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.