39. Samayasar Gatha 250-265

Now it is further enquired that the adhyavasaya of death is called ignorance, so it is understood, but what is the adhyavasaya  pertaining to the opposite of death i.e. life? – It is answered as follows:

Gatha 250 : The Jiva who believes that ‘ I give life to others and other jivas give life to me’; they are unwise, ignorant and deluded. The gyanis are opposite to them since they do not believe it.

 

Commentary:  ‘ I give life to other jivas and other jivas give life to me’ – such adhyavasaya or definite belief is surely ignorance. Hence the one who believes it, that jiva is mithyadrishti on account of his ignorance and the one who does not believe it, that jiva is gyani hence  Samyakdrishti.

Explanation: ‘ Others give life to me and I give life to others’ – such belief is ignorance. Those who have such ignorance are Mithyadrishti and those not having such ignorance are Samyakdrishti.

Now it is enquired that why the adhyavasaya of giving life is ignorance? That is answered as follows:

Gatha 251: The Jiva lives due to fruition of his ayu karma – so is told by omniscient. Hence O brother! You do not give them ayu karma then how did you give them life?

Gatha 252 : Further the Jiva lives due to fruition of Ayu karma – so is told by omniscient. Hence O brother! Others do not give you Ayu karma then how did they give you life ?

Commentary: Jivas live due to fruition of their Ayu karma only. If the Ayu karma has expired then they cannot live any longer. One cannot give their own Ayu karma to others, since Ayu karma is acquired  based on their own manifestations. Hence no one can modify others life in any way, therefore , ‘I give life to others and others give life to me’- such adhyavasan is definitely ignorance.

Explanation: Just as in the previous gatha the adhyavasaya of death was described , in the same way the adhyavasaya of life also should be understood.

Now it is told that the same holds good with respect to adhyavasaya of making others happy-unhappy :

Gatha 253: The jiva who believes that ‘I make other jivas happy-unhappy’; they are  unwise, ignorant and opposite to that are gyani who believe otherwise.

Commentary: ‘ I make other jivas happy-unhappy and other jivas make me happy-unhappy’- such adhyavasaya is surely ignorance. The one with such ignorance is agyani, mithyadrishti. The one not having this ignorance is gyani and samyakdrishti.

Explanation: Those who believe that ‘ I make other jivas happy-unhappy and other jivas make me happy-unhappy’, their  such belief is ignorance. They are  agyani and the one not having such belief is Gyani, Samyakdrishti.

Now it is enquired that why the adhyavasan is agyan? This is answered next:

Gatha 254: All the jivas get happiness-unhappiness in accordance with the fruition of their karmas. If such is the case then O Brother! You do not give them karmas , then how did you make them happy-unhappy?

Gatha 255:  All the jivas get happiness-unhappiness in accordance with the fruition of their karmas. If such is the case then O Brother! Other jivas do not give you karmas , then how did they make you unhappy?

Gatha 256: All the jivas get happiness-unhappiness in accordance with the fruition of their karmas. If such is the case then O Brother! Other jivas do not give you karmas , then how did they make you happy?

Commentary: First of all, Jivas are happy-unhappy in accordance with fruition of their respective karmas since without the fruition of karmas, happiness-unhappiness does not get produced. Further, someone cannot receive karmas from another person, since karmas are generated based on their respective manifestations. Hence one cannot make another happy-unhappy in whichever way. Therefore those who have such adhyavasaya that ‘ I make other jivas happy-unhappy and other jivas make me happy-unhappy’, such adhyavasaya is definitely ignorance.

Explanation: ‘ If the act does not occur according to intent’ then such intention is called ignorance. All jivas get happiness-unhappiness in accordance with the fruition of their respective karmas. The one who believes that ‘I make other jivas happy-unhappy and other jivas make me happy-unhappy’; such belief is  ignorance fron Nishchaya naya aspect. From aspect of Nimitta-naimittik bhava, calling someone as responsible for giving happiness-unhappiness is Vyavahara but that is secondary from view point of Nishchaya.

Same meaning is described by kalash next:

Shloka 168: In this loka the birth- death, happiness-unhappiness etc. of the jivas occur at all times in accordance with the fruition of their karmas ; hence some one gives another one  life-death, happiness-unhappiness etc –such belief is ignorance.

Same is reaffirmed with the next kalash as a prelude to next Gatha:

Shloka 169: The above described belief is ignorance since by accepting it, those people who believe and view the life-death, happiness-unhappiness of some one from another one, they ‘ I do these karmas’ – have the ego of carrying out the karmas. They desire to be able to do the karmas, giving life or death, happiness-unhappiness etc.  to other jivas. They are Mithyadrishti as a rule and harm themselves by themselves.

Explanation: Those who have the desire of giving life-death and happiness-unhappiness to others , they are Mithyadrishti. Deviating from their own nature manifesting in the form of raga-moha , they harm themselves by themselves hence they are violent. 

  

This implication is described in next gatha:

Gatha 257: One dies or becomes unhappy, on account of fruition of karmas; hence ‘I killed you or made you unhappy’ , is this belief not delusion? –It is delusion.

Gatha 258: One does not die or does not become unhappy, on account of fruition of karmas; hence ‘ I did not kill or did not make you unhappy’, is this belief not delusion? – It is delusion.

Commentary: Whoever dies, lives, or becomes happy-unhappy, it definitely occurs in accordance with the fruition of their karmas. In the event of non fruition of karmas that jiva cannot die, live, or become happy-unhappy in that manner. Hence ‘ I killed him or I gave life to him, I made him happy or unhappy’ –Jiva believing in this way is Mithyadrishti.   

Explanation: No one dies because of being killed by another or lives because of being given life by another.They do not become happy-unhappy because of being made happy-unhappy by another. Hence those who have the intention of killing –giving life to another, are Mithyadrishti only- this is purport of Nishchaya naya- here Vyavahara naya is ignored.  

Same is described by kalash next:  

Shloka 170: This  adhyavasaya of Mithyadrishti  is seen as  ignorance explicitly .This adhyavasaya or intent is deluded, opposite to nature and hence cause for bondage.

Explanation: False intent itself  is Mithyatva and hence cause for bondage.- thus it should be known.

Now this adhyavasaya is cause for bondage is told in next gatha:

Gatha 259: O atman (soul)! This is your perception  that ‘I make other jivas happy-unhappy’ this  your senseless thinking is of the nature of Moha; this perception alone causes bondage of shubha-ashubha karmas.

Commentary : ‘ I kill other jivas, [give them life], make them unhappy, make them happy’- such ignorance form adhyavasaya is carried out by Mithyadrishti jiva. This being of the nature of raga etc. is cause for  shubha-ashubha bondage to that [mithyadrishti] jiva.

Explanation: The deluded adhyavasaya is cause for bondage.

Now, the deluded adhyavasaya is established as cause for bondage next:

Gatha 260: O Atman! This is your adhyavasaya or intent that ‘ I make jivas happy-unhappy’. This intent only cuases bondage of pap or punya.

Gatha 261: ‘I kill jivas or give them life’ – this is your adhyavasan or intent. This too is cause for punya or pap bondage.

Commentary: This adhyavasaya of the nature of raga generated out of ignorance to Mithyadrishti alone is cause for bondage- so it should be understood and known as a rule. Bondage is of two kinds i.e. punya and pap but one should not search for difference in causes for the two that the cause for punya bondage is something else and cause for pap bondage is something else. This is so because this one adhyavasaya alone ‘I make others happy or save them and I make them unhappy or kill them’ – these two egoistic bhavas of shubha –ashubha kind are cause for bondage of punya-pap both i.e. one adhyavasaya alone is cause for bondage of punya-pap both. 

Explanation: This ignorance form adhyavasaya alone is cause for bondage. There saving, making happy etc. are shubha adhyavasaya and killing, making unhappy etc.  are ashubha adhyavasaya. Since both comprise of ego form Mithya bhava hence it should not be misconstrued that cause for shubha is different and cause for ashubha is another one since both being of the nature of ignorance, both adhyavasaya are one only.

Now it is told that it emerges that adhyavasaya alone is cause for bondage then adhyavasaya of violence itself is violence- this is proved. Same is told next:

Gatha 262: The premise of Nishchaya naya is that whether the jivas are killed or not killed, Jivas accrue karma bondage due to adhyavasan itself; this is the summary of bondage.

Commentary:  The termination  of life of the jivas  occurs due to strangeness of the fruition of their individual karmas. Hence whether that occurs or not, but ‘ I kill him’ – this egoistic adhyavasaya or intention of killing is definitely the cause of bondage to the person having such intent. This is so, since from Nishchaya naya point of view, the bhava of one of taking life of another one, really does not have the capability to do so.

Explanation: From Nishchaya naya point of view, one cannot take away life of another one since it occurs due to the strangeness of fruition of their own individual karmas. So it may happen or not happen, but the one who believes that ‘I kill other jivas’ such egoistic adhyavasaya alone is ignorance and this alone is himsa (violence). This alone causes damage to own pure conscious life; this alone is cause for bondage- such is the rule of Nishchaya naya. Here Vyavahara naya has been  ignored in this statement – however it should be understood from that aspect  also since totally one sided view is Mithyatva.

Now , just as the adhyavasaya of Himsa is described; in the same manner adhyavasaya in other activites also is cause for bondage of punya-pap which is described next :

Gatha 263: Just as the adhyavasan of Himsa was described earlier, in the same way untruth, theft (taking others money etc. without consent), non-celibacy (company of women) and possessions ( collection of riches etc.); in these activities  whatever adhyavasan is carried out, it entails the bondage of pap.

Gatha 264: Further the adhyavasan of truth, non stealing, celibacy, non possessions result in bondage of punya.

Commentary: Just as adhyavasan in the case of himsa due to ignorance  was described earlier; in the same way the adhyavasan carried out for the sake of untruth, stealing, non celibacy, possessions are  all cause for bondage of pap only. Further just as adhyavasan in the case of ahimsa is carried out; in the same way the adhyavasan for the purpose of truth, non stealing, celibacy, non possessions are all cause for bondage of punya only.

Explanation: Just as adhyavasaya of himsa has been described as cause for bondage of pap karmas, in the same way adhyavasaya  of untruth, theft, non celibacy, possesssions are all cause for pap karma bondage. Further just as adhyavasaya of ahimsa is  cause for bondage of punya karma, in the same way adhyavasaya of truth, non stealing, celibacy, non possessions are all cause for bondage of punya karmas. In this way the intentions of five vices cause bondage of pap karmas and intentions of five vows in partial or total is cause for bondage of punya karmas.

Now it is told that the external object is not another cause for bondage. Somebody may think that just as adhyavasan is cause for bondage, in the same way external object is another cause for bondage, but this is not so. Only adhyavasaya is cause for bondage. This is told next:

Gatha 265: Adhyavasan in the jivas occur in the  context of i.e. with respect to an object but the object is not cause for bondage; adhyavasan alone is cause for bondage.

Commentary: Adhyavasan alone is cause for bondage; external object is not casue for bondage. The external object is the cause for the adhyavasan and that justifies its character. Itself it is not cause for bondage.

Here question is asked – If external object is not cause for bondage then why it is told to shun them that give up the external objects and discard them ?

It is replied that to negate the adhyavasan itself the external object is shunned , one is made to give them up since external objects provide support to adhyavasan. Without support from the external object the adhyavsan does not acquire its existence i.e. does not get generated. If without support of the external object the adhyavasan gets generated then just as with the existence of a brave son of a mother one gets the adhyavasan that ‘I kill this mother’s brave son’ ; in the same way one does not get the adhyavasan of killing the son of childless mother that ‘I  kill this childless mother’s son’. In this way the adhyavasan does not get generated without support of an object. When infertile mother does not have son then how can one get adhyavasan of killing her son? 

Hence it is a rule that without external object i.e. without support the adhyavasan does not get generated. For this reason, the supporter of adhyavasan, the external object is also totally negated since by rejecting the cause the effect i.e. the act is also rejected, such is the logic. The external object is cause for adhyavasan hence by rejecting it the adhyavasan also gets rejected.

Although external object is cause for the adhyavasan which is the cause for the bondage, still the external object is not cause for bondage. If we do not accept it then it gives rise to fallacy. Just as some Muni may be travelling with all the care of Irya Samiti and some flying jiva, on account of its destined time, drops quickly under his feet and meets his death then the Muni is not responsible for the himsa of the death of that jiva.  In the same way   treating other objects as cause for bondage is not right since they are cause for non bondage also; hence believing external object as cause for bondage creates fallacy of Anekant and it is faulty. Therefore definitely the external object is not proved to be cause for bondage with conviction. In this manner the external object with jiva is Atadbhavrupa (does not belong to it) and not cause for bondage. The adhyavasan with jiva is tadbhavrupa ( belongs to it) which alone is cause for bondage.

Explanation: From Nishchaya naya point of view the cause for bondage is adhyavasan only and external object provides support for it since with their support the adhyavasan get generated. Hence they are described as cause for adhyavasan. Without external object i.e. without their support the adhyavasan does not get generated. Hence external object has been advised to discard. If external object is called cause for bondage then it gives rise to fallacy. When at some place the cause is seen and in the other place cause is not seen, it is called fallacy.

Just as some Muni is travelling taking care with Irya Samiti and under his feet some flying jiva falls and gets killed then the Muni is not responsible for his Himsa. Now if it is observed from external aspect then the himsa has occurred but the Muni did not have adhyavasan for the himsa; hence it is not cause for bondage. In the same manner it should be understood with respect to other external objects. However without the support of external objects the adhyavasan does not get generated hence they have been advised to discard.