlights upacharita dharma in Upacharita form , Vibhava dharma
in vibhava form and swabhava dharma in swabhava form only.
From aspect of dravya karma jiva does not have
contact-bondage dharma, since from aspect of vyavahara the form of
bondage-contact pudgala has with pudgala , same type of bondage-contact
corporeal pudgala cannot have with non-corporeal jiva. Whichever bhavya jiva
would know both of them differently by means of differences of characteristics,
his attention cannot remain without manifesting engrossed in own nature.
Karmas are bonded with jiva- this vikalpa also is raga form
and hence is not pure manifestation of soul. In the same way the jiva does not
have bondage-contact with karma – such vikalpa too is raga form and hence is
not pure manifestation of conscious soul. Both of these are sides of naya.
Knowing the different natures of soul from aspects of naya is a different
matter, but renouncing upacharita dharma, paryaya dharma out of them and treating
diversion of buddhi towards vikalpas of
dravya’s nature also as despicable, glorifying own real nirvikalpa samaysar
natured soul is a different matter.
-
Beyond all vikalpas, manifesting in
own nirvikalpa vigyan ghan natural form, the real samaysar is attained.
The revelation of
Moksha Marga within soul can be carried out by means of Nishchaya naya. Neither
it can be attained by recourse to Praman nor with recourse to Vyavahara. This
is the reason that in Moksha marg this only
has been given prominence. Manifesting engrossed with recourse to own nature is the
prime activity.
‘Samyak Drishti jiva does not differentiate that this naya is
true and this naya is untrue.’- this is right. However this naya deals with the
substance by means of upacharita dharma and this dharma deals with the
substance by means of its own dharma- such differentiation they do undertake.
Otherwise by accepting potter as having the dharma of carrying out deeds of
mud, there remains no difference between potter and mud and the arrangement of
substances gets destroyed.( for one pot deed one has to accept two doers.)
Real
meaning of Samaysar Gatha 143
The rival group
instigates to treat the meanings of two nayas as equivalent which is highly
adventurous.
Samaysar 143- Jiva experiencing the conscious natured soul,
merely knows the statements of both nayas, but he is devoid of the vikalpas of
both nayas hence he does not take sides with the nayas.
In their meaning the rival group writes in the end that ‘
therefore any one naya should not be sided with.’
Thus there are two meanings and which one is right. This is
analysed –
Padmanandi Pancha Vinshati-
The conscious soul is bonded or free- this is the procedure of
contemplation of naya. However the real samaysar is devoid of all sides of
naya.
Here the term ‘sides of naya’ implies just ‘vikalpa’ only.
From aspect of Moksha
Marga, vikalpa alone is despicable. But it is important that vyavahara naya and
subject of vyavahara naya – both of them are totally despicable only , since
the person who has spirit of reverence towards these, he is not even eligible
for listening to the means for Moksha Marga also. However this much discretion
between vikalpa form Nishchaya naya and its subject is there that Nishchaya
naya being itself a vikalpa , is despicable but its subject form soul is
venerable since experience of its nature only is samaysar.
From this it is clear
that rival group has not taken the right implication of Gatha 143.
Clarification
of different subjects
(1)
What is the implication of calling Vyavahara naya as beneficial or venerable?
Acharya has supported Nishchaya based Vyavahara and not plain
Vyavahara. In the Savikalpa state Vandana, mahavrita form vyavahara is surely
practiced but internally he considers the nishchaya form manifestation only as
venerable. This only is the path to proceed further. Just as Veetrag sadhu does
not have intention of punya bandh, in the same way Desh Vrati also does not
have such intent. Their goal is to attain own nature. The fraction in which the
nature is realised, the karma destruction is also in same proportion. The Desh
Vrita of Sarag Sanyam etc. are not means for karma destruction but are means
for punya bandh only.
In the descriptions of divisions the rival group has
mentioned only Sadbhoot Vyavahara but there is Asadbhoot Vyavahara also whose
subject is mere Upachar which they conveniently forget. If they accept that the
term ‘Upachar’ implies only Sadbhoot Vyavahara then we ask them to declare that
with the activities of live body, dharma cannot be carried out in all three
periods of time. They should further declare that manifestation of one dravya
cannot carry out even an iota of another dravya’s activity. They should also
say that all the Vyavahara is not real means of Moksha in all three periods of
time. It merely gives knowledge of Nishchaya, hence it has been given place in
Agam.
The paryaya which is generated at a particular samaya is the
swa-kaal of paryaya form dravya, hence definitely dravya only produces it
himself- if they don’t accept it and say that every paryaya is generated by
another dravya then they would have to accept another dravya as karta of paryayas
of the dravya. Such belief is not only contrary to Agam but also against logic
and inference. Therefore
they should accept that every dravya carries out its own predefined deed at its
predefined time.
The rival group has declared the gyan, darshan and charitra
of jiva as real from aspect of Vyavahara naya which is acceptable to us from
aspect of Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya. In the same way all the Shuddha-ashuddha
paryayas of jiva-ajiva dravyas are real. From aspect of Dravyarthika naya,
these are non-substance since the subject of that naya is samanya (general) and
not paryayas. In the same way from aspect of Paryayarthika naya samanya is
non-substance since the subject of that naya is vishesh (specific) and not
samanya. Here this also should be known that in paryayarthika naya the
asadbhoot vyavahara naya also gets included since that naya also deals with
paryaya as subject.
Gyeya-Gyayak relationship - The gyan knowing the pot appears in gyan form only and the pot appears in pot form
differently from it, since the pot gyan generated at that time is paryaya of
gyan guna of soul and the pot which has been known is the vyanjan paryaya of
mud etc. form pudgala dravya. Gyan is conscious
form and the pot is insentient form. The dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava of
both are quite different. Therefore they do not have real relationship, that is
quite evident. Even then their relationship is told in Vyavahara sense which is
done intentionally.
It is clear that what
all description is carried out between two dravyas and their guna dharmas, it
is subject of asadbhoot Vyavahara naya only and not that of sadbhoot vyavahara
nayaa.
The omniscient has not preached the Vyavahara Samyaktva and
Vyavahara Moksha Marga to accept them as Veetrag Samyaktva and Veetrag Moksha
Marga, otherwise with both being same, the Shubha bhavas accrued with the
nimitta of others shall also be present in Moksha necessarily. But Bhagwan has
told-
Dhavala- with Shubha and ashubha manifestations karma bandh
definitely accrues and with Shuddha manifestations both get definitely
destroyed from roots.
All those with ultimate bodies became Siddha by practicing
Shuddha soul manifestation form Moksha marga, but it is not so that with
another means also they became siddha. Hence it is definite that there is only
one path for Moksha and not another.
Continued…..
