33. Samayasar Gatha 193-200
Now Nirjara enters the
stage.
Firstly the commentator
describes the samyakgyan for the auspicious beginning which knows all the
disguises :
Shloka
133: First of all the great samvar adopts a stance to the limits of its
capability to block the asravas of raga etc. and thus remains steadfast
preventing ernestly all the karmas by their roots for future. Next, for
destroying the karmas which were bonded prior to acquisition of samvar, the
Nirjara spreads like fire. With the revelation of Nirjara, the flame of
knowledge becomes unobscured and does not get obscured again by the bhavas of
raga etc.; remains uncovered for ever.
Explanation
: After
attaining samvar the new karmas are not bonded, then previously bonded karmas
are shedded (Nirjara is attained). The knowledge gets unobscured, and such
knowledge is revealed which does not manifest into raga etc. forms; remains
illuminated for ever.
Now form of Nirjara is
described:
Gatha
193: Whichever sentient and insentient dravyas, which are enjoyed and
reenjoyed by means of the senses, are all nimitta for Nirjara for the
samyakdrishti Jiva.
Commentary: The
enjoyments of detached person are means for Nirjara, while enjoyments of sentient and insentient dravyas
by Mithyadrishti jiva being indulgent in raga etc. bhavas are
nimitta for bondage only.
In this manner the form of
Dravya Nirjara is described.
Explanation: Samyakdrishti
is called Gyani who lacks raga-dwesha-moha. Although such detached person
indulges in enjoyments by means of senses but the Samyakdrshti Jiva knows the
objects of enjoyments as, ‘ these are
other dravyas, I have no relationship with them. With nimitta of fruition of
karmas alone I join-disjoin with them.’
The Samyakdrishti Gyani also
suffers from the fruition of charitra moha, which he cannot tolerate so long as
he is weak. Just as a patient does not enjoy the sickness, but so long as he
cannot tolerate the suffering, he cures the disease by means of medicine etc.
In the same manner the gyani indulges in objects of enjoyments so long as he
cannot live without it. However the samyakdrishti is detached and he does not
have raga-dwesha-moha with the objects of enjoyments and the fruition of
karmas. Therefore his enjoyments and reenjoyments are also nimitta for Nirjara.
The karma comes into fruition and sheds away after giving its result because
after coming into fruition the dravya karma does not continue existence , it
sheds away i.e. undergoes Nirjara.
Samyakdrishti does not have
raga-dwesha-moha with the fruition of that karma. He knows the fruitation of
the karma and undergoes its results. However he undergoes it without having
raga-dwesha-moha , hence he does not accrue asrava of new karmas and without
asrava new karmas are not bonded.
Therefore without future bondage only Nirjara
is attained. That’s why the enjoyments of Samyakdrishti have been called as
nimitta for Nirjara only. The past karmas come into fruition and shed away
which is called Dravya Nirjara.'
Now the form of Bhava
Nirjara is described:
Gatha
194: While enjoying other dravyas by
jiva, definitely there is fructification of happiness or unhappiness. He
experiences those happiness or unhappiness which are in fruition and enjoys or
suffers them. That fruition is experienced and after fruition it sheds away
i.e. it is destroyed. This is so since after shedding of karma, the same karma
does not come into fruition again.
Commentary: While enjoying other dravyas, the jiva enjoying
it, definitely experiences the bhavas of pain or pleasure which come into
fruition.
How are these bhavas? –
which have other dravya as nimitta. Since the experiences are of the form of
sata (happiness) or asata(unhappiness) and they do not transgress these two
bhavas.
At the moment Jiva
experinces those bhavas, at that moment the Mithyadrishti binds future karmas
due to presence of raga etc bhavas as
nimitta, therefore even with the shedding of previously bonded karmas, they are
not called Nirjara since they have been shed along with the future bondage
hence they are called Bandh ( bondage) only. On the other hand the
Samyakdrishti does not have raga etc. bhavas while experiencing happiness or
unhappiness therefore those experiences are not nimitta for future bondage
therefore the previously bonded karmas have shed only; hence being of the form
of shedding they are called Nirjara only, not bondage.
Explanation: The
fruition of karmas definitely results in bhavas of happiness or unhappiness;
while experiencing them the Mithyadrishti Jiva bonds future karmas due to
nimitta of raga etc bhavas along with Nirjara ; hence how can it be called
Nirjara. It can be called bandh(bondage) only. Samyakdrishti does not have raga
etc bhavas with respect to those experiences; hence he did not accrue future
bondage therefore only Nirjara has occurred. This is known as Bhava Nirjara.
Now the next gatha is preceded
by the following kalash:
Shloka
134: In spite of enjoying karmas, if someone does not bond with karmas, then
this wonderful capability is due to knowledge only, or due to detachment.
Although the ignorant are surprised by it, but the Gyani know it rightly.
Now the capability of
knowledge is described:
Gatha 195: Just
as a Vaidya (doctor) does not die in spite of using poison; in the same way the
Gyani enjoys the fruition of pudgala karmas but does not bond with karmas.
Commentary: Just
a Vaidya ( doctor), while consuming a poison which is capable of causing death
for other people, does not die due to his great knowledge i.e. the usage of
mantra (charms), yantra (talisman), medicine etc. which block the killing
capability of that poison.
In the same way, although
the fruition of pudgala karmas is cause for bondage for the ignorants due to
presence of raga etc bhavas, even so while enjoying them the Gyani on account
of the infallible capability of knowledge, due to absence of raga etc bhavas, thus
preventing the capability of bonding the future karmas , does not accrue future bondage.
Explanation: Just
as a Vaidya, on account of his knowledge, renders the poison as harmless and in
spite of consuming it does not die, in the same way the capability of knowledge
of the gyani prevents the power of
fruition of karmas to cause bondage such that in spite of enjoying the fruition
of karmas , future bondage does not result- this is the power of Samyak Gyan.
Now the power of detachment
is described:
Gatha
196: Just as some person with strong
aversion towards liquor does not get intoxicated in spite of consuming it, in
the same way the gyani too does not get bonded with karmas on account of strong
aversion towards enjoyment of dravyas.
Commentary
: Just as a person does not get intoxicated in spite
of drinking liquor on account of his strong aversion towards it. In the same
way Gyani does not have bhavas of raga etc. and he has strong aversion towards
enjoyment of other dravyas, therefore even after indulging in such enjoyments,
he does not bond karmas on account of his detachment.
Explanation: It
is the power of detachment that the detached person does not bond with karmas
in spite of indulging in sensual pleasures.
Same is described in the
next kalash:
Shloka 135: This
Samyakdrishti Gyani , in spite of endulging in sensual objects, does not reap
the results of the enjoyment, on account of the glory of his knowledge and
strength of his detachment. Therefore in spite of being enjoyer of the sensual
objects he is not enjoyer of them.
Explanation: This
is an unthinkable capability of the
knowledge and detachment that the gyani, in spite of enjoying sensual objects, is not called enjoyer of the
sensual objects. Although the result of sensual pleasures is in general worldly
existence, but the detached gyani being devoid of Mithyatva does not reap the
result of worldly transmigration.
Now this meaning is
described by means of an example:
Gatha
197: Someone enjoying sensual objects is not called enjoyer, while someone
not enjoying them is still called enjoyer of them. Just as some person indulges
in all the activites pertaining to a job, but he undertakes them on behalf of
someone else i.e. he himself is not the owner; hence he is not called
responsible for the job.
Commentary:
Just as some person is actively involved in
carrying out some work and he undertakes all aspects of that work. Even then,
if the owner of that work is someone else, i.e. he has undertaken those
activities as employee, then not being the owner he is not the undertaker of
that work. On the other hand another person who is not actively engaged in in
carrying out that work and he is not doing anything, even then being owner of
that work, he is called as responsible for that job.
In the same way,
Samyakdrishti is ejoys the sensual pleasures on account of fruition of
previously bonded karmas, even then due to absence of bhavas of raga etc. and
non ownership of the results of sensual pleasures, he is not enjoyer of them.
On the other hand Mithyadrishti without indulging in sensual pleasures, due to
presence of raga etc. bhavas, due to ownership of the results of sensual
pleasures, he is called enjoyer of them.
Explanation: Suppose
some businessman is rich. He employed another person as employee in his shop.
That employee carries out all the activities of the shop like business,
finanace etc. while the businessman owner stays in his house and does not do
any of those activities.
Consider that who would be
responsible for the loss or profit of that business?- In reality only businessman
is presonsible for the loss or profit of that undertaking ; the employee is
only carrying out the business but not being owner he is not responsible for
its loss or profit. On the other hand the owner without undertaking any of the
activities is responsible for the loss or profit being the owner.
In the same way the
Mithyadrishti is like that rich businessman and the employee is like the
samyakdrishti jiva.
Now seconding the same
meaning describing the bhavas of samyakdrishti the next kalash is recited:
Shloka
136: Samyakdrishti as a rule has
power of knowledge and detachment because he has practiced the real nature of
the substances by means of accepting self and discarding the others, ‘this is
my own nature and this is other dravya’- realizing this he stays within his own
nature. He does not have any attachment towards other dravyas due to absence of
yoga of the nature of raga. This kind of practice is not feasible without power
of knowledge and detachment.
Now the next Gatha states
the same that the samyakdrishti knows the self and others in general as
follows:
Gatha
198: The results of the fruition of karmas
are of different types- so it is told by Jineswara Deva. The bhavas
resulting due to fruition of karmas are not my nature; I am of the nature of
knowing only, knower alone.
Commentary:
The different types of bhavas resulting on account
of fruition of karmas are not my nature. I am of directly experienceable
rocklike knowing nature. In this manner the samyakdrishti knows all the karma
resulted bhavas in general as others and knows himself as of knowing nature
alone.
In this way the
samyakdrishti knows the self and others in general.
Now they describe the
specific knowledge of samyakdrishti of self and others as follows:
Gatha
199: Samyakdrishti knows that raga is pudgala karma and its fruition would
be experienced by me in raga or desire form, but that is not my bhava, since
definitely I am of the nature of knowledge.
Commentary
: In
reality raga is the name of pudgala karma. Due to fruition of pudgala karma,
this directly experienceable raga form bhava has been generated , but this is
not my nature. I am of the nature of knowledge like a stone carving. In this
manner samyakdrishti knows the self and others specifically.
Although in this gatha one
of the types of other bhavas namely raga has been described; in the same manner
the term raga should be substituted by dwesha, moha, anger, pride, deceit,
greed, nokarma, mind, speech, body, ears,eyes, nose, tongue, touch etc. 16
terms to describe the 16 sutras and considered in the same manner.
This way samyakdrishti ,
knowing himself and discarding raga, definitely manifests in form of knowledge
and detachment. It is described by next gatha:
Gatha
200: This way samyakdrishti , knows himself as being of knowing nature and discards the fruition of karmas knowing
them to be result of karmas. How is he ?
– he manifests knowing the true nature of substance.
Commentary: In
this manner samyakdrishti manifests different from all the other bhavas in
general and specifically. Further he knows the nature of his own knowing nature
like a stone carving undoubtedly.
Thus realizing the nature of elements
clearly, spreading his awareness of nature of being substance, accepting his
own nature while rejecting the other bhavas he discards all the bhavas
generated out of fruition of karmas. In this way the samyakdrishti is
associated with knowledge and conduct by rule- this is established.
Explanation: When
he knows the self as of the nature of knowledge and bhavas generated out of
fruition of karmas as painful perturbing then manifesting in the form of
knowledge and detachment with other bhavas occurs definitely –this can be
observed with experience and this is the characteristics of samyakdrishti.
Now it is told that if he
does not have such characteristics then he would be a ragi attached to other
dravyas with longings and still be proud
of being samyakdrishti then how is he ? – He is being proud of being
samyakdrishti incorrectly- this is declared in the next kalash:
Shloka
137: The one who is conjoined with other dravyas by bhavas of
raga-dwesha-moha and believes himself to be samyakdrishti, therefore do not
accrue karma bondage because it is told in the scripture that samyakdrishti
does not accrue bondage – thus believing who is happy and filled with pride,
such Jiva, even though they may be practicing Mahavritas etc. properly and
practicing samiti i.e. practices of speech, movements, food etc. carefully with
highest care, even then they are wretched Mithyadrishti only. Since they are
devoid of the knowledge of soul and non soul, hence they are without samyaktva
also, i.e. they are not samyakdrishti.
Explanation: Those
who believe themselves to be samyakdrishti but if they have attachment towards
other dravyas then where is Samyaktva? In spite of following Vrita-samiti if
they do not have knowledge of self and others then they are sinners only. Also
believing themselves to be free of bondage, indulging unrestraintfully how can
they be Samyakdrishti? Since the bondage due to raga of Charitra moha is
accrued till Yathakhyatcharitra stage ( 11th gunasthana) hence
Samyakdrishti keeps practicing self criticism, self condemnation etc till the ragas are present.
Just by acquiring knowledge
alone one does not get rid of bondage; by immersing in knowledge after acquiring it with shuddhopayoga form conduct is the cause
for destroying bondage. Hence in spite of presence of raga, believing to be
free of bondage and indulging without restraints is sign of Mithyadrishti
nature.
Here someone enquires that
Vrita-Samiti etc. are shubha karmas hence why do you call the practitioners
sinners ?
Reply: In Siddhanta,
Mithyatva only is declared as sin. So long as Mithyatva is present, till such
time, the shubha or ashubha all activities are declared as sinful in adhyatma
in reality. However from the aspect of vyavahara naya, with the intent of
drawing the vyavahara people aways from ashubha activities and directing them
towards shubha activities, they are sometimes declared as punya in certain
aspect; in this way there is no contradiction in Syadvad.
Further someone enquires
that so long as raga is present with other dravya, the jiva is called
Mithyadrishti. Now we don’t understand that Avirat Samyakdrishti also has raga
etc. bhavas on account of fruition of charitra moha. Then how he continues to
have samyaktva?
Reply for above: Here the
statement has been made in the context
of predominance of raga of anantanubandhi along with Mithyatva. So long as
without having knowledge-belief of self and others, there is oneness,
attachment-non attachment in the bhavas
generated out of other dravya and their nimitta ; till then it should be
understood that he does not have differentiating knowledge.
If some Jiva after
undertaking oath of monkhood , carries out vrita-samiti ; but believes that
attainment of Moksha is possible by
protecting other jivas, taking care in activities of body, having charitable
bhavas etc.and such bhavas pertaining to
other dravyas. Further he believes in occurrence of bondage of self due to killing of other jivas, not taking care in
activities of body, having non charitable bhavas etc. and such bhavas
pertaining to activites of other dravyas. Then it should be understood that he
has not yet attained differentiating knowledge since bondage and Moksha occurs
on account of bhavas of self and other dravyas are just nimitta, but he
has believed otherwise.
In this way by believing in
occurrence of good or bad due to influence of other dravyas , he indulges in
raga-dwesha with them. Till then he is not samayakdrishti.
Further, so long as
samyakdrishti is influenced by the ragas pertaining to charitra moha, till then
he indulges in the shubha-ashubha activities pertaining to other dravyas.
However, he realizes that these activities are occurring under strong influence
of karmas and considering them like a disease he wishes to get rid of them. Although
under their influence when he is not able to tolerate their effect, he indulges
in activities like a treatment. Still he does not have raga with them since he
believes them to be a disease so how can he have raga with them? He makes
effort to get rid of them only which he believes to be achieveable by manifesting in knowledge form.
In this way, the description
above has been given from the aspect of real view i.e. adhyatma drishti.
Here the fruition of karmas
realted to charitra moha without Mithyatva are not called raga since
samyakdrishti definitely possesses the power of knowledge and
detachment. Hence raga accompanied with Mithyatva alone is called raga.
Samyakdrishti does not possess that since if he has raga with Mithyatva then he
cannot remain to be a samyakdrishti. This is well known to samyakdrishti.
Mithyadrishtis, first of all
do not have understanding of adhyatma shastras and even if it is there, it has
been misunderstood. Either he discards Vyavahara totally and gets corrupted ,
or without understanding Nishchaya he believes that Vyavahara can lead to
Moksha. He is foolish about the subject of reality, hence by understanding
reality by means of logic of true syadvad alone samyaktva can be attained.
No comments:
Post a Comment