43. Samayasar Gatha 300-307

Now it is told that consciousness has its own bhava of the conscious form while all other bhavas are others. Hence the conscious bhava is acceptable while other bhavas are rejectable. – This is described in next gatha, which is announced by means of next kalash:

Shloka 184: Consciosuness has only the bhava of conscious nature and all other bhavas are clearly others hence only the conscious bhavas are acceptable while all other bhavas are discardable.

Same message is given in next gatha:

Gatha 300: Gyani, knowing his own nature and knowing all others’ bhavas ‘these are mine’- how can he make such statement? -  the Gyani pandit would never say so. How is the Gyani? – Knowing his pure soul he is stationary within it.

Commentary: The person who has become gyani by means of the intelligence to separate the soul and others by means of their own definite characteistics , that person definitely knows the conscious form own bhava to be his own while all other bhavas are others. – knowing this how can he say that ‘ these bhavas are mine’ for the bhavas of others. – Gyani cannot say so since definitely between self and others the relationship of oneness is impossible. Therefore only conscious bhava is acceptable while all other bhavas are discardable- this is the principle. 

Explanation: In the world it is the rule that the logical person does not call others’ property to be his own. In the same way the samyakgyani does not accept all other dravyas as his own and accepts his own bhavas only as his own.

Same is described by next kalash:

Shloka 185: Those whose conduct of consciousness is bright and most superior- such people desirous of Moksha should follow this principle, “ I am always pure consciousness form bright flame only, and all these several kind of bhavas of different nature are not myself, since they all are other dravyas for me.”

Explanation:  It is simple.

Now is it told that the one who accepts the other dravya is a criminal, gets bonded and the one who is satisfied with own dravya, is without guilt and is not bonded. – this is described by the next kalash:

Shloka 186: The one who accepts other dravyas is guilty and gets bonded. The one who is satisfied with his own dravya in the form of samvar, he does not accept other dravyas and is guilt free, does not get bonded.

This is described in next gatha by means of an example:

Gatha 301: The person who indulges in criminal acts e.g. theft etc., he moves around with a doubt that ‘he is thief’ – knowing this someone may arrest me ; in this manner with this concern he moves around in the world.

Gatha 302: However the person who has not indulged in any criminal act, he moves in the world without concern. He is never worried about getting arrested.

Gatha 303: In the same way if I am guilty then I have concern that ‘ I will be bonded’  such is the concern of the soul; however if I am guiltfree then I am without concern  i.e. ‘I will not be bonded’. In this manner the gyani contemplates.

Commentary: Just as in this world, the person who has commited “ theft of other’s dravya” – criminal act of such nature, he only is worried about getting arrested but the one who has not done such a crime has no concern at all. In the same way, the soul who being impure has indulged in “taking of other’s dravya” –crimimnal act of such nature, he only is worried about getting bonded but the soul who being pure has not commited such an act, has no concern – such is the rule. Therefore always one should discard all bhavas of other’s dravya and be one with pure soul- in doing so only  he  is guilt free.

Explanation: Just as someone who commits a crime such as theft etc. only is concerned about being arrested. Why should a non criminal have such concern? In the same way the soul which indulges in the crime of accepting other’s dravya then he has concern of being bonded. If he experiences himself to be pure and does not accept other’s dravya then why should he have concern of being bonded? Therefore discarding other’s dravya, being one with pure soul only causes being guilt free.

Now it is enquired that what is that crime? In reply the nature of crime is described:

Gatha 304: Sansiddhi, Radh, Siddha, Sadhit, Aradhit – all these words imply the same meaning. Hence the consciousness form soul, who is devoid of Radh (guilt free), that soul is Aparadh (guilty). 

Gatha 305: But the soul who is not Aparadh (guilty) is Niraparadh (guilt free) ; he is unconcerned, without fear. Knowing self to be “ I am (soul)” – knowing thus he always  manifests in worshipful form.

Commentary: Discarding other dravyas, the effort for attaining purity of soul is called Radh (guilt free). The consciousness form soul which has moved away from making efforts for purity of soul, that soul is called Aparadh (guilty). Or, the same is described in another way – the bhava which is devoid of Radh (guilt free), that bhava  is called Aparadh (guilty). Hence the soul which is accompanied with Aparadh , that soul is Saparadh (guilty). Such a soul with the  acceptance of other dravya, with the lack of effort for attaining purity of soul, with the concern for bondage present, due to his own impurity he is non worshipful i.e. does not worship  (the soul).

The soul which is devoid of guilt is Niraparadh, he has discarded the acceptance of all the other dravyas and is making efforts for attaining purity of soul, thus without concern for being bonded, he manifests with a surety that ‘I am pure soul only with the characteristics of Upayoga’. In this manner that soul always manifests worshipful of efforts for attaining pure soul, therefore he is worshipful only.

Explanation: Sansiddhi, Radh, Siddha, Sadhit, Aradhit – The meaning of these words is the same. Here the meaning of word Radh is  efforts for  attainment of pure soul hence those who do not have it, that soul is Saparadh (guilty)and those who have it are Niraparadh (gulit free). Those who are guilty are filled with doubt hence they are non worshipful. Those who are guilt free, when they are immersed in their Upayoga without having doubts, then they do not have concern for bondage and they are worshipful of true worship of unity of samyakdarshan-gyan-charitra.

Same is described by the kalash next:

Shloka 187: The soul which is guilty continuously bonds with infinite  pudgala permanu form karmas and the one which is not guilty never touches the bondage. The soul which is guilty, he experiences the soul impurely as a rule and is guilty only. The non guilty soul experiences the pure soul in the right way. 

  

Further Commentary: Now the follower of Vyavahara naya argues that why should one make effort to experience the pure soul i.e. why undergo hardship? The soul becomes non guility by the penances of Pratikraman etc. The non Pratikraman etc. of guilty do not cleanse his guilt, hence they are declared as pot of poison. Whereas the Pratikraman etc. of non guilty are capable of cleansing the guilt hence they are declared as pot of nectar.

The same is told in AcharSutra gathas which describe the Vyavahara :

Quote 1: Apratikraman(non repentence), Apratisaran(non persuit of good), Aparihar(non repudiation), Adharana(non retention), Anivratti(not discarding), Aninda(non criticism), Agarha(non confession) and Ashuddhi(non purification)- not carrying out penance for the mistakes commited by these eight ways is pot of poison.

Quote 2: And Pratikraman(repentance), Pratisaran(persuit of good), Parihar(repudiation),Dharana(retention), Nivratti(discarding), Ninda(criticism), Garha(confession) and Shuddhi(purification) – carrying out penance for the mistakes commited by these eight ways is pot of nectar.

In this way the follower of Vyavahara naya has argued. In reply, Acharya answers stating predominantly from aspect of Nishchaya naya:

Gatha 306: Pratikraman, Pratisaran, Parihar, Dharana, Nivratti, Ninda, Garha and Shuddhi- these eight are pots of poison since they carry the attitude of doership  and that doership is cause for bondage.

Gatha 307: And Apratikraman, Apratisaran, Aparihar, Adharana, Anivratti, Aninda, Agarha and Ashuddhi- these eight are pots of nectar since there the doership is negated i.e. not doing  anything; hence they are cause for non bondage.

Commentary: First of all the normal Apratikraman  etc. of the ignorant people are of the nature of lacking the realization of pure soul, hence being of the criminal kind by themselves , they are pots of poison only. Hence there is no purpose served in thinking about them. – they need to be discarded first. Further the dravya pratikraman etc. as described in Vyavahara Achar Sutra are pots of nectar also due to their capability of negating the faulty poison of guilt sequentially. Even so beyond both Pratikraman, Apratikraman etc., those who do not notice a third state in the form of Apratikraman etc , for them the Vyvahara or dravya Pratikraman is also pot of poison only , being incapable of carrying out the intended task of eliminating the faults since it causes bondage only.

Here the third state of Apratikraman etc. is by itself the realization form of pure soul i.e. it totally destroys  all the guilt form poison of the nature of mistakes. Therefore it is really pot of nectar only. Such a state generated in this manner reveres the  pot of nectar of vyavahara dravya pratikraman also. By such third state only the consciousness form soul is made guilt free.  Without such third state the dravya pratikraman etc. also are offenses only. Hence it establishes that by the third state of apratikraman etc. only the non offensiveness is attained. By acquiring that third state  only the dravya pratikraman etc. become meaningful. Hence do not believe that shastras of Nishchaya naya cause the dravya pratikraman etc. to be discarded.

Then what do they say? – By dravya pratikraman etc. alone the soul does not get rid of bondage. In addition to it, some difficult activities are required which are beyond pratikraman and apratikraman, of the form of apratikraman etc., with the characteristics of realization of  pure soul. They will be described in this Shastra later. The gatha is as follows:

Quote 3: The one who keeps himself away from the previously carried out shubha and ashubha karmas of different forms, that soul is Pratikraman.

The form  of Nishchaya Pratikraman etc. will be described later in gatha 383-386, there its meaning is also explained in detail.

Explanation: The follower of vyavahara naya, in the prelude to the gatha had told that ‘ by pratikraman etc. the soul is purified of the guilts, then why should one make effort for realization of pure soul and take trouble? After purification, it is automatically acquired hence there is no need to undergo hardship to acquire it.’ 

  Acharya explains to him that dravya pratikraman etc. only eliminate the defects but the form of pure soul is pratikraman free. Without taking recourse to it, the dravya pratikraman etc. are also of the form of defects. They are incapable to eliminating the defects since vyavahara naya is practiced in Moksha marg along with Nishchaya naya but Vyavahara alone is not the Moksha marga, it is path to bondage only. Therefore it is told that Apratikraman of ignorant are anyway pots of poison hence what is there to talk about them. Even the pratikraman described as part of Vyavahara charitra are also pots of poison from aspect of Nishchaya naya. Since soul is free of pratikraman etc. of the form of pure apratikraman etc. – so it should be known.

Same is described by the kalash next:

Shloka 188: Here the negligent people who are enjoying carelessly are criticized who are manifesting negligently taking recourse to Nishchaya naya alone. By criticism they are instigated to make effort. Thus those who are manifesting in carefree manner, their carelessness has been eliminated. Those who are taking recourse to vyavahara and with the support of other dravyas and dravya pratikraman etc. they are satisfied, their support has also been removed. They are asked to immerse their consciousness into the soul only and engage it there. Previously with the support of Vyavahara, the consciousness was traversing into several activities. Now it is made to concentrate in the pure soul itself. Till such time that the totally pure dense knowledge   form soul is not realized the consciousness should stay within its own self, thus the consciousness has been stabilized-  so  it should be known.

Now it is told that Pratikraman etc. have been declared pot of poison from Nishchaya naya aspect and Apratikraman has been called pot of nectar , but if someone misunderstands it and giving up pratikraman etc. becomes negligent then to enlighten him the next kalash is stated:

Shloka 189: O brother! Where Pratikraman itself has been called pot of poison, there how can Apratikraman be nectar ? Even then why the jiva is tending to fall downwards being negligent? Why does he not make effort to  climb upwards  carefully?

Explanation: Acharya says that there is no point in talking about the Apratikraman etc. of the ignorance state. Here the Nishchaya naya is predominant therefore those who were engaged in shubha activites of dravya pratikraman etc. , their bias has been removed by describing those activities as pot of poison since they also cause bondage of karmas. Thus the third state beyond Pratikraman- Apratikraman which is pure soul form, which is devoid of Pratikraman etc. and where Apratikraman is described as pot of nectar, preachment is made to climb in that direction.

Here Pratikraman is described as pot of poison – hearing this those who tend to become negligent, are told that why the Jiva tends to fall downwards ? Why does he not climb upwards in third state? Where Pratikraman is described as pot of poison, there its negation in the form of pot of nectar would be Apratikraman etc, these should not be misconstrued as Apratikraman of ignorants and they should be understood to be pure soul form third state.

The same is described in next kalash: 

Shloka 190: The laziness generated out of weight of passions is called negligence. How can the bhava of laziness filled with negligence be described as shuddha bhava? Therefore the Muni who remains stationary in the own nature of the soul, only can attain total purity and shortly he gets rid of the karma bondage.

Explanation: Negligence is caused due to weight of passions – such negligent cannot attain purity of  bhava. The Muni who makes effort to manifest in his own nature, he attains Moksha by getting purified.

Now the sequence of attaining liberation is described and Moksha Adhikar is completed:

Shloka 191:  The person who after discarding all the impurity causing other dravyas definitely , becomes stationary and attached in his own dravya ; that person gets free of all guilts as a rule and destroys all the bondage. With the bright illumination of his own nature attained  by the purification due to the nectar of consciousness flowing within self , he gets liberated from karmas.

Explanation: The person who first of all discards all other dravyas and gets absorbed within his own nature of the soul, he destroys all the future bondage by becoming free of the guilt of ragas etc. Then attaining Keval gyan which is ever illuminated , getting purified, destroying all karmas he attains Moksha. This is the sequence of attaining Moksha.

In this way the Moksha Adhikar is concluded. In its end the glory of  auspicious form knowledge is  recited by the following kalash:

Shloka 192: Now this knowledge attaining totality appears in glorious form.

What makes it appear? – By breaking the shackles of karma bondage the incomparable, indestructible Moksha has appeared.

How does it appear? – Whose natural state of permanently  illuminated form is revealed.

And how does it appear? – Singularly pure i.e. there is not even iota of blemish due to karmas. It has appeared totally pure.

And how does it appear? – Which is weighed with the own knowledge form bliss making it peaceful and vast. There is no end of it and there is no perturbation in it.

What does it do after appearing?-  Totally immobile , i.e. nothing can shake it or move it – which is immersed in own glory.

Explanation: The knowledge which has appeared ; that is with the destruction of karmas and in the form of Moksha, in abosolute natural pure state form, which makes the objects of knowledge negligible,  which has no end- such illuminated form, which has no perturbation – such glorious form reveals and immerses within own glory.

In this way, on the stage the disguise of Moksha Tatva had appeared. When the knowledge was revealed then the disguise of Moksha quit the stage.

This completes Moksha Adhikar with  307 gathas and 192 shlokas.

Chapter 8 : Moksha Adhikar

42. Samayasar Gatha 288-299

Now the commentator says that the Moksha Tatva enters the stage.

Just as on a dance stage a masquerade enters; in the same way in the dance of Tatvas (elements) the disguise of Moksha Tatva enters.

The knowledge is knower of all the disguises. Hence in the beginning of the chapter the Samyakgyan is worshiped with the following kalash:

Shloka 180: After the description of Bandh substance, using the intelligence form sickle to crush,  the bondage and soul are separated and the total knowledge is gloriously revealed with the attainment of Moksha.    

How is that person? – who is permanently stationary with the real experience of the own nature.

How is that knowledge? – With fruition of own natural bliss which is filled with enjoyment , which is glorious. Which has completed all the required tasks which does not need to know any more.

Explanation: The knowledge reveals itself gloriously with the separation of soul and bondage, enabling the soul to attain Moksha. Here in the description  defining  it as the greatest itself is the auspicious beginning.

Now, how the Moksha is attained? – that is told. First of all it is told that those who do not try to destroy the bondage , but are satisfied with the knowledge of bandh alone, do not attain Moksha.

Gatha 288: Oh look! Just as some person, after spending considerable period in bondage, he knows the weak-strong nature of the bondage, its duration i.e. for so long he has been under bondage.

Gatha 289: Still if he does not break the shackles then he remains under bondage only; does not get liberated. In this manner in spite of spending a very long period under bondage, that person does not attain Moksha by vanquishing bondage.

Gatha 290: In the same way, some person knowing the quantity, nature, duration and intensity of karma bondage – knowing all these four divisions, he does not get separated from karmas. If he himself gets purified by discarding ragas etc then he can get liberated.

Commentary: The separation of soul with bondage itself is Moksha. Somebody says that knowing the form of bondage itself is Moksha i.e. knowledge of the nature of bondage itself is Moksha but that is untrue. Here the following inference is used: ‘For a person under bondage of karmas, the knowledge of nature of bondage alone is not cause for Moksha since that knowledge alone cannot separate the karmas. Just as a person under shackles, the knowledge of the shakcles alone is not sufficient for shckales to be broken; in the same way knowledge of nature of karma bondage alone does not enable to get rid of the karma bondage.’

With this statement,the belief of  the people belonging to other faith is refuted who believe that  the knowledge of the details of  the nature of karma bondage   alone is sufficient for attaining Moksha and they are satisfied with knowledge alone.

Explanation: Certain  people belonging to other faith believe that knowledge of bandh gives rise to Moksha. The above statement  refutes it since knowledge alone does not remove the bondage. Bondage is destroyed by destroying it.

Now it is told that thinking of bandh alone does not cause destruction of bandh:

Gatha 291: Just  as some person under bondage, mere thinking of those bonds, contemplating upon them, does not get rid of them; in the same way the jiva also does not attain moksha by contemplating upon the karma bondage.

Commentary: Some other people believe that contemplating upon the karma bondage continuously alone is cause for Moksha but such belief is also untrue. Here also the inference can be drawn as follows: ‘ The person under karma bondage is continuously thinking about that bondage and when would he get rid of it ? In this manner he is keeping his mind engaged continuously, even then that worry is not cause for Moksha in the form of destruction of bondage since the continuity of worry is not cause for getting rid of bondage. Just as some person under shackles keep contemplating upon the shackles without making an effort to get rid of  them, even then he does not get free from those shackles; in the same way continuous contemplation of karma bondage does not provide Moksha.’

With the above statement, those people,  whose wisdom has been blinded by the continuous contemplation of karma bondage in the form of pure  Dharma dhyan, are advised.

Explanation: If somebody keeps contemplating about karma-bandh continuously and keeps thinking of the same , even then he does not attain Moksha. This is so because those thoughts are of the nature of shubha manifestations of Dharma Dhyan. Hence those who believe that by shubha manifestations one could attain Moksha, are preached that one does not get Moksha by shubha manifestations.

Now it is enquired that if knowledge of the form of bondage, contemplation upon them is not cause of Moksha then what is the cause for Moksha? In answer to the path to Moksha is described:

Gatha 292: Just as some person tied with bonds attains freedon by breaking those bonds, in the same way by breaking the karma bondage, the jiva attains Moksha.

Commentary: Breaching the karma bondage is cause for Moksha, since the breaching alone is the reason there. Just as for some person under shackles, cutting those shackles is cause for freedom. By means of this statement, two types of people described above- one knowing the form of bondage and second thinking of the nature of bondage – both are addressed to separate the soul with the bondage i.e. advised to make effort with this sermon.

Now the question is raised that breaking of karma bondage has been called reason for Moksha, whether this much alone is sufficient reason for Moksha? – such querry is answered:

Gatha 293: Those people who, knowing the nature of bondage and nature of soul, knowing then both, get detached from bondage; those people destroy the karmas.

Commentary: That person who, knowing the definite nature of incorruptible consciousness form soul and the nature of bondage which causes corruption of the soul, knowing both quite clearly, get detached from that bondage, that person attains Moksha from all karmas.

By this statement, the rule  for  attainment of Moksha is described as separation of soul from bandh i.e. separating them both individually is the rule for attainment of Moksha. – this is the rule.

Now it is further enquired that how  does one separate  soul and bandh into two parts i.e. independently ? this querry is answered as follows:  

Gatha 294: The Jiva and bondage are separated using the intelligence form chisel which knows their individual definite characteristics by penetrating them, by which they get individually separated.

Commentary: The karta for separating the soul and bandh into two parts individually is soul itself. If the tool for this work is considered then from Nishchaya naya point of view, there cannot be any other tool than soul itself; hence knowledge  form  intelligence alone is the tool to separate the two. Using this pragya (intelliegence)  the soul and bandh can be split into two i.e. they can be separated for sure. In this way pragya alone can be used to separate the soul from bandh.

Here question is asked that soul and bandh are so close that they are alike due to the nature of knower-knowable relationship. The soul is the knower and bandh is knowable. Hence both are experienced alike together. In the absence of differentiating knowledge , in vyavahara they are observed   functioning like the knower. Then how can they be separated by intelligence?

Acharya clarifies saying that we know this. In the fine joint between soul and bondage of their definite characteristics, using the chisel of intelligence with extreme care, the two get separated.

There definitely the own characteristics of soul different from all other dravyas, which is not found elsewhere is consciousness. This consciousness form own characteristics, manifests immersing in which all paryayas and withdraws after accepting which all paryayas, conglomeration of all those simultaneously and sequentially manifesting paryayas  is the soul- this should be known.

This consciousness form characteistics is prevalent in all the gunas(qualities) and paryayas(manifestations); therefore the conglomeration of all the gunas and paryayas is the soul – this is the objective of this characteristics since the soul is of the form of this characteristics itself. Further consciousness has concomitant(inseparable) relationship with all the simultaneously as well as  sequentially manifesting infinite paryayas, hence consciousness alone is soul – this can be definitely known. This is the second statement.

Further the characteristics of bondage are ragas etc. totally different from soul since ragas etc. are not seen to be having oneness with the soul dravya. They are always seen and experienced to be different from the consciousness form soul. Whatever way  the consciousness is observed immersed in all its own paryayas,   the same is not seen with ragas etc. Even without ragas etc. it is feasible to realise the self i.e. experience the consciousness.

Whatever the togetherness of ragas etc. is observed along with consciousness, that is due to the nearness i.e. closeness of  knower-knowable relationship; not because of being the same dravya.  The ragas etc. are knowables which are known in the knowledge and they reveal the consciousness i.e. the knowing nature of the soul; not the nature of ragas etc.  Just as the illumination of pot etc. by the lamp reveals the nature of being lamp  only, not the nature of being pot etc.; same way it should be known here.

In spite of this, soul and bondage being extremely close together, it is not possible to separate the two since the difference is not seen. The agyani has eternal delusion between the two – this delusion can be split by means of chisel of intelligence only.  

Explanation: The soul and bandh should be recognized by their different characteristics ; using the chisel of intelligence they should be split separately. The soul is non corporeal and bandh is a mass of very small pudgala parmanus(atoms)  , hence they are not revealed in the knowledge of Chhadmastha (1-12^th gunasthana) separately and are observed as a single mass; therefore the ignorance is eternal. From the sermon of shri Guru, experiencing their characteristics separately one should recognize them differently that the consciousness is the nature of soul while ragas etc. are indicative of bandh. They are being observed as one due to the extreme closeness of the knower-knowable relationship.

Here the sharp intelligence is the chisel to separate them differently which should be placed very carefully at their fine joint and should be struck dispassionately, by which two get separated and are visible separately. Then the soul should be identified with the knowing bhava while bandh should be separated into the ignorant bhavas. In this way the two are separated.

The same is described by the kalash next:

Shloka 181: For separating soul from the bondage, this intelligence is the only sharp chisel. Therefore wise person, carefully dispassionately insert it into the fine joint between soul and karmas with some effort, so that with a sharp strike, the two get immediately separated in totality.

That intelligence form chisel identifies the soul by its clear stationary internal brightness, immersed within its conscious form and bandh as ignorance form as a rule; falls in between the two.

Explanation: Here soul and bondage, both need to be separated- this is the job, the doer is soul but what is the tool by which the doer can accompalish it? Hence tool should also exist. If considered from the aspect of Nishchaya naya, the tool cannot be different from the doer. Hence not different from the soul, this intelligence only is the tool to accompalish the job.

In the soul the gyanavarana etc. karmas are bonded from eternal times. Their work in the form of bhava karma are ragas etc. and in the form of nokarmas  are body etc. Hence using intelligence, separating the soul from the body etc(nokarmas), gyanavarana etc.(dravya karmas) and ragas etc.(bhava karmas)  by experiencing the conscious form self alone, remaining immersed in the knowledge alone is  separating the soul with bondage. By this means alone, all the karmas are destroyed and siddhahood is attained- this should be known.

Now it is enquired that by separating soul from bondage, what next needs to be done. This is answered as follows:

Gatha 295: Jiva and bondage, the two are separated by means of their own definite characteristics, in the same way the bondage should be separated and kept aside and pure soul should be realised. 

Commentary: First of all, the soul and bondage should be identified by the knowledge of their own definite characteristics and then separated in all ways. Further all the bondage having characteristics of ragas etc. should be discarded and the pure soul having characteristcs of upayoga (consciousness) alone should be accepted- this alone is the definite objective  of separation of soul with bondage i.e. discarding the bondage, accept the pure soul.

Explanation: The disciple had enquired that what should be done after separating the soul from bondage? The answer is that bandh has to be discarded and the pure soul has to be accepted.

Now the disciple enquires that soul and bandh were separated by the intelligence, but by which means the soul should be accepted?  That is answered innext gatha:

Gatha 296: The disciple enquires that which is the means to accept the pure  soul?- In reply Acharya says that pure soul should be accepted with the intelligence itself. Just as intelligence was used to separate it, in the same way, intelligence should be used to accept it.

Commentary: Here the disciple has asked that which is the means by which soul should be accepted? The Guru replies that pure soul should be accepted by intelligence only. Just as intelligence was the tool to separate the pure soul, in the same way to accept the pure soul, intelligence alone is the tool. There is no different tool. Hence just as intelligence was used to separate it , in the same way, same intelligence should be used to accept the soul.

Explanation: For separating and accepting there are no different tools. Hence they were separated by intelligence, the same intelligence should be used to accept the soul.

Further the disciple enquires that how should the soul be accepted by means of intelligence ? That is answered next:

Gatha 297: That consciousness form soul is definitely myself- this should be accepted by the intelligence and all the remaining bhavas are different from myself. In this manner the soul should be accepted. 

  

Commentary: Definitely separated by means of intelligence making use of own characteristics “consciousness nature self is myself”. Remaining bhavas which are of the nature of vyavahara which are identified by their characterstics, are different from the conscious nature of the soul, hence they are totally different from myself.Therefore “ myself, from myself, for myself, out of myself, in me, accept myself, visible accept myself, since consciousness alone is the activity of soul, with that only I know, knowingly I know, from knowing I know, for knowing I know, out of knowing I know, in knowing I know, the one knowing only I know. Otherwise I do not know, not knowing I know, from not knowing I know, for not knowing I know, out of not knowing I know, in not knowing I know, the one not knowing only I know.”

So how am I? –“ I am  Pure consciousness nature bhava”

Explanation: Just as using intelligence soul was separated from bandh, in the same way this consciousness nature soul is myself, all the remaining bhavas are different from myself; so it should be accepted. Here the indifferent predicates can be used as follows: ‘ I, mine, by me, for me, out of me and within me , I accept myself’.

What is this accepting? – This is the knowing nature act of the consciousness. 

Using that I know, I experience ; after applying these later these predicates are also negated that ‘ I am pure consciousness form bhava, I am undivided, from the aspect of dravya drishti the divisions of doer-act etc. predicates is also not within myself ’. In the same way, for  ‘I do not know’ etc the same should be applied. Thus using intelligence soul should be accepted.

Same is described by the kalash as follows:

Shloka 182: Wise people say that separating all others by means of their own dinstinguished characteristics; I am identifiable with the consciousness characteristics and indivisible glorious pure conscious self only. In which the  six predicates namely karta, karm, karan, sampradan, apadan, adhikaran ; existence-non existence, permanence- transitoriness, oneness- being many, etc dharmas, knowledge, vision etc. qualities, are divisive, so let them be but devoid of all vibhava bhavas pure, one and Vibhu i.e. permeated within all the qualities and paryayas(modes) – such conscious bhava does not have any divisions.

Explanation: Those which were identified and separated by means of their own characteristics such different substances, the different predicates, different qualities, different dharmas etc are different from pure conscious bhava, so let them be. Still pure conscious bhava does not have any divisions; the indivisible soul  should be so realized and experienced by means of shuddha naya.

Now it is told that although here the pure conscious nature alone has been described and accepted, but the general consciousness is of the nature of darshan-gyanness in general, hence one should experience the darshan-gyan form soul in the following manner:

Gatha 298: One should comprehend by means of intelligence as follows, ‘ the drishta i.e. the observer, is definitely myself and remaining bhavas are different from me’ ; in this way it should be known.

Gatha 299: Using intelligence only one should comprehend ‘ the gyata i.e. the knower is definitely myself and remaining bhavas are different from me’; in this way it should be known.

Commentary: Since in the consciousness there is no division by means of  darshan and gyan, hence like consciousness seeing-ness, knowing-ness, both are own characteristics of the soul only.

Hence one should experience that  ‘ I comprehend the seeing natured soul. Definitely whatever I comprehend; I see only, by seeing only I see, by means of seeing only I see, for seeing only I see, out of seeing only I see, in seeing only I see, the one seeing only I see, OR  I do not see, not seeing only I see, by means of not seeing only I see, for not seeing only I see, out of not seeing only I see, in not seeing only I see, The one not seeing only I see.

Then how am I ? – Totally pure only darshan(seeing )bhava is myself.   

In this manner on the term darshan, the six predicates of karta, karma, karan, sampradan, apadan, adhikaran should be applied and negated. Thus only darshan bhava natured soul should be experienced.

In the same way it should be applied to knowledge that ‘I comprehend the knowing natured soul. Definitely whatever I comprehend; I know only, by knowing only I know, by means of knowing only I know, for knowing only I know, out of knowing only I know, in knowing only I know, the one knowing only I know, OR I do not know, not knowing only I know, by means of not knowing only I know, for not knowing only I know, out of not knowing only I know, in not knowing only I know, The one not knowing only I know.’

Then how am I? – Totally pure only knowing bhava is myself.

In this manner on the term knowledge the six predicates should be applied, later the same should be negated for indivisible form, thus only knowing bhava natured soul should be experienced.

Explanation: Firstly in Gatha 297, the general form of consciousness was introduced for experiencing. There it was told that soul should be comprehended using the intelligence; experiencing the consciousness alone is comprehension; and not comprehending any other object. Here the experience ( karm), the one experiencing (karta), by which it is experienced (karan), etc. are divisions of predicates. Later in the indivisible form of description the predicates were negated and soul was described as pure consciousness alone. Now here it is told that the general form of consciousness does not transgress the specific forms of darshan and gyan. Hence the one seeing and knowing are made to be experienced. Here also the six predicates are described for experiencing and then they are negated for experiencing the indivisible form of seeing and knowing soul.

Commentary: Here the disciple enquires that how consciousness does not transgress the divisions of darshan and gyan by which conscious soul is of the nature of seeing and knowing?

That is replied – First of all the consciousness is of the form of experience which does not transgress the duality since the nature of all  substances is of the form of general-specific. The consciousness is also a substance hence how can it transgress the general-specific nature? It has two forms darshan and gyan. Hence this consciousness does not transgress the forms of darshan and gyan. If it transgresses these two forms then by transgressing the forms of general-specific, the consciousness itself does not remain existent. In the absence of consciousness two faults appear- firstly due to destruction of its quality the conscious becomes non conscious and secondly, in the absence of permeable consciousness the permeated conscious soul also becomes non existent. Hence to avoid these faults the consciousness should be accepted  of the form of darshan –gyan.

Same is described by kalash next:

Shloka 183 : Definitely in this world in spite of being without duality, if the consciousness gives up its nature of darshan and gyan then  due to absence of general-specific forms, that consciousness would give up its own existence. When consciousness gives up its existence then it would become corporeal, and the permeated soul without the permeating consciousness would be finished i.e. it would be destroyed. Hence consciousness is by rule of the form of darshan and gyan only.

Explanation: The nature of substance is of the form of   general-specific. The consciousness is also substance and if it gives up its nature of being general (darshan) and specific (gyan) then its nature of being substance would be destroyed and due to absence of consciousness it would become corporeal. In other words, the consousness is found in all the states of the soul and hence it is permeating while soul being conscious is permeated. Therefore with the absence of permeating consciousness the permeated conscious soul also becomes non existent. Hence consciousness should be treated as darshan-gyan form only.

Here the objective is that some followers of Samkhya philosophy accept only general form of consciousness singularly. For negating them it is told that the nature of substance is of general-specific form hence consciousness should also be accepted in general-specific form only.- So it is told.