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.