47. Samayasar Gatha 345-355

Now Anekant (pluralism) is revealed and the transientism is clearly negated:

Gatha 345: Substance by name of Jiva, is destroyed in the context of several paryayas, or not destroyed in the aspect of several paryayas, therefore same Jiva is karta , or same jiva is not karta, someone else is karta; this is syadvad and not singular.

Gatha 346: Jiva is destroyed in the context of several paryayas, or not destroyed in the context of several paryayas, therefore same jiva is enjoyer, or same jiva is not enjoyer and someone else is enjoyer; this is syadvad and not singular.

Gatha 347: The one who has the (totally singular) principle that the jiva who is karta is not enjoyer and someone else is enjoyer; that person is Mithyadrishti and he does not belong to the faith of Arihant. 

Gatha 348: The ones whose (totally singular) principle is that some one does and someone else enjoys; those are also Mithyadrishti , they too do not belong to the faith of Arihant.

Commentary:  Jiva, from the aspect  of manifestation  of Agurulaghu guna (quality of neither being heavy nor light) at every moment , is transient,  whereas he is permanent from the aspect of consistent qualities of the stationary conscious self. For  this reason he gets destroyed with respect to several paryayas, whereas he does not get destroyed with respect to several paryayas. Thus the nature of the jiva is of two kinds. Therefore whoever is the doer, he is the enjoyer or he is not the enjoyer,somebody else is the enjoyer. Or, he only enjoys who does, or one does and other enjoys- such syadvad is prevalent and there is nothing singular.

In spite of Anekant being applicable in this manner, those who believe that at the instant a thing is present, the existence of the thing is complete at that instant itself. Thus they accept the existence of a thing within a part of it itself. In this way, with a desire to implement shuddha naya, staying  in the singularity of Rijusutra Naya, they observe and believe that ‘whoever does , he does not enjoy or someone does and another enjoys’ – such jivas should be known  as Mithyadrishti only since he accepts only  part of the thing i.e. paryaya state being momentary only, while the whole thing i.e. the permanent conscious nature firm like stone carving remains illuminated internally and can be  experienced.

Explanation: In the Jina Vani (words of Jina) the nature of thing has been described as being of Dravya- Paryaya form. From the aspect of paryaya the thing is momentary while from aspect of dravya it is permanent- this is established by Anekant, Syadvad. Hence this Jiva named thing is also dravya-paryaya form in the same way. If it is observed from the aspect of paryaya then work is done by some paryaya and some other paryaya enjoys the fruition- this is established.

For example, as a result of shubha-ashubha karmas in Manushya Paryaya, its result is enjoyed in Deva Paryaya – observing this from aspect of Dravya, ‘the one who did only enjoyed’ – this is established. There the Jiva dravya in Manushya paryaya indulged in shubha-ashubha acts; same jiva in Deva paryaya enjoyed the results of his karmas.

In this manner the nature of thing is Anekant form is established but without understanding shuddha naya and with a desire to implement shuddha naya, believing the paryaya form part of a thing to be the thing itself, thus accepting the singularity of subject of Rijusutra Naya they believe ‘ the one who does , he does not enjoy someone else enjoys or, the one who enjoys does not do, someone else does’; they are Mithyadrishti and do not belong to the faith of Arihant since even though the paryaya is momentary, the Dravya form Conscious self is permanently experienced.

Just as Pratyabhigyan knows that whoever I was in child state, it is the same myself in adulthood state or elderly state- this is experienced directly by myself. Jina vani also describes it the same way; those who do not believe it are called Mithyadrishti – so it should be known.

Now the same is described by a kalash next:

Shloka 208: Desirous of accepting soul as totally pure, The Buddha followers realizing that the soul becomes impure with time, they accepted over-pervasiveness(e.g. all black animals are  cows) and inspired by rijusutranaya they imagined conscious self as momentary thus those blind people discarded the soul. Actually soul is always of the nature of dravya-paryaya but they accepted as totally momentary alone hence they discarded the soul and could never realise it.

Here an example of necklace is quoted. Just as there is a necklace of pearls in which the pearls are strung into a thread and are seen differently. Those who do not accept the necklace as the thing with thread in which pearls are strung into it and accept only the pearls alone separately, they do not get the necklace. In the same way those who do not accept the permanent conscious nature of the soul and observe only the momentarily  changing  tendency of Upayoga (attention); they realise that by accepting soul to be permanent it becomes impure due to passage of time hence it results in defect of over-pervasiveness. Therefore  due to fear of this defect, accepting the momentary natured subject of rijusutranaya alone as soul, they discard the soul.

Explanation: The Buddha followers wish to accept the soul as totally pure, hence they consider that by accepting soul to be permanent it results in defect due to passage of time which results in impurity and flaw of over- pervasive nature. Hence due to this fear they accept only the subject of Rijusutranaya the momentary soul only as thing while soul is permanent-temporary dravya-paryaya nature. They do not realise it and imagine soul to be paryaya alone but that is not the real soul – so it should be known.

Now for experiencing the thing accepting the same as above, a kalash is told:

Shloka 209: With the force of logic between the karta(doer) and bhokta (enjoyer) whether they are different or one or both are not there, contemplate of the thing alone. Since just as pearl necklace with pearls strung into thread by smart people cannot be penetrated, in the same way the necklace of consciousness formed jewels  strung into soul  cannot be penetrated by anybody- such a necklace of soul is revealed to us in totally illuminated form.

Explanation: The thing is  of the  nature of dravya-paryaya with infinite dharmas. From some aspects there is  a difference between karta and bhokta  and in some aspects  it is not there. Why should one indulge in calling it karta-bhokta at all? It is advisable to experience the pure thing by its extraordinary quality.

In this way the thing called soul is experienced by its extraordinary quality of consciousness. During this from the aspect of different paryayas of manifestation of consciousness there is difference of karta-bhokta but from the aspect of conscious dravya there is no difference.In this manner difference and no difference are practiced but why should one indulge in calling difference-no difference while experiencing the conscious self? –they need not even be called karta-bhokta and just thing alone should be experienced.

Just as in the case of pearl necklace there is a difference applicable in the context of thread and pearls but when necklace is being worn there are no thoughts of difference-indifference. In the same way in  the soul from the aspects of dravya –paryaya of conscious self there is difference- indifference, even then while experiencing soul thing alone there are no considerations. Hence here Acharya says – Such experience of Nirvikalpa (contemplation free) soul is illuminating us. Such are the words of Jainas. 

Now this statement is clarified by means of an example. As a prelude the divisions of Naya are described as below:

Shloka 210: From the aspect of Vyavahara only the karta and karma are seen differently but when observed from aspect of Nishchaya i.e. the reality of thing then karta and karma are indifferent at all times.

Explanation: The Vyavahara naya is dependent upon the  paryaya hence in this only differences are seen but shuddha Nishchaya naya is dependent upon the dravya  where no differences are seen. Hence in vyavahara naya there is difference of karta-karma while in Nishchaya naya they are indifferent.

Same is described by means of Gathas with example below:

Gatha 349: Just as Goldsmith etc. workers are engaged in making ornaments etc. but they do not become   one with those ornaments; same way Jiva also indulges in pudgala karmas but he does not become one with them.

Gatha 350: Just as the goldsmith uses tools like hammer etc. for indulging in karmas but he does not become one with those tools; same way jiva also uses tools like mind-speech-body for conduct of karmas even then  he does not become one with them.

Gatha 351: Just as the goldsmith takes the tools but he does not become one with those tools; in the same way the jiva also takes the tools of the form of  mind-speech-body  even then he does not become one with them.

Gatha 352: Just as the goldsmith enjoys the fruition of karmas in the form of ornaments etc. but he does not become one with them; in the same way jiva also enjoys the fruition of karmas in the form of happiness-unhappiness but he does not become one with them.

Gatha 353: In this manner the belief of Vyavahara is described in brief. Now the words of Nishchaya are described which are with respect to his own manifestations , as follows:

Gatha 354: Just as the goldsmith indulges in efforts form karmas of own manifestations , that goldsmith is not different from those efforts and is one with them; in the same way the jiva also indulges in own effort form karmas and he is not different from those efforts, he is one with them.

Gatha 355: Just as the goldsmith suffers continuously due to his efforts and he is not different from those sufferings , he is one with them; in the same way the jiva  suffers indulging in efforts.

Commentary: In reality just as goldsmith etc. indulges in manifestations of other dravyas form karmas like earings etc., carries it out by means of manifestations of other dravyas form tools like hammer etc., picks up manifestations of other dravyas form tools like hammer etc., acquires manifestations of other dravyas form fruition of karmas in the form of earings, villages, money etc. , enjoys them but they being different dravyas the goldsmith is different from them, hence he does not become one with them. Therefore with nimitta-naimittik relationship only the vyavahara of karta-karma, enjoyer- enjoyable  is practiced.

In the same way the soul also indulges in pudgala dravya form karmas like punya-pap etc., uses pudgala dravya form tools like mind-speech-body, picks up pudgala dravya form tools like mind-speech-body, enjoys the pudgala dravya form manifestations of fruition of punya-pap form karmas in the form of happiness-unhappiness, however them being different dravyas the soul is different from them, hence he does not become one with them. Hence with nimitta-naimittik relationship only the vyavahara of karta-karma and enjoyer-enjoyable is practiced.

Just as the same goldsmith desirous of working, indulges in manifestations form karmas of the type of efforts of own hands etc.,enjoys the manifestations of fruition of karmas in the form of sufferings etc, then he is one with those manifestations in the form of his own dravya. Hence with the relationship of manifestations- manifestor the Nishchaya of karta-karma and enjoyer-enjoyable is practiced.

In the same way the soul also being desirous of working, indulges in the manifestations form karmas of the type of his own upayoga and efforts of his own spacial elements, enjoys the manifestations of fruition of karmas in the form of sufferings etc, then he is one with those manifestations in the form of his own dravya . Hence with the relationship of manifestations-manifestor the Nishchaya of karta-karma and enjoyer-enjoyable is practiced.

Shloka 211: O Munis! You should decide that these explicit manifestations are definitely karmas and those manifestations belong to the own manifesting dravya; of nobody else, since manifestations occur based upon everyone’s own dravya  and no ones manifestations occur based upon other dravya. Karma is not without the karta and the substance is dravya-paryaya form; hence it does not have a single permanent state form manifestation since total permanency is not feasible. Hence the principle of Nishchaya naya is that everyone is karta of its own manifestation form karma.

To confirm the same meaning the next kalash is stated:

Shloka 212:    Although the substance is self illuminated and has infinite powers form, even then one substance does not enter into another substance, instead it keeps floating  outside since all substances remain within their own nature as a rule – this is the dictum; hence   Acharya says that in spite of it, why the jiva deviating from his own nature , getting perturbed, being delusioned undergoes sufferings?

Explanation: The nature of substance as a rule is such that one substance does not mix with another substance. Even then this Jiva , deviating from his own nature, being disturbed undergoes miseries – this is great ignorance.

The same meaning is strengthened with the next kalash:

Shloka 213: Since in this world one substance does not belong to another substance, for this reason a thing remains the thing only. If this were not so then the thing would not remain as thing for long –this is definite. This is the reason that one substance floats outside another substance , hence what can it do to the other? – cannot do anything.

Explanation: The nature of substance is such that it cannot be modified by another substance then what can one substence do to another? – nothing. Just as in the physical  space of a conscious substance, the pudgala substance also occupies it , even then the insentient did not cause the conscious one to manifest into its own  form , then what did it do to the conscious substance ? – nothing. This is the dictate of Nishchaya naya.

Although on account of Nimitta-naimittik bhava one substance causes manifestation of another substance , however they still belong to that substance only. To call them due to another is Vyavahara. This is told next:

Shloka 214: One substance does something for the other substance- this is said, but a thing manifests by its own nature ; changing one state into another state is the paryaya nature of the thing, hence it is called manifestor. When such manifestor thing manifests with the nimitta  of another thing, then it is said that the other thing caused it, but that is said from the aspect of vyavahara naya. From the Nishchaya aspect other did not do anything at all. The manifestation occurred in self on its own; other did not bring anything into it- so it should be known.

46. Samayasar Gatha 332-344

Now, to those Jivas who believe that karma is responsible as karta for bhava karma, they are explained the limitations of substances by means of Syadvad. The following kalash describes it:

Shloka 204: Several Jivas have harmed the soul being totally singular minded. They have thought only karma to be karta and discarding the possibility of soul being karta, they have opposed the words of Jineshwar Deva  which are absolutely correct that ‘this soul is karta in certain aspect’.

How are those absolutely singular minded? – Whose intelligence is clouded by fruition of extreme Moha or Mithyatva ; hence for their benefit, for cleansing of their knowledge in samyak way, the limitations of the substance are described.

How do they describe ? – By the power i.e. the principle of Syadvad who have attained victory i.e. unopposed glory.

Explanation: Several debaters following total singulariy describe karma only as the karta for karma and call soul as non karta. They harm the nature of the soul. The words of Jina establish the nature of substance correctly using Syadvad. Those words call soul as karta in certain aspect. In this way it opposes the followers of absolute singularity. Those who intelligence is being clouded by Mithyatva, to them for removing their Mithyatva, Acharya describes the manner in which the realization of substance is carried out. This is done in the following gathas :

Gatha 332: [Proposition side] – Jiva is made ignorant by karmas and same way he is made gyani by karmas. He sleeps because of karmas and awakens due to karmas. 

   

Gatha 333: Jiva is made happy by the karmas and same way unhappy by the karmas. He attains Mithyatva due to karmas and Asamyam also due to karmas.

Gatha 334: Due to karmas only he transmigrates to upper loka, lower loka or Tiryak(Central) loka and whatever is good or bad that is carried out by karmas.

Gatha 335: Therefore karma only does, karma only gives , karma only  takes away; whatever is done, is done by karmas; therefore all jivas are established to be without activity; Jiva is not karta. 

Gatha 336: The scripture following the tradition of Acharyas also tells that  there is Purush Veda (masculine gender) named karma which is desirous of women, there is stree veda (feminine gender) named karma which is desirous of men.

Gatha 337: Hence no Jiva is celibate – this is told in our preachment, since karma only desires the karma.

Gatha 338: The one which kills others and is killed by others, is also Prakriti. Hence it is clearly told that this is Prakriti by name Paraghat.

Gatha 339: Hence as per our preachment, none of the Jivas indulge in Upaghat (killing),  since karma only kills the karmas- so it is said.

Gatha 340: [Opposition side] – In this manner those Shraman i.e. Munis spread the preachment of Samkhya principles; according to them Prakriti alone is responsible for everything and Souls are totally inactive. – So it concludes.

Gatha 341: Now Acharya says that if those Shraman or Munis believe (to establish the activeness of the soul) that my soul does myself on my own,(in this manner we  accept the activity of the soul) then such a belief of yours is also Mithya (deluded)natured.

Gatha 342: In Sidhhanta (scriptures) the soul has been described  as occupying innumerable pradesh (spaces) permanently. No one can make its more or less.

Gatha 343: In reality the spread of Jiva is equivalent to the size of loka; hence how can the Jiva dravya manifest as more or less with respect to that?

Gatha 344: If it is believed that knowing self remains stationary in the knowledge form then this argument establishes that soul does not do his own self.

In this manner the first side has put forth some arguments to establish the activeness of soul by twisting the reality which cannot be proved. Hence accepting karma only as the karta (of karma) causes contradiction with respect to Syadvad. Therefore in certain aspect in ignorant state, accepting soul as karta of ignorance form karmas  does not cause contradiction  with respect to Syadvad.

Commentary:  [Proposition side] Here the first side is that the karma only causes the soul to be ignorant because without fruition of gyanavaraniya karma that ignorance cannot occur. Karma only causes the soul to be gyani because without the kshayopasham of gyanavaraniya karma knowledge cannot occur.

Karma only makes the soul to fall sleep because without the fruition of Nidra named karma, the Nidra (sleep) cannot occur. Karma only makes the soul awake because without the kshayopasham of Nidra karma the awakening cannot occur.

Karma only causes the soul to be happy because without the fruition of satavedaniya karma, the happiness cannot occur. Karma only causes the soul to be unhappy because without the fruition of asatavedaniya karma the unhappiness cannot occur.

Karma only causes the soul to be Mithyadrishti because without the fruition of Mithyatva (Darshan Moha) karma, the Mithya Darshan cannot occur. Karma only causes the soul to be Asamyami since without the fruition of CharitraMoha karma, the Asamyam cannot occur.

Karma only causes the soul to transmigrate into upper, lower or Tiryak ( Central) lokas because without the fruition of Anupoorvi karma, the transmigration cannot occur.

Karma only causes whichever types of shubha-ashubha bhavas to occur because without the fruition of prashasta or aprashasta raga karmas the shubha-ashubha bhavas cannot occur.

Since in this manner all the deeds are carried out by the karmas independently, karma only causes them, karma only destroys ; hence we believe that all the jivas are permanently, singularly akarta only.

Further it is specifically told that the scriptures or the words of Jina also describe the same meaning saying that Purush Veda karma desires women and it wants them whereas the StreeVeda karma desires men and it wants them.

 With these words the karma only desire the karma as karta is established. This denies the non celibacy of Jiva as karta and establishes the karma only as karta and Jiva as non karta.

In the same way the one who kills others and is killed by others, that is Paraghat karma- with this statement karma only kills karma, being karta is seconded and the notion of jiva being karta for the killing is denied calling jiva to be totally akarta.

In this manner such  principles of Samkhyas are proliferated  by the Shramanabhas ( appearing like Shraman) who are not really Munis but called Munis. Due to flawed intelligence they interpret the meaning of Sutras invertedly and spread the wrong meaning of the sutras – such is the proposition  side.

[Opposition side]- Now Acharya replies and says that those who accept such principles, they accept the Prakriti to be karta singularly which establishes all the jivas as non karta singularly. This leads to the negation of the words of the Bhagwan (omniscient) that ‘Jiva is karta’ and such one sided view cannot be condoned.  

To appease  the   negation of the words  of the Jina, if they say that the karmas are responsible for the manifestations of the soul in the form of ignorance etc. all paryaya form bhavas and soul does the soul in dravya form only; hence ‘jiva is karta’ – these   words of Jina are not negated and its displeasure is not incurred. But this argument is faulty since first of all the jiva is permanent, having innumerable spacial elements equivalent to loka in the form of dravya. Being permanent there is no feasibility of activity in the dravya since an active substance cannot be permanent. 

The soul is one having innumerable fixed spacial elements. In a mass of pudgala, the atoms can enter and be separated hence there an activity is justified. But such an activity is not feasible in the soul since increasing or decreasing of spacial elements  is not possible since it contradicts the nature of having fixed innumerable spacial elements of soul.

The spacial elements of the soul together are equivalent to total loka on spreading. By their expansion or contraction also no activity is feasible since in both these activities the area only expands or contracts like wet or dry leather but is unable to increase or reduce the number of spacial elements.

 The proposition side has the misconception that nature of thing cannot be absolutely transgressed hence knowing bhava always remain stationary as knowing nature. Remaining stationary like this the soul cannot be karta of Mithyatva etc. bhavas, since knowing nature and doing nature are absolutely contradictory. Since Mithyatva etc. bhavas are existent hence their karta is karma only- such a concept is proposed. Clarifying this, Acharya says that previously the concept was proposed that ‘soul does the soul hence soul is karta’ this belief is also totally demolished since if soul is believed to be knower alone at all times then soul is proved to be non karta.

Hence we (Acharya) say that it should be inferred in this way, ‘ Although in general the knowing nature remains stationary as knowledge form, even then the bhavas of Mithyatva etc. are generated due to karmas and at the time of knowing these bhavas , due to the lack of differentiating knowledge between the knowledge and subject of knowledge from eternal times, believing non self to be soul, in specific contexts due to the ignorance form manifestation of knowledge the onus of karta is there.’- such inference should be drawn.

How long such inference of being karta should be drawn ? – Till such time when with the completeness of differentiating knowledge between the knowledge and subject of knowledge , knowing soul only as the soul, in specific contexts also he manifests in knowledge form, resulting in being totally  akarta due to knowling nature; before that time the soul should be inferred as karta.

 Explanation: Several Jain Munis also do not understand the meaning of words of Syadvad, promote the principle of total singularity and inverting the maxim  they say that soul is non karta of bhava karma only. The fruition of karmas only result in  the bhava karmas. Ignorance-knowledge, sleeping-awakening, happiness-unhappiness, Mithyatva, Asamyam and transmigration in all the four Gatis etc. whatever shubha-ashubha bhavas which are generated are caused by karmas; jiva being non karta. Interpreting the scriptures in this manner they(followers of Jaina )  say that fruition of Veda cause the desires for men-women, fruition of Upaghata-paraghata causes hurting of each other.

In this manner following singularity, just as Samkhya followers believe everything to be caused by Prakriti with Purusha being non karta; in the same way with corruption of intellect the Jaina Munis also believe. But words of Jaina are of Syadvad form; hence the believers of singularity definitely face the anger of  divine speech. Out of fear of the anger of divine speech they change the maxim and say that ‘ soul is karta of own soul only hence karta for bhava karma is karma only and soul is karta of self’. In this manner by describing soul to be karta in certain aspect they do not incur the anger of divine speech, then such belief is false only. Soul from aspect of dravya is permanent, having innumerable spacial elements, equivalent to size of loka.Hence there is nothing new which can be done. Further calling karma as karta for bhava karma form paryayas, soul remained non karta only. Hence how can it prevent the anger of divine speech?

Therefore by accepting the aspects of karta and non karta properly only the Syadvad is properly implemented. That is as follows- soul from general aspect is of the nature of knowing only, but from specific aspect due to lack of differentiating knowledge between self and others believes others to be soul, then he is karta of this ignorance form own bhava. When from the aspect of specific knowledge he realizes the difference between self and others, from that moment onwards, with the attainment of differentiating knowledge , he knows self as self, manifests in the form of knowledge, then he remains knower only and becomes non karta really. – Such belief only is the right interpretation of Syadvad.

Same is described by means of kalash next:

Shloka 205:  Those Jainas, followers  of Arihanta, they should not accept soul as non karta like the Samkhya followers. They should believe the soul to be karta prior to realization of differentiating knowledge and after attainment of differentiating knowledge they should view it as stationary knower directly, devoid of being karta  truly.

Explanation: The Samkhya followers believe the Purusha to be absolutely singularly non karta, pure, detached, consciousness alone. – With such belief it results in lack of the worldly manifestations for the Purusha while Prakriti undergoes the manifestations of the world. But Prakriti being corporeal, does not have feeling of happiness-unhappiness hence how can it manifest in worldly form? All  such flaws emerge and since the form of substance  is not absolutely singular hence those Samkhya followers are Mithyadrishti- If Jains also believe the same then they too would be Mithyadrishti.

Here Acharya preaches that O Jains! Do not believe soul to be absolutely non karta similar to Samkhya followers.  So long as there is no differentiating knowledge of self and others, till such time he should be accepted as karta for conscious form ragas etc. bhava karmas and after attainment of differentiating knowledge, he should be believed to be knower only devoid of all the bhavas of karta, of pure dense knowledge form.

In this manner in one soul only both types of bhavas of karta- non karta are established from different aspects. This Syadvad belongs to Jains and the nature of thing is also the same and not an imagination. With such belief, the Purusha (soul) is established to undergo worldly form as well as attain Moksha both. By accepting total singularity the Nishchaya and Vyavahara both are destroyed. – So it should be known.

Now Buddhists, followers of transcedentalism,   believe that karta is someone else and bhokta(enjoyer) is someone else. The flaw of such singular belief is described  and the nature of karta- bhokta (enjoyer) as per Syadvad is revealed. Firstly a kalash informs the same:

Shloka 206: Buddhist, followers of transientism, imagine the soul substance as transient therefore believe the karta and bhokta to be different. They believe that karta is someone else and bhokta is someone different. This ignorance is removed by the wonderful consciousness only by himself.

How does it do it? – By irrigating with the nectar of permanency it removes it.

Explanation: The followers of transientism believe the karta and bhokta to be different. They believe that whatever was existent in first moment is not existent in the next moment. Here Acharya says that how can we explain it to them? – This permanent form experienceable consciousness alone can remove their ignorance. What is existent in the first moment by himself , that only says in next moment ‘whatever I was earlier, now I am the same’. In this manner by memory of the past, Pratyabhigyan (recalling past event)  shows its permanency.

Here the Buddha follower says that ‘What is existent at previous moment is existent at this moment also’- this belief is of the form of delusion due to eternal avidhya(ignorance), by its destruction only Tatva (substance) can be realized and the entire suffering would vanish.

To him Acharya says that hey Bauddha!  You called Pratyabhigyan as delusion which is directly experienced. If that is proved to be delusion then your belief of transientism is also directly experienced, then that too is proved to be delusion only since in the context of experience both are same. Therefore believing (permanent or transitory) totally singular, both are delusion, not the nature of thing; hence we describe the thing as permanent-transitory in certain aspect, that alone is true.

Now the believer of transientism is advised by means of logic:

Shloka 207: The word ‘Vratyansh’ stands for change of states at every moment. By believing them to be entirely different things, one destroys the real substance to which those states belong and imagines that someone does and someone else enjoys.

Here Acharya says  that such singular belief does not illuminate i.e. unacceptable since where the real substance, owner of states  is destroyed then how can the states exist without any support of real substance. – in this manner with the destruction of both it creates the situation of non entity to be present.

45. Samayasar Gatha 320-331

Now it is asked that in what way the gyani knows ? and why does he know? – It is answered by an example:

Gatha 320: Just as eyes view an object capable of being viewed, they are not its doer or enjoyer; in the same way the gyan also knows only the bandh-moksha, fruition of karmas, Nirjara etc. He is not their doer or enjoyer.

Commentary: Just as in the world, eyes are incapable of doing or enjoying the visible objects, being very different from them, hence the eyes are not doer or enjoyer of them.

If it were not so, then just by seeing the fire, being doer of the fire, the eyes would also burn. Similarly just as a ball of iron gets heated in the fire, the same way the person seeing the fire should gets eyes heated being enjoyer of the fire. But such is not the case.

Then how is it ? – The nature of eyes is only seeing, hence they just observe the scene. In the same way knowledge is also like the vision. Therefore being totally different from karmas, it definitely is incapable of doing or enjoying the karmas. Thus the knowledge is not doer or enjoyer of karmas.

Then how is it ? – Being of the nature of knowing it just knows the bandh-moksha, fruition and Nirjara of karmas only.

Explanation: The nature of knowledge is knowing the objects from a distance like eyes. Hence there is no scope of doing-enjoying in knowledge. Whoever believes in capability of doing-enjoying is ignorant. 

Here someone enquires- Such knowledge is only Keval Gyan. So long as there is fruition of Moha karma, till then the jiva manifests in the forms of sukh-dukh ragas etc. So long as there is fruition of Gyanavarana, Darshanavarana and Viryantaraya; till then there is incapability in the form of ignorance, non vision etc. Therefore prior to Kevalgyan how can he be called as Knower-seer?

Its reply- It has been told earlier also that if someone independently indulges in doing and enjoying then he can be called doer-enjoyer in reality. However when ignorance of the form of Mithyadarshan is removed then the ownership of the other dravya also gets removed. Then being himself Gyani, independently he is not doer-enjoyer of any thing. Due to own weakness under influence of force of fruition of karmas  whatever activity occurs, cannot be called doer-enjoyer in reality. Due to their nimitta, the gyani does accrue some new karma particle attachment , but it is not counted as karma bondage. This so since the world is due to Mithyatva and after the absence of Mithyatva the world also vanishes. What is the count of few drops as against the ocean ? ( It has no value.)

Further it should be known that Kevalgyani is of the nature of pure soul directly while srutagyani also experiences the soul in the same way by taking recourse to shuddha naya. The difference is only of direct-indirect. Hence from the aspect of knowledge-vision it is of the nature of knowing-seeing only. However from the aspect of conduct, whatever is the fruition of opposing karmas, to that extent there is inability. Still there is effort to overcome that also. When those karmas would be destroyed then the conduct of Yathakhyat charitra would be experienced, then Kevalgyan would be attained.

The samyakdrishti is called Gyani from the aspect of absence of Mithyatva only. If that aspect is not considered then from the aspect of Knowledge in general all jivas are gyani.  If considered  from specific aspect then so long as there is an iota of ignorance till then he is not called Gyani. Just as in the scriptures of Siddhanta, in the description of Audayika bhavas ( bhavas pertaining to fruition of karmas)  so long as there is absence of KevalGyan, till then in 12^th gunasthana presence of agyan bhava is declared to be present. Therefore here the terminology of gyani-agyani is used in the context of Samyaktva-Mithyatva only.    

Now those who believe only soul to be the doer singularly, they are refuted by the next kalash:

Shloka 199: Those people who under the obscuration of darkness of ignorance believe only soul to be karta, they wish to attain Moksha but they cannot attain Moksha just like ordinary worldly folks.

Same is described by the gatha next:

Gatha 321: The worldly people believe that Deva (heavenly), Naraki (hellish), Tiryanch (animal) and Manushya (human) etc. forms are created by Vishnu and if Sraman or Muni also believes that the shatakaya (six forms of body) jivas  are formed by soul.

Gatha 322: Then the beliefs of worldly folks and the Sraman would be identical without any difference seen. Just as Vishnu creates in the world, the soul creates in Sramanas, hence from aspect of doer nature both are the same.

Gatha 323: For this reason the worldly folks and Sramanas both cannot attain Moksha. Since both always manifest creating the Deva, Manushya, Jivas of the world including Asuras, then how can they attain Moksha?

Commentary:    Those people who believe soul only to be the karta,  although they may be distant from the worldly philosophy but still are not transgressing it. Since just as in the worldly people that God Vishnu makes  deva-naraki etc. tasks, in the same way according to  the beliefs of non-worldly Munis also, soul does the tasks of those Deva-naraki etc. In this way both are similar as far as following erroneously. Therefore in believing soul to be permanent karta, the non worldly Muni is also like the worldly people , in fact worldly only since they too would not attain Moksha.

Explanation: Those who believe soul to be karta(doer), even though they are Munis , still they are like worldly people. Since, just as the world believes Ishwar to be karta, those Munis believed self to be karta; in this way the beliefs of both turned out to be the same. Hence just as worldly folks don’t get Moksha, the Munis also won’t get Moksha. Those who are karta, they will enjoy the fruition of their deeds and how can those enjoying fruition can get Moksha?

Now it is told that other dravyas and soul do not have any relationship at all. Hence there is no karta-karma relationship either. This is told in next kalash:

Shloka 200: When other dravyas and soul substances do not have any relationship then in the absence of their karta-karma relationship, how can there be the doership of the other dravyas?

Explanation: Other dravyas and the soul do not have any relationship, then how can there be karta-karma relationship either? – In such a case how can there be doership of others?

Now by means of words of Vyavahara naya it is told that other dravya is mine, but those who believe Vyavahara only to be Nishchaya, they believe so out of ignorance. This is told by means of example next:

Gatha 324: Those who do not know the nature of substance, they say based upon the words of Vyavahara naya,  ‘other dravya is mine’  but those who know the nature of substance in reality, they say ‘ even an atom of other dravya is not mine.’

Gatha 325: The speech of Vyavahara is like some person saying ‘My country, my town, my village, place of my state’. There, analyzing from Nishchaya aspect, the village etc. are not his but that soul calls them mine, mine out of Moha.

Gatha 326: In the same way, the Gyani who in spite of  knowing  other dravya to be  other dravya calls ‘ other dravya is mine’, and in this manner makes himself of the form of other dravya, he definitely is Mithyadrishti.

Gatha 327: Hence Gyani knowing ‘other dravya is not mine’, observing the behaviour of ownership by worldly people as well as  Munis towards other dravyas, they recognise that these people are devoid of Samyakdarshan.

Commentary: Those who are foolish in Vyavahara itself are agyani. They alone ‘other dravya is mine’ – see in this way and speak like this. However those who are Gyani and have realized by Nishchaya naya, they do not obsereve even an iota of other dravya as ‘this is mine’. Just as in the world someone foolish in Vyavahara, staying in another person’s village says ‘ this village is mine’ , then such a person is called Mithyadrishti. In the same way if a Gyani also says ‘this other dravya is mine’  out of foolishness of Vyavahara , then at that moment making that other dravya to be his own, he becomes Mithyadrishti only. Therefore the person knowing the reality, ‘all other dravyas are not mine’ – knowing this, the recognition of Samyakdarshan between the  worldly people and Shraman people is based upon decision of ownership of other dravyas- thus they know.

Explanation: In spite of being Gyani, if they undertake the ownership of other dravyas then whether they are worldly people or Munis, both take over  the ownership of other dravyas;  then they become Mithyadrishti- Gyani knows this.

Now kalash describing the same is recited here:

Shloka 201: Since in this world, one substance having any  relationship with another substance has been rejected, hence where there are different substances, there is no relationship of karta-karma. Hence worldly people as well as Munis also, should observe the real nature of substance in this way only that no one is karta of another. One should believe that one dravya is not karta of another dravya.

Now it is told that those people who do not know the principle of nature of substance in this way, they indulge in karmas being agyani, and become karta of bhava karma. In this way the karta of own bhava karma is conscious self only through ignorance. This is informed in next kalash:

Shloka 202: Those people who do not know the abovementioned principle of the nature of substance are addressed by Acharya filled with remorse ‘ oh! Those whose mighty capability for effort has been drowned in ignorance, they indulge in karma like paupers’. In this way the karta for bhava karma is conscious self only and none else.

Explanation: Agyani Mithyadrishti do not know the principle of nature of substance and being karta of other dravyas they manifest in ignorance form; hence the karta for bhava karma are agyani only and none else.

Same is established logically:

Gatha 328: Jiva manifests in the form of Mithyatva bhava and it is considered here that who is responsible for it in reality? Samkhya followers believe that Mithyatva named Moha karma natured  Pudgala dravya causes soul to be Mithyadrishti; then they are told ‘ O Samkhya follower ! In your system the Prakriti(nature) is non conscious. Then that non conscious Prakriti turns out to be responsible for the Mithyatva bhava of Jiva, but that is not possible.’

Gatha 329: If it is believed that Jiva causes the pudgala dravya to manifest in Mithyatva form then in that case Pudgala dravya alone is proved to be Mithya Drishti and not the Jiva. But this too is not possible.

Gatha 330: If it is believed that Jiva and Prakriti both cause pudgala dravya to manifest in Mithyatva form  then since both are responsible for it hence both should enjoy its  fruition also. But even this is not possible.

Gatha 331: If it is believed that Prakriti does not cause the pudgala dravya to manifest in Mithyatva form and Jiva also does not cause the same then does it not establish that the concept of pudgala dravya form Mithyatva is false? Hence it establishes that the agyani jiva alone is the karta for the Mithyatva named Bhava karma and due to its nimitta the power of Mithyava karma is generated in pudgala dravya.

Commentary: Jiva only is karta for the bhava karma of Mithyatva etc.. If it is believed to be the activity of non conscious Prakriti then even the bhava karma is established to be non conscious ; therefore Jiva himself only can be  the karta for the own bhava karma of Mithyatva etc.

If Jiva causes the pudgala dravya to manifest into Mithyatva etc. form Bhava karmas then it establishes the pudgala dravya also to be conscious since bhava karma is conscious.

Jiva and Prakriti together are not karta for the Mithyatva etc. bhava karma since Prakriti is  non conscious and it would cause Prakriti also to enjoy the fruition like Jiva.

In the same way Jiva and prakriti together cannot be non karta for Mithyatva etc. bhava karma since that would cause the pudgala dravya to be of Mithyatva etc. bhava form by nature itself.

Hence Jiva only is the karta for the Mithytva etc. bhava karma and the bhava karmas are his own deeds – this is established.

Explanation: Here Jiva only is established to be the karta of bhava karma. It should be understood this way that in reality one dravya is not karta of bhava of another dravya, hence conscious self alone is karta of the bhavas of  conscious self. This Jiva manifests into bhavas of Mithyatva  etc. due to ignorance, those manifestations are conscious and not corporeal. From shuddha naya point of view they are also termed chidabhas (apparently conscious); therefore conscious self is the karta of conscious bhava  karma – this is reality.

There from the aspect of non differentiation jiva is pure conscious self only. When he manifests due to nimitta of karma, then he is conjoined with those manifestations. At that time from the aspect of differentiation of manifestation and the manifestor, jiva is karta of his own ignorance form manifestations. Whereas from the aspect of non differentiation karta-karma bhavas are not existent ; he is pure conscious self jiva substance only. In this way it should be rightly understood that conscious self alone is karta of conscious karmas.

Same is described in next kalash:

Shloka 203: Bhava karma is an act and it cannot be accomplished without doing. This karma cannot be carried out by jiva and prakriti both since the Prakriti is corporeal and non conscious and it gives rise to the scenario of enjoying fruition of its karmas. It cannot be act of Prakriti alone since Prakriti is corporeal and bhava karma are conscious; hence jiva alone is karta   of this bhava karma. These are deeds of jiva alone since they have oneness with conscious self and manifestations of conscious self. Pudgala does not know hence bhava karma does not belong to pudgala.

Explanation: The karma of conscious self occurs in conscious self. Pudgala is corporeal hence how can his karma be conscious?

Now those Jivas,  who believe that karta of bhava karma is karma only,they are explained the nature of substance by means of Syadvad. This is informed in next kalash:

Shloka 204:   Bhava karma is  a deed which cannot be accomplished without doing. This karma is not carried out by Jiva and Prakriti both since Prakriti is insentient, corporeal, and it would result in a situation of Prakriti enjoying the results of its deeds. Further it is not act of Prakriti alone since Prakriti is non conscious  and bhava karma are conscious ; hence karta for this bhava karma is Jiva only. This is an act of the Jiva only because they have oneness with consciousness and are manifestations of consciousness. Since pudgala is not knower hence they are manifestations of pudgala.

Explanation: The karma of consciousness would occur in consciousness only. Since pudgala is insentient hence how can it have conscious manifestation?