48. Samayasar Gatha 356-365

Now the principles of Nishchaya-Vyavahara naya are clarified by means of example:

Gatha 356: Just because whitewash or chalk or limestone powder etc. dravyas make some other wall white, for that reason  it is not called whitewash, whitewash is whitewash by itself.  In the same way the knower is not knower because it knows the other dravyas. He is knower by himself.  

Gatha 357: Just as whitewash is not whitewash of something else, it is whitewash by itself; in the same way the observer is not observer because it sees others , he is observer by himself.

Gatha 358:  Just as whitewash is not whitewash of something else, it is whitewash by itself ; in the same way a detached person is not detached because he discards others, he is detached by himself.

Gatha 359: Just as whitewash is not whitewash of something else, it is whitewash by itself ; in the same way darshan i.e. belief is not belief because of belief in others, he is belief by himself.

Gatha 360: In this manner such are the statements made in Nishchaya naya in respect of darshan-gyan-charitra. Now Vyavahara is described in brief, so hear them.

Gatha 361: Just as whitewash by its own nature makes the other dravya i.e. wall etc. white; in the same way the knower also knows the other dravyas by his own nature.

Gatha 362: Just as whitewash by its own nature makes the other dravya i.e. wall etc. white; in the same way the observer jiva also sees the other dravyas by his own nature.

Gatha 363: Just as whitewash by its own nature makes the other dravya i.e. wall etc. white; in the same way the detached person also discards the other dravyas by his own nature.

Gatha 364: Just as whitewash by its own nature makes the other dravya i.e. wall etc. white; in the same way the samyakdrishti person also has belief in other dravyas by his own nature.

Gatha 365: In this manner the description of vyavahara naya is stated in the context of darshan-gyan-charitra specially. Similar way it should be known with respect to other paryayas.

Commentary: Firstly the example is stated- In this world, the white wash is a dravya which  has the quality of whitening other dravyas ; in vyavahara naya it is used to whiten walls, house, temple etc. other dravyas.

Now what is the relationship between whitewash and other dravyas( wall, house etc.) in reality ? – that is considered here –

[Question]- The whitewash and the house or wall etc.other dravyas to be made white have any relationship or not?

[Answer]- If it is believed that the whitewash belongs to house or wall etc. other dravyas then the rule is ‘ when something belongs to someone then it has that form only’; just as knowledge belonging to soul has the form of the soul only.

 With the existence of such real form relationship, the whitewash belonging to house or the wall is established to be of the form of house or wall; and not proved to be different dravya from them. In such a case it leads to the non existence/destruction  of the own dravya of whitewash and only one dravya of the form of house or wall is remnant.  However the second dravya cannot be destroyed since one dravya  taking the form of another dravya has been negated earlier. Hence it establishes that white wash does not belong to house, wall etc other dravya.

Here Question: If the whitewash does not belong to house, wall then to whom does it belong?

Answer : The whitewash belongs to whitewash only.

Again Question: Which is the second whitewash to whom the first whitewash belongs?

Its Answer: There is no second white wash other than the first.

[Again Question]: Then how is it?

[Its answer]: The whitewash itself is the owner of the second whitewash described as another part.

[Again Question]: What is the purpose of having Vyavahara of different parts of the same object in the context of Nishchaya?

[Its Answer]: Nothing at all.

In this way it is established that whitewash does not belong to anyone ; whitewash is whitewash only- This is Nishchaya.

Just as the example is described above , the same way is the Siddhanta as below-

First of all, in this world the soul is of the form of consciousness and is a dravya  filled with the property of knowledge being its nature. From the aspect of Vyavahara naya pudgala etc. other dravyas are all objects of knowledge known as Gyeya.

Now we consider the real relationship between the soul and those pudgala etc. other dravyas –

Does the knower conscious soul belong to objects of knowledge form pudgala etc. other dravya or not?

If it is believed that conscious soul belongs to pudgala etc. other dravyas then the rule is ‘when something belongs to someone then it has that form only, not another’; just as knowledge belonging to soul is of the form of soul only  and knowledge is not another dravya.

With the existence of such real relationship, the conscious soul  belonging to pudgala etc. becomes of the form of pudgala only- this leads to the abolishment of the own dravya of the soul and only pudgala dravya remains existent. Soul is not proved to be another dravya but that is not possible as the own dravya of soul cannot be destroyed because changing of one dravya into another dravya has been negated ealier. Hence conscious soul does not belong to pudgala etc. other dravyas.

Here Question- If conscious soul does not belong to pudgala etc. other dravyas then whom does it belong to?

Its Answer: The conscious one belongs to conscious one only.

Again Question- Which is the second conscious one to whom the first conscious one belongs?

Its Answer- There is no second conscious one different from conscious one.

[Again Question]- Then how is it?

[Its Answer]- These are all parts of conscious soul being the owner.

[Again Question]- What is the purpose of having Vyavahara of different parts of the same object in the context of Nishchaya naya?

[Its Answer]- Nothing at all.

With this it is established that in reality the knower does not belong to anybody. Knower is knower only- this is the Nishchaya.

Now just as with example and Siddhanta the knower was described, in the same way the observer is described.

First of all the whitewash is a dravya with the quality of being white by nature. In Vyavahara sense it is capable of whitening house, wall etc other dravyas.

Now, here the real relationship between the whitewash and house etc. other dravyas is considered-

[Question]- Does the whitening whitewash belong to house etc. other dravyas capable of being made white or not ?

[Answer]- If it is believed that the whitewash belongs to house or wall etc. other dravyas then the rule is ‘ when something belongs to someone then it has that form only’; just as knowledge belonging to soul has the form of the soul only.

With the existence of such real form relationship, the whitewash belonging to house or the wall is established to be of the form of house or wall. In such a case it leads to the non existence/destruction  of the own dravya of whitewash.  However the second dravya cannot be destroyed since one dravya  taking the form of another dravya has been negated earlier. Hence it establishes that white wash does not belong to house, wall etc other dravya.

Here Question: If the whitewash does not belong to house, wall then to whom does it belong?

Answer : The whitewash belongs to whitewash only.

Again Question: Which is the second whitewash to whom the first whitewash belongs?

Its Answer: There is no second white wash other than the first.

[Again Question]: Then how is it?

[Its answer]: The whitewash itself is the owner of the second whitewash described as another part.

[Again Question]: What is the purpose of having Vyavahara of different parts of the same object in the context of Nishchaya?

[Its Answer]: Nothing at all.

In this way it is established that whitewash does not belong to anyone ; whitewash is whitewash only- This is Nishchaya.

Just as the example is described above , the same way is the Siddhanta as below-

First of all, in this world the soul is of the form of consciousness and is a dravya  filled with the quality of vision being its nature. From the aspect of Vyavahara naya pudgala etc. other dravyas are all objects of vision. 

Now we consider the real relationship between the soul and those pudgala etc. other dravyas –

Is the observer conscious soul, viewer of  pudgala etc. other dravya as scenes or not?

If it is believed that conscious soul is viewer of  pudgala etc. other dravyas then the rule is ‘when something belongs to someone then it has that form only, not another’; just as knowledge belonging to soul is of the form of soul only  and knowledge is not another dravya.

With the existence of such real relationship, the conscious soul as viewer  of pudgala etc. becomes of the form of pudgala only- this leads to the abolishment of the own dravya of the soul and only pudgala dravya remains existent. Soul is not proved to be another dravya but that is not possible as the own dravya of soul cannot be destroyed because changing of one dravya into another dravya has been negated ealier. Hence conscious soul does not belong to pudgala etc. other dravyas.

Here Question- If conscious soul does not belong to pudgala etc. other dravyas then whom does it belong to?

Its Answer: The conscious one belongs to conscious one only.

Again Question- Which is the second conscious one to whom the first conscious one belongs?

[Again Question]- What is the purpose of having Vyavahara of different parts of the same object in the context of Nishchaya naya?

[Its Answer]- Nothing at all.

With this it is established that in reality the conscious viewer is not viewer of someone else. Viewer is viewer only- this is the Nishchaya.

In the same manner the conduct is described.

First of all the whitewash is a dravya with the quality of being white by nature. In Vyavahara sense it is capable of whitening house, wall etc other dravyas.

Now, here the real relationship between the whitewash and house etc. other dravyas is considered-

[Question]- Does the whitening whitewash belong to house etc. other dravyas capable of being made white or not ?

[Answer]- If it is believed that the whitewash belongs to house or wall etc. other dravyas then the rule is ‘ when something belongs to someone then it has that form only’; just as knowledge belonging to soul has the form of the soul only.

With the existence of such real form relationship, the whitewash belonging to house or the wall is established to be of the form of house or wall. In such a case it leads to the non existence/destruction  of the own dravya of whitewash.  However the second dravya cannot be destroyed since one dravya  taking the form of another dravya has been negated earlier. Hence it establishes that white wash does not belong to house, wall etc other dravya.

Here Question: If the whitewash does not belong to house, wall then to whom does it belong?

Answer : The whitewash belongs to whitewash only.

Again Question: Which is the second whitewash to whom the first whitewash belongs?

Its Answer: There is no second white wash other than the first.

[Again Question]: Then how is it?

[Its answer]: The whitewash itself is the owner of the second whitewash described as another part.

[Again Question]: What is the purpose of having Vyavahara of different parts of the same object in the context of Nishchaya?

[Its Answer]: Nothing at all.

In this way it is established that whitewash does not belong to anyone ; whitewash is whitewash only- This is Nishchaya.

Just as the example is described above , the same way is the Siddhanta as below-

First of all, in this world the soul is of the form of consciousness and is a dravya  filled with the qualities of knowledge –vision with the nature of discarding others. From the aspect of Vyavahara naya pudgala etc. other dravyas are all objects of discarding. 

Now we consider the real relationship between the soul and those pudgala etc. other dravyas –

Does the detached conscious soul belong to  pudgala etc. other dravya which are worthy of being discarded or not?

If it is believed that conscious soul belongs to  pudgala etc. other dravyas then the rule is ‘when something belongs to someone then it has that form only, not another’; just as knowledge belonging to soul is of the form of soul only  and knowledge is not another dravya.

With the existence of such real relationship, the conscious soul becomes of the form of pudgala only- this leads to the abolishment of the own dravya of the soul and only pudgala dravya remains existent. Soul is not proved to be another dravya but that is not possible as the own dravya of soul cannot be destroyed because changing of one dravya into another dravya has been negated ealier. Hence conscious soul does not belong to pudgala etc. other dravyas.

Here Question- If conscious soul does not belong to pudgala etc. other dravyas then whom does it belong to?

Its Answer: The conscious one belongs to conscious one only.

Again Question- Which is the second conscious one to whom the first conscious one belongs?

Its Answer- There is no second conscious one different from conscious one.

[Again Question]- Then how is it?

[Its Answer]- These are all parts of conscious soul being the owner.

[Again Question]- What is the purpose of having Vyavahara of different parts of the same object in the context of Nishchaya naya?

[Its Answer]- Nothing at all.

With this it is established that in reality the discarding detached one does not discard someone else. The detached one is detached only. This is the Nishchaya.

Now the Vyavahara is described.[ Firstly the vyavahara of knowledge quality is described]-

The whitewash filled with the nature of whitening does not change into the form of house,wall etc other dravyas nor does it make house,wall etc to change into form of self. Even then with the nimitta of house, wall etc. other dravyas, with the manifestation of the quality of whitening, it changes the house, wall etc. other dravyas into white form by its nature.

How is the other dravya? – With the nimitta of whitewash it changes due to manifestation of its own self into white- such is the vyavahara.

In the same way the conscious soul also has quality of knowledge  as its nature. He himself does not manifest into the form of pudgala etc. other dravyas  nor does he make other pudgala etc.  other dravyas  to manifest into form of his own self. However with the nimitta of pudgala etc. other dravyas the conscious soul manifests into the own nature of knowledge. Similarly pudgala etc. other dravyas manifest into their own form with the nimitta of conscious soul which knows them by his quality of knowledge – such is the vyavahara of knowledge.

Now the vyavahara of vision quality is described-

The whitewash filled with the nature of whitening does not change into the form of house,wall etc other dravyas nor does it make house,wall etc to change into form of self. Even then with the nimitta of house, wall etc. other dravyas, with the manifestation of the quality of whitening, it changes the house, wall etc. other dravyas into white form by its nature- such is the vyavahara.

In the same way the conscious soul also has quality of vision as its nature. He himself does not manifest into the form of pudgala etc. other dravyas  nor does he make other pudgala etc.  other dravyas  to manifest into form of his own self.However with the nimitta of pudgala etc. other dravyas the conscious soul manifests into the own nature of vision. Similarly pudgala etc. other dravyas manifest into their own form with the nimitta of conscious soul which views them by his quality of vision – such is the vyavahara of vision.

Now the Vyavahara of conduct quality is described-

The whitewash filled with the nature of whitening does not change into the form of house,wall etc other dravyas nor does it make house,wall etc to change into form of self. Even then with the nimitta of house, wall etc. other dravyas, with the manifestation of the quality of whitening, it changes the house, wall etc. other dravyas into white form by its nature- such is the vyavahara.

In the same way the conscious soul also has quality of knowledge-vision with renunciation of  others  as its nature. He himself does not manifest into the form of pudgala etc. other dravyas  nor does he make other pudgala etc.  other dravyas  to manifest into form of his own self.However with the nimitta of pudgala etc. other dravyas the conscious soul manifests into the own nature of knowledge-vision with renunciation of others . Similarly pudgala etc. other dravyas manifest into their own form with the nimitta of conscious soul which renunciates them with his own nature  – such is the vyavahara of conduct.

In this manner the Nishchaya-Vyavahara is applicable in respect of paryayas of knowledge-vision-conduct  for this soul. In the  same way for other paryayas also the nishchaya-vyavahara should be known.

Explanation:  From the aspect of shuddha naya the soul has nature of pure consciousness; which manifests into the forms of vision,knowledge, believing, renunciating other dravyas. When considered from the aspect of Nishchaya naya, the soul is not called knower of other dravyas, nor viewer, nor believer,  nor renunciater since other dravya and soul do not have any relationship in reality.

The knower, viewer, believer, renunciater etc. all bhavas are forms of soul himself. The distinction of being owner of bhava and bhava is made only in vyavahara. Soul is called knower, viewer, believer, renunciater of other dravyas in vyavahara sense only since soul and other dravyas have nimitta-naimittik relationship. Hence with manifestation of some bhavas with the nimitta of others, Vyavahara people say that soul knows the other dravyas, sees the other dravyas, believes in other dravyas, discards other dravyas- knowing the form of Nishchaya-Vyavahara one should believe accordingly.