The Essence of Samaysar -11

 

Other dravyas and soul do not have any relationship then how can they have karta-karma relationship? When there is no karta-karma relationship then how can soul be doer of other dravya? The same is told in Gathas 324-327. Those who have not realised the nature of substance, such people accepting Vyavahara as reality, say that ‘This is mine’, but Gyanis know definitely that even paramanu of a thing is not theirs. Just as a person says, ‘My village, my city, my country’ but what is there in the country, city or village which is his? In the same way the soul calls others as ‘mine’. If even a gyani believes other dravyas to be his then definitely he is Mithyadrishti. Therefore those who have understanding of reality do not believe other dravyas to be theirs and know that such belief is entertained by  those who are devoid of Samyak darshan.

Acharya feels quite compassionate towards such believers and say that it is so pathetic that the people do not know this basic principle of nature of a thing. These poor ignorant people indulge in karmas out of ignorance. Therefore their consciousness alone is karta of their Bhava karmas and no one else. This is proved in Gathas 328-331 by means of logic. If soul becomes  Mithyadrishti due to Mithyatva Karma Prakriti then insentient Prakriti is karta of Mithyatva bhava hence Mithyatva bhava is also insentient ! If Jiva makes pudgala dravya as Mithyadrishti then Pudgala dravya would be established to be sentient! If Jiva and Prakriti both together make pudgala dravya into Mithyatva bhava form then both shall enjoy its result! If neither Prakriti  nor Jiva cause  pudgala dravya into Mithyatva bhava form  then pudgala dravya shall be proved to be Mithyadrishti by nature! This establishes that Jiva is the doer of his own bhava karma of Mithyatva etc. form. From this one can draw the axiom that in reality one dravya cannot be karta of the bhava of another dravya.

Now some Jain Munis also have leaning towards Samkhya philosophy where in every activity is believed to be performed by Prakriti and Purusha is inactive. In similar way these Munis believe in ekant (singular) principle and say that soul is non doer of Bhava karma and fruition of karma prakriti is responsible for bhava karma. Acharya discusses this in gathas 332-344 and establishes this belief to be  false. As per their belief fruition of Gyanavarana karma makes soul to be  agyani   since without such fruition it does not happen. The destruction cum subsidence of gyanavarana karma only makes jiva gyani. In the same way fruition of Nidra karma makes jiva sleep and its subsidence cum destruction makes jiva awake. Karma only makes jiva happy or unhappy due to fruition of SataVedaniya and Asata Vedaniya karmas. Karmas only make jiva Mithyadrishti due to fruition of Mithyatva karmas. Karmas only make Jiva transmigrate in lower or upper or middle lok. Further fruition of Purush Veda karma make jiva desirous of women and fruition of Stree Veda makes jiva desirous of men. Hence karma only desire karmas therefore all jiva are celibate. Similarly karmas only kills another jiva hence no jiva harms another. In this manner they justify the  inactive nature of Jiva.

Such followers of Samkhya principles realise that such belief go against the preachment of Jina that ‘Jiva is karta’ hence they are liable for blasphemy, therefore to avoid it they argue that ‘Jiva is karta of dravya form jiva while karmas cause the paryayas of bhava karma to manifest.’ But such logic is erroneous only.

This is elaborated. Jiva is permanent from aspect of Dravya having innumerable spatial elements equivalent to size of lok. Being dravya of permanent nature it does not change hence no one can do anything in it. Even increase or decrease of spatial elements is not possible like that of pudgala skandhas wherein  joining and dispersion of pudgala paramanus happen. Same thing does not happen in jiva. Further expansion or contraction similar to leather cannot be carried out in soul since it has fixed number of spatial elements. In this manner soul cannot be doer of dravya form soul.

Then who is responsible for mithyatva etc. bhavas?  The correct solution is as follows:

Although the Jiva is knower by nature in general, at the time of fruition of karmas resulting in knowledge of Mithyatva etc. bhavas, due to lack of differentiating knowledge between the self and the subject of knowledge, he believes self to be of the form of others and thus manifests in ignorance form specifically. Therefore it should be accepted that soul is the karta in certain aspect. On the other hand after attainment of differentiating knowledge, he knows soul as soul only and subject of knowledge as different from the soul with himself remaining knower only. At such time since he is merely knower only, then he is non-doer.     

Therefore Acharya summarises the arguments as follows: The followers of Samkhya philosophy believe the Purush to be singularly inactive, purely  detached consciousness form. If this is accepted then the world also does not exist. If Prakriti is believed to be the world then it does not satisfy since Prakriti is insentient and does not experience happiness or unhappiness, so what kind of world it would be? Thus so many flaws are observed in singular belief. The nature of thing is also not singular hence Samkhya followers are Mithyadrishti. If Jains also believe the same then they too are Mithyadrishti. Hence Acharya preaches that do not believe soul to be singularly non-doer. So long as the differentiating knowledge between self and others is not there, till then soul should be believed to be doer of ragas etc. form bhava karmas and after attainment of differentiating knowledge, he should be considered to be purely knowledge form, knowing natured, devoid of any spirit of activity. In this manner in the same soul the doer and non-doer traits are established. Such is the principle of Syadvad and also the nature of thing, not just imagination. Believing in this manner only one can  attain Moksha whereas in believing singularity the Nishchaya and Vyavahara get eliminated.

Now Acharya turns his attention towards the followers of Bauddha philosophy who believe everything to be transient. The soul which was present at a moment is non existent at the next moment. Hence doer is different and enjoyer of the deed is different. Acharya says that his consciousness only should remove his ignorance by recalling that he is the same jiva who was present a moment earlier. The Bauddha followers describe the recollection to be Avidya form delusion. To them Acharya asks whether the same soul is listening to his argument or different souls have changed within this period. If several souls have changed then what is the purpose of your argument since no one has listened to it completely? Thus by careful consideration you should realise calling the soul momentary is not realistic. Hence understand that soul is permanent-transitory by nature as described by Syadvad i.e. from aspect of dravya soul is permanent while from aspect of paryaya soul is momentary. This is the reality.

The same is described in Gathas 344-348. Jiva dravya  is of the form guna-paryaya (qualities-modes). At every moment the paryayas keep changing while the qualities like consciousness, knowledge etc. remain the same. Thus there is a duality in Jiva nature. Hence it is not right to say that the one who  does, he does not enjoy; or someone else does and some other one enjoys. Such believers are Mithyadrishti non jains. If observed from  aspect of Paryayas, one paryaya indulged and other paryaya enjoyed the result. On the other hand from aspect of Dravya, same jiva indulged and he only enjoyed. Thus there is no fallacy. By recognition also it is seen that I am the same jiva who was child then young and now old. So the continuity of jiva is experienced directly by self. Those who do not accept it are Mithydrishti. Acharya compares them with a person who looks at pearls in a necklace but not the string which holds them together. Hence he forsakes necklace for the pearls. In the same way those who do not observe the unifying consciousness in all the paryayas, forsake the soul for the paryayas.

To conclude Acharya says that just as in pearl necklace, there is difference from aspects of pearls and the string but enjoyment of necklace is free of all considerations of differentiations; in the same way the soul has differences from aspect of dravya and paryaya but at the time of experiencing the soul substance there are no differences under consideration. We should cherish and desire such Nirvikalpa soul experience.

Now Acharya clarifies the conflict between Nishchaya and Vyavahara. While from aspect of Vyavahara the relationship of doer-deed is accepted between several dravyas, from aspect of Nishchaya naya the doer-deed occurs within the same dravya.

The same is elaborated in Gathas 349-355 by means of an example.  Just as a gold smith makes bangles, earrings etc. form of ornaments which are other dravya form, using tools of hammer etc. of other dravya form, by holding the tools of hammer etc. other dravya form, enjoys the fruition of his labour by getting money, land etc. of other dravya form, but he does not become one with them and they all remain different dravya forms only. In this manner there is Vyavahara of relationship of the Nimitta-naimittik form between doer-deed, enjoyer-enjoyed etc.. In the same way the soul also carries out punya-pap form pudgala dravya form karmas, using pudgala dravya form tools of mind-speech-body, accepting the pudgala dravya  form tools of mind-speech-body and enjoys the fruitions of happiness-unhappiness  form pudgala dravya, but he does not become one with them. In this way here too there is Vyavahara of nimitta-naimittik nature between doer-deed, enjoyer-enjoyed etc.

Now just as the same gold smith, with a desire to create (bangles etc.), makes by means of his efforts, experiences the sufferings in the process and enjoys the satisfaction of making the ornament. Here being single dravya the karma, tools  and its fruition are within the self in Nishchaya form. In the same way the soul being desirous, indulges in activities, manifests into ragas etc. forms and enjoys the fruition of happiness, unhappiness by himself. Therefore being same dravya he is one with all the acts, this is the Nishchay.

Thus the conclusion is that in Nishchaya form the manifestation only is the karma within the dravya which is not dependent on any other dravya and he alone is the enjoyer of its own fruition. This can be summarised as the axiom that one dravya does not enter the domain of any other dravya and each of them remains within their own nature. In spite of this if the people suffer thinking that they have relationship with other subjects of knowledge, then it is grandeur of ignorance.

To repeat, the nature of thing is such that one thing cannot cause other to manifest, if it were not so then the thing would not even exist. Once one thing cannot make another manifest then what can a thing do to other? Nothing. Consciousness form Jiva and pudgala are occupying the same place but pudgala could not make jiva to manifest into insentient form then what did pudgala do to jiva? Nothing. From this we should understand that although in vyavahara sense other dravyas and soul have knower-known relationship, the other dravyas cannot change anything of the knower self and the knower cannot change anything of other dravyas either. In reality knower is knower only.

Same aspect is elaborated in Gathas 356-365 by means of an allegory. Lime is used for whitewashing a wall. Such is the Vyavahara. Now the real relationship between the whitewash and wall is considered whether the whitewash belongs to the wall? Now the rule is that whatever belongs to something then it would become the same thing.  If whitewash belongs to the wall then the  whitewash would be same as the wall. In such a case the whitewash would not exist since it is not different from the wall. But whitewash as a substance cannot get destroyed since a thing cannot get changed into another or get destroyed.  Hence it establishes that the whitewash does not belong to wall. Then to whom does it belong? The answer is the whitewash belongs to whitewash only and none else. If this is so, then which is this second whitewash to which the first whitewash belongs? The answer is that there are no two whitewashes and the whitewash belongs to itself. Therefore the Nishchaya is whitewash is whitewash only.

Now this allegory is applied to the jiva dravya having the properties of consciousness, knowledge, vision, belief, samyam ( remaining within self) etc.. Pudgala etc. other dravyas are said to be its subjects of knowledge in Vyavahara sense. Now the question is asked whether the knower soul belongs to the pudgala etc. other dravyas which are its  subjects of knowledge?  Again the principle is that whatever belongs to something then it would become the same thing, just as knowledge belongs to soul then knowledge is soul only. Now if knower belongs to pudgala then knower would become pudgala and knower by itself would not exist as different entity. But the knower soul cannot be destroyed as dravyas cannot be destroyed or converted. Hence it establishes that knower does not belong to pudgala. Then to whom does the knower belong ? It belongs to knower only. Are there two knowers that we can say one belong to another? No. There is one only. Then  what is the use of Vyavahara of saying knower belongs to knower? Nothing. Hence knower is knower only. This is the Nishchaya.

In this manner it has been established that ‘ soul knows other dravyas’ is a Vyavahara statement, ‘soul knows itself’ – in this statement also it is Vyavahara of knower knowing knower himself. Therefore the Nishchaya is ‘knower is knower alone’.

Now the same logic is extended to other aspects of soul i.e. vision, belief, samyam in the following way: The soul is observer, believer or discarder of pudgala dravya in vyavahara sense because soul views the pudgala dravyas, believes it to be a different dravya and gives up pudgala dravya. Again the question is asked that whether soul belongs to pudgala dravya ? The answer is no since otherwise soul would not exist as different entity. Therefore the observer, believer and discarder belong to  observer, believer and discarder respectively. Again there is no purpose in saying that observer belongs to observer since there are no two entities, therefore one can say that observer is observer only. In the same way believer is believer only and discarder is discarder only. This is Nishchaya.

Thus from aspect of Nishchaya, soul cannot be called knower, observer, believer or discarder of other dravya since other dravya and soul do not have any relationship. Soul is knower, observer, believer, discarder within himself.

Now the Vyavahara can be described in its final form as follows:

Just as the whitewash having the qualities of white colour etc. , not manifesting into the form of wall form other dravya, without causing wall to manifest into form of the whitewash, with the nimitta of the wall,  the whitewash makes the wall white by its nature. Such is the Vyavahara. In the same way the soul having the qualities of knowledge , vision, belief, samyam etc. , without  manifesting into the form of pudgala dravya, nor making pudgala dravya manifest into the form of the soul, the soul knows, observes, believes or discards the pudgala dravya by his nature. Such is the vyavahara. In this way the other dravya and soul share a nimitta-naimittik relationship by which soul is said to be knower, observer, believer, discarder of other dravya.

In this manner the nishchaya-vyavahara of soul for the qualities of knowledge, vision, belief, samyam are described. Same way it could be extended to all other qualities.

The deliberation above could be summarised as follows:

From the aspect of shuddha naya the nature of soul is consciousness only. The manifestations of soul are of the form of observing, knowing, believing, detaching etc. If told from the aspect of Nishchaya naya then soul cannot be said to be knower, observer, believer, renouncer   of the other dravyas since soul does not have any relationship with other dravyas at all in reality. Whatever knowledge, vision, belief, detachment etc. bhavas are there, they are by themselves only. The differentiation of knower and known is also Vyavahara. From aspect of Nishchaya there is no differentiation of doer and the deed.

From the aspect of Vyavahara naya, soul is described as knower, observer, believer, renouncer of other dravyas, since other dravyas and soul have nimitta-naimittik relationship. The  other dravyas are nimitta for the bhavas of the form of knowledge etc. hence it is told in Vyavahara sense that -soul knows other dravya, soul sees other dravya,  soul has faith in  other dravya, soul renounces other dravya.

In this manner knowing the forms of Nishchaya-Vyavahara one should respect them accordingly.

It is stressed again and again that from the aspect of Shuddha naya, the nature of one dravya cannot manifest into the form of other dravya. Just as moonlight illuminates the earth but earth does not belong to moonlight, in the same way the gyan(knowledge) knows the gyey (objects of knowledge) but those objects  of knowledge do not become one with  knowledge at all. The soul is knowing natured hence in its purity the objects of knowledge are automatically reflected. However those objects of knowledge do not enter into the knowledge.

Continued…..

The Essence of Samaysar – 10

 

In gatha 297 the soul was embraced in general consciousness form by means of Pragya. The same is embraced in specific forms of darshan and gyan in gathas 298-299. General consciousness only is known as darshan and gyan in specific terms. Therefore by means of Pragya the soul is so embraced that the one who is observing or the one who is knowing is definitely myself and all other bhavas are different from myself. Here consciousness is replaced by its constituents darshan and gyan which too are the characteristics of the soul. Therefore six kinds of predicates can be applied with respect to darshan and gyan in the same way to differentiate the soul from all other bhavas. Subsequently even the predicates are negated and only pure soul is experienced in undifferentiated form.

At this juncture Acharya has himself raised a question that  why consciousness is being divided into two forms of darshan and gyan. The answer is that everything in the universe is of the form of general-specifics. The consciousness also has the property of being general-specifics. The general cognizance is described as Darshan while specific cognizance is described as Gyan. In this manner there is a duality in consciousness. If this duality is not accepted then two problems surface. One is that without its qualities the consciousness would become insentient. The second is without pervasive consciousness the pervaded conscious soul would also disappear. Therefore it is necessary to accept the consciousness of the form of darshan and gyan.

The reason why this subject was brought up is that the followers of Samkhya principles and others believe the consciousness to be general only in a singular manner. For negating them it is told that nature of every substance is general-specific form hence consciousness too should be accepted to be general-specific form.

So far the soul was embraced by means of consciousness and all the other bhavas were discarded as being different. Now Acharya takes up the issue of other bhavas in gatha 300 and ask that who would be the gyani who would call the other bhavas as his own knowing them to be different from pure soul. The essence is that once he knows them to be not own then why would he continue to have possession of them?

This is elaborated by means of an example in gathas 301-303. A person who has committed theft always hides thinking that he should not get arrested for being a thief. On the other hand the person who has not committed any theft roams fearlessly without worrying that he could be caught. In the same way the defaulter soul worries that ‘ I am guilty and I would be bonded’ while the guiltless soul is confidant that ‘I cannot be bonded’. In this manner the soul who has manifested in impure form by embracing other dravyas  is worried about the bondage, while the soul who manifests in pure form renouncing  all other dravyas is not doubtful of being bonded. Therefore one should embrace pure soul giving up all the bhavas pertaining to other dravyas. 

What is that guilt? This is explained in gathas 304-305. The guilty is denoted by the term Aparadhi and those souls who are Aparadhi  are known as devoid  of Radh (completeness), Siddhi(goal) or Aradhit (objective).  The soul which is guilt free is Niraparadhi and he is always confidant that “ I am pure soul” in this manner he manifests worshiping the pure soul. The guilt is caused due to embracing of other dravyas and lack of realisation of pure soul, hence he is worried about being bonded. On the other hand the one who has renounced  all other dravyas and realised pure soul is never doubtful of being bonded. In this manner being doubt free he remains immersed within own Upayoga (consciousness).

Now the follower of Vyavahara naya argues, “ what is the use of embracing pure soul? The soul become guilt free by carrying out Pratikraman ( repentance) etc. He quotes Achar Sutra:

 Quote 1: Apratikraman(non repentance), Apratisaran(non pursuit of good), Aparihar(non repudiation), Adharana(non retention), Anivratti(not discarding), Aninda(non criticism), Agarha(non confession) and Ashuddhi(non purification)- not carrying out penance for the mistakes committed by these eight ways is pot of poison.

Quote 2: And Pratikraman(repentance), Pratisaran(pursuit of good), Parihar(repudiation),Dharana(retention), Nivratti(discarding), Ninda(criticism), Garha(confession) and Shuddhi(purification) – carrying out penance for the mistakes committed by these eight ways is pot of nectar.

His argument is that these procedures have been prescribed as the means for purification of soul. When he can achieve it by following them then why worry about Shuddhopayoga and contemplation of soul?

Acharya provides answer to these in the Gathas 306-307 which describe the Nishchaya Naya view point. Pratikraman(repentance), Pratisaran(pursuit of good),Parihar(repudiation),Dharana(retention), Nivratti(discarding), Ninda(criticism), Garha(confession) and Shuddhi(purification)- these are eight types of pots of poison. ( since one may take ownership of these acts ). On the other hand Apratikraman(non repentance), Apratisaran(non pursuit of good), Aparihar(non repudiation), Adharana(non retention), Anivratti(not discarding), Aninda(non criticism), Agarha(non confession) and Ashuddhi(non purification)- these are eight pots of nectar. ( since one does not have to do anything)

Why the Nishchaya naya prescription is so much opposite Vyavahara naya procdures? The reason is that this entire preachment is for the benefit of Gyanis. Those who are Agyani, they do not have the  experience of the pure soul, then for them it is alright to carry out Pratikraman etc. as described by Vyavahara naya since it would reduce their pap karma bondage.

Now for the Gyanis, the scenario is different. If they remain indulgent in Vyavahara practices then they may lose their objective of Shuddhopayoga i.e. remaining immersed within the soul. If they are in shuddhopayoga then what is the purpose of Pratikraman etc. ? If soul remains in pure state then no offense is being committed then why would one need to do penance for them? Therefore Acharya is drawing attention to a third state beyond Pratikraman-Apratikraman wherein one is beyond these practices, immersed within the self. That third state is the real pot of nectar.

After counselling to give up even the Pratikraman etc. Acharya cautions again that one should not misinterpret his advice. Those who are ignorant and Agyani, for them it is alright to practice Pratikraman etc. so as to reduce their burden of pap karmas. For them Apratikraman is poison. However those who are gyani and who are practicing Pratikraman etc., now they being advised to climb higher in  the ladder of spirituality. That is achieved in the third state as described above wherein Shuddhopayoga is the main practice  wherein even Pratikraman is poison since it is distracting them from the objective of Moksha. Acharya cautions that the advice is given for climbing higher on spiritual ladder. But if one takes him literally and becomes negligent and careless then obviously he is going to go down the ladder. Hence one should understand his advice in right spirit.

Acharya summarises this chapter as follows:

The person who relinquishes all the other dravyas and immerses within the own dravya the soul, that person soon gets free of ragas etc. form offenses and destroys future bondage. Attaining the always illuminated form Keval Gyan, becoming pure, he destroys all the karmas and attains Moksha This is the sequence for attaining Moksha.

Now Moksha who had appeared as a disguise on the stage also exits the stage.  

Chapter 10 ( Sarva Vishuddha Gyan  Adjikar) ( Gathas 308-415) –

So far only disguises had entered the stage which exited after revealing their true form. Now Sarva Vishuddha Gyan enters the stage without any disguise. Acharya pronounces the qualities of this ultra pure knowledge form soul. Such soul is subject matter of shuddha naya which is devoid of bhavas of doer or enjoyer forms; further it is devoid of bondage-salvation activities, it is pure devoid of other dravyas and bhavas pertaining to them, overflowing with the spirit of own self it is brightly illuminated flame form, permanent like a carving in stone, it is full of grandeur.

Now Acharya re-establishes the non-doing nature of soul by means of example in gathas 308-311. Just as  gold is not different from its qualities and paryayas of the form of bangles, earrings etc., any dravya is not different from its qualities. In the same way Jiva and Ajiva are not different from their manifestations. Since it has not been created by anyone, nor does it create anyone; the soul is neither the result of someone nor it is the cause for anyone. As a rule, on taking recourse to karmas, he manifests as karta(doer) and on account of being karta, the karmas are generated. No other way the karta-karma relationship is seen.

As stated above Acharya is focusing attention to the inactive nature of soul with respect to all other dravyas. Acharya  Amritchandra also makes a startling assertion as a corollary at this juncture. He says that to begin with, the Jiva manifesting in the form of his manifestations sequentially is jiva only and not ajiva;  while ajiva also manifesting sequentially in the form of its own manifestations is ajiva only. This directly implies that the manifestations of either Jiva or Ajiva are sequentially preordained and neither of them can change anything in them. This has also been well known as principle of Krambaddha Paryaya ( sequentially preordained manifestations). Although it appears quite startling in first glance, on careful thought it is quite simple. Once jivas have no relationship with other substances as their doer then Jiva is purely doer of his own bhavas. Further we already accept the Keval Gyan to be omniscient which knows all the past, present and future at the same instant. So obviously all the manifestations of past, present and future of  any jiva would be known in his knowledge and jiva cannot transgress that knowledge. So automatically it establishes that all the events within the knowledge of omniscient are sequential and he cannot change anything in those events.  On the other hand it does not mean that jiva cannot do purushartha or change his destiny. We have to understand  that even that purushartha and change of destiny would be within the knowledge of omniscient as preordained. That is all.

Hence even though Jiva is non doer, still he accrues bondage, this is due to  unfathomable glory of ignorance. This is the purport of these gathas. In gathas 312-313, it is elaborated further. Since eternal times, the soul being ignorant of his own nature, unable to differentiate self with respect to others, believing self and others to be same, he manifests in karta form with the nimitta of karmas and takes birth and dies, while the karmas also manifest with the nimitta of soul and accrue and disperse. Thus even though soul and karmas do not have karta-karma relationship,  still they enjoy nimitta-naimittik relationship which results in bondage and the world in the process.

Therefore it is told in gathas 314-315 that so long as soul does not give up the manifestations in accordance with dictates of karmas, he is ignorant and Mithyadrishti. When the soul realises the difference between the natures of self and Prakriti (karmas) by their individual characteristics then  he can give up the reasons for bondage. At such moments by the differentiating knowledge of self and others he is knower, by observing  the  difference between self and others he is observer and manifesting in the form differently with respect to others he is Samyat ( careful) and at such moments he is non doer of others.

Thus soul is not doer of karmas and he is merely knower as stated above. As a corollary it is stated in in gatha 316 that he is not enjoyer of the karmas also by his nature. Only Agyani enjoys the fruition of karmas while Gyani remains knower of the fruition of karmas but does not experience it. The agyani does not realise the nature of pure soul and remains merged within the nature of karma prakriti as one, hence he enjoys the fruitions of karmas as ‘ this is me’. On the other hand the gyani has experienced the pure soul hence he does not accept the fruition of karmas to be his own nature and therefore he remains knower and not enjoyer.  The same is highlighted with example in gatha 317 that just as by drinking sweet milk a serpent does not give up his poisonous nature, in the same way, the abhavya jiva ( jiva incapable to attaining Moksha) does not relinquish the nature of Prakriti in spite of knowledge of all the dravya shruta. An abhavya jiva can never attain Moksha even though he might have learnt the scriptures since he has not realised the form of pure soul. Hence so long as ignorance is there the soul is enjoyer of fruition of karmas.

Therefore it leads to the maxim in Gatha 318 that detached Gyani is knower of sweet and sour experiences of fruition of karmas hence he is non enjoyer. He does not experience the other dravya as ‘mine’ and remains merely the knower of their fruition be it sweet or sour. Even though he might be forced to experience the fruition of karmas but due to his detachment he cannot be called as enjoyer of the same. Only in Vyavahara sense he can be called enjoyer. But Vyavahara is ignored in this discussion pertaining to shuddha naya. Hence he is non enjoyer.

It is therefore summarised in Gatha 319 that Gyani neither indulges in various types of karmas nor enjoys  them. He remains knower of karma bondage in the form of punya and pap and fruition of karmas.

Here Acharya has described three types of chetna (consciousness) of soul. These are known as Karma chetna, Karma Phal chetna and Gyan chetna. The Gyan chetna is pure knowledge form consciousness experienced by the Samyak drishti jiva. Karma Phal chetna is sense of happiness or unhappiness on fruition of karmas while karma chetna is the sense of doing something on fruition of karmas. The last two are experienced by the Mithyadrishti jiva. The Gyani jiva experiences Gyan chetna but not the other two and he remains knower of them.

Now in reply to a question that why Gyani is just knower and not doer-enjoyer of karmas, an important gatha 320 is told. Just as eyes observes a scene without doing or experiencing the scene, in the same way Gyan is non doer and non enjoyer only. He remains knower of bandh, moksha, karma fruition and Nirjara. If eyes were doer or enjoyer of the scene then by seeing fire, the eyes should experience the heat and burning but that does not happen. Due to the nature of being observer, the eyes merely observe the scene. In the same way the gyan is like vision  and very different from karmas. Hence the gyan does not do the karmas nor enjoys them but remains knowledge natured gyan of  karma bondage,  moksha and karma fruition and Nirjara.

Here someone enquires that such attributes are there with Keval Gyan but so long as there is fruition of Moha Karma till then one manifests in the form of happiness, unhappiness, ragas etc. and also due to fruition of Darshanavaraniya (vision obscuring karmas) , Gyanavaraniya (knowledge obscuring karmas) and Antaraya(ability obscuring karmas) there is lack of knowledge, vision and ability. Hence how can someone be declared as knower-seer even before KevalGyan ? Its answer- This has been told earlier that the one who indulges in acts independently is called doer-enjoyer. Hence when the Mithyatva form ignorance is absent, from then onwards the ownership of other dravyas is also not there. Then the Jiva is Gyani and does not independently become doer-enjoyer of any activity and due to fruition of karmas whatever acts are conceded on account of weakness, he cannot be called doer-enjoyer of them in reality. Further on account of those deeds whatever karmas are accrued are not counted as  bondage. So long as Mithyatva is there the world exists, and after departure of Mithyatva, the worldly existence is minimal like a drop of water in the ocean.

Hence Acharya declares that those who believe soul to be doer under influence of ignorance form darkness, even though they are desirous of Moksha, like common folk they never can  attain salvation. The same is highlighted in Gathas 321-323. As per the belief of the common folk, Vishnu  causes the jivas to be Deva, Naraki, Manushya, Tiryanch. If Munis also believe soul to be doer of six types of life forms then there is no difference between the common folk and the Munis; since both believe the same from aspect of  authorship of soul. Hence both have ignorance of Mithytva , therefore like common folk the Munis also cannot attain Moksha.

Continued…..

The Essence of Samaysar - 09

 

The same philosophy is extended to bhavas of punya and pap in gathas 263-264. Just as one indulges in adhyavasaya  of Himsa out of ignorance, in the same way the bhavas of lies, theft, non celibacy, possessions are cause for pap bondage. Further the bhavas of truth, non stealing, celibacy, possessionlessness are cause for punya bondage. Although there is bondage of punya or pap, the underlying Adhyavasaya of Mithyatva of being able to do something good or bad for others is the same which is out of ignorance. Hence they are being treated at par.

Someone may have a doubt that although Adhyavasaya is the cause for bondage but the external substances should also share some blame. Acharya negates such idea in Gatha 265. Although the Adhyavasana of jivas occur in the context of external objects, still the bondage occurs due to Adhyavasana only. This too is an important principle wherein  other substances are totally absolved of taking blame for bondage.  The other substance’s activity was limited to generating the Adhyavasana (ignorant bhavas) as nimitta but nowhere it is responsible for the bondage. Here another important question is raised as a follow up. ‘ If external substances are not blamed as the reason for bondage then why is it told to renunciate them ?’ The answer is also very meaningful. ‘To prevent the adhyavasana only it is advised to give up the external objects.’ It is explained as follows:

The Adhyavasana bhavas are not produced without a motive and that motive is provided the  by external substance. Just as one cannot plan to kill the son of a sterile woman, if the  motive is not there then adhyavasana bhavas also would not be generated. Therefore by giving up the cause the effect is prevented. By the same logic, it is advised to give up external objects since then the motive would not be present. The external object is the reason for adhyavasana but not the bondage therefore it is reason for the reason (of bondage). Consider a Muni practicing Irya Samiti and walking carefully and in spite of it an insect flies under his feet and dies. Although violence has occurred but Muni did not have the intent hence he does not accrue bondage. The same logic is applicable in the context of other substances.

The next two gathas 266-267 explain that actually this adhyavasana is meaningless, an exercise in futility. If one entertains such thoughts that ‘ I make others happy or  unhappy, I shackle them of unshackle them’ all these adhyavasanas are as meaningless as ‘I pluck the flowers of the sky’, since they are an exercise in futility only as they do not do anything. In reality the other jiva did not become happy, unhappy, shackled, unshackled because of my adhyavasana. He was happy, unhappy etc. due to fruition of his own karmas but not due to my adhyavasana. Hence what use were my adhyavasana?

Similarly because of his own Veetrag form manifestations a jiva is not bonded with karmas  and proceeds on Moksha marga while he is bonded with karmas due to lack of such veetrag manifestations. No adhyavasana of mine can make him free or bonded with karmas. Hence what purpose did the adhyavasana bhavas serve? They were meaningless.

Now Acharya discloses that these adhyavasana bhavas are the cause for bondage of own karmas in Gathas 268-270. The various adhyavasana bhavas of the Jiva are summarized as follows:

Jiva manifests into violent or non violent forms due to such adhyavasana of violent or non violent nature. Similarly he manifests into forms of Naraki, Tiryanch, Deva, Manushya due to fruition of such adhyavasana. He manifests into forms of punya, pap, happiness, unhappiness on fruition of corresponding adhyavassana. Further he manifests into knowledges of dharma, adharma, jiva, pudgala, lokakash, alokakash etc respectively at the time of knowing them. In this manner soul manifests into various forms. Now at the moments the jiva is indulging in such adhyavasana bhavas, he is not knowing his own soul which is different from these bhavas. Due to lack of knowledge of his own soul at the time of those bhavas, the adhyavasana are agyan. Due to lack of darshan of his own soul, the adhyavasana are Mithya darshan. Due to lack of conduct of own soul, those bhavas are Mithya Charitra. Hence all the adhyavasana are nimitta for bondage for the jiva.

Those who do not have such adhyavasana bhavas are Munis who observe their own soul as different from all other dravyas in form of knowing substance only and believing, knowing and conducting self in such form, thus manifesting in Samyak darshan-gyan-charitra form they do not accrue bondage of karmas.

At this juncture Acharya chooses to define the term Adhyavasana which has cropped up several times in last several gathas. In the gatha 271, he says that the knowledge which is lacking the differentiating knowledge between the self and others, can be called as Adhyavasana which can also be known as Buddhi, Vyavasaya, Mati, Vigyan, chitta, bhava and parinam. All these are different names but the meaning is the same. Primarily they underscore the lack of differentiating knowledge of soul with respect to all others and manifestation in the form of sense of oneness the jiva entertains  with respect to them.

Now Acharya tells an important Gatha 272 wherein he describes the entire Adhyavanasa as due to dependence on other dravyas and hence terms it  as Vyavahara naya. Only Nishchaya naya is dependent upon the soul and is the means to Moksha. The Vyavahara naya being dependent upon others is the cause for adhyavasana bhavas and is therefore worthy of renunciation. In fact he goes on to say that even Abhavya jiva who would never attain moksha, takes recourse to Vyavahara naya thus terming it inconsequential since they would never be rid of the karmas. The implication here is that by taking  recourse to Vyavahara naya alone, one cannot attain Moksha. The Nishchaya naya definitely has to be present and then only jiva could attain Moksha. As an example Abhava ( Jivas incapable of attaining Moksha)  jiva is quoted who keeps practicing Vyavahara naya but can never attain Moksha.

The same aspect is elaborated in next two gathas 273-274 where it is told that the Abhavya jiva can practice Vrita (fasting), Gupti (restraint), Samiti (discipline) , sheel (virtue) and tapa(penance) inclusive of the five great vows of Ahimsa etc. but he is ignorant and Mithyadrishti since he does not have the right knowledge-belief-conduct. The reason is that he does not have knowledge of the pure knowledge form soul hence his concept of Moksha itself is erroneous. This means his belief and knowledge also are defective. Even though he may have studied eleven Angs of scripture but without realisation of pure soul, all his vyavahara efforts are meaningless. The reason is given in gatha 275 wherein it is told that the Abhavya jiva without having  capability of differentiating knowledge is  only interested in enjoyments of the future. Hence all his efforts are directed towards acquiring such enjoyments in future births. He does not have faith in pure soul substance. Hence even though he may attain birth in Gravaiyak heavens as a result of his practices and punya karmas, he would continue to transmigrate in the worldly cycle.

Now Acharya describes the forms of Nishchaya and Vyavahara nayas in gathas 276-277 to justify why Vyavahara naya is discardable and Nishchaya naya is venerable.

Knowledge of   Acharanga etc.  form scriptures is shrutgyan , belief in nine tatvas of the form of Jiva etc. is darshan, and protection of six kinds of jiva forms is charitra. These three define the vyavahara darshan-gyan-charitra. On the other hand pure  soul itself is knowledge, pure soul is darshan and pure soul is charitra from aspect of Nishchaya naya. Even though an abhavya  jiva may have the knowledge of scriptures from aspect of vyavahara, he still may not have knowledge of the soul. Similarly he may have knowledge of nine tatvas but still without experience of the soul he does not have right belief or samyak darshan. In the same way even though he may be practicing protection of six categories of jivas, still without realisation of own soul he does not have samyak charitra. Therefore pure soul alone is right belief-knowledge-conduct and without it the vyavahara of knowledge-belief-conduct is meaningless. In this manner the Nishchaya naya is venerable and vyavahara naya is discardable.

The disciple now enquires that ragas have been called as cause for bondage which are said to be different from the pure soul. Now what is the cause for ragas? Is it soul or someone else?

Acharya replies this in gathas 278-279 with an example. Just as a sapphire gem is transparent by nature and does not manifest in the colour forms of red, yellow etc. on its own, the soul is also pure by nature and does not manifest into ragas etc. form on its own. On the other hand with the nimitta of other colour substances ( kept behind the sapphire stone) the sapphire stone manifests into colour forms of red, yellow etc. In the same way with the nimitta of other dravyas themselves manifesting into raga etc. forms, the soul also manifests into the ragas etc. forms. Such is the nature of substances which cannot be argued. This clearly  establishes that pure soul by himself is not the cause for manifestations into ragas etc. forms but in conjunction with other dravyas as the nimitta is the cause  his manifestations into ragas etc. forms. The same is told in gatha 280 that when the soul has realised own nature then he becomes gyani and then he does not manifest himself into raga-dwesha-moha etc and Kashaya (passions) forms. Thus he himself is not karta (doer) of those bhavas. Knowing his own pure dravya nature, he remains knower of the bhavas which come into fruition. On the other hand the agyani does not know it hence he remains indulgent in those bhavas as doer. The same  is told in gatha 281-282 that without knowing the nature of reality the Agyani believes the bhavas generated by fruition of karmas to be his own and thus being their karta he keeps accruing karmas again and again.

The disciple is still wondering how soul is non-doer of ragas. To convince him Acharya provides the proof from scriptures in gathas 283-285. Acharya says that the soul is naturally non-doer of ragas since if it were not so then the preachment for Pratikraman and Pratyakhyan would not have been of two kinds in the scriptures. Recalling the enjoyments of past by means of other substances and wishing for those substances for enjoyments again is Dravya Apratikraman. The raga etc. form bhavas with the nimitta of those substances in the form of desire, oneness etc. are Bhava Apratikraman. In the same way desiring those substances in future for enjoyments is Dravya Apratyakhyan and the corresponding ragas etc. form bhavas of desire and oneness are Bhava Apratyakhyan. In this manner the Apratikraman and Apratyakhyan each are  of two kinds namely dravya and bhava which denote the nimitta-naimittik relationship between the two. It establishes that other dravyas are nimitta and raga etc form bhavas are naimittik. Now scriptures  advise the Munis to practice dravya pratikraman and dravya pratyakhyan so as to attain bhava pratikraman and bhava pratyakhyan. It implies that one cannot attain bhava pratikraman and bhava pratyakhyan without practicing dravya pratikraman and dravya pratyakhyan. Hence it establishes that soul does not entertain ragas etc. form bhavas on his own. Only when the nimitta form dravya apratikraman and dravya apratyakhyan is there, the soul entertains bhava apratikraman and bhava apratyakhyan. At such moments he is doer of ragas etc. form bhavas.

Further example is quoted of dravya and bhava relationship in the form of nimitta-naimittika in gathas 286-287. Munis do not partake food which are of the form of Adhah Karma and Uddeshik. Adhah Karma food is one which was prepared with faulty process injurious to jivas. Uddeshik food is that which was prepared specifically for that Muni. Now the Muni who has not carried out dravya Pratyakhyan of these two kinds of food, he has not carried out bhava pratyakhyan which occurs with their nimitta. On the other hand the one who has carried out pratyakhyan of such food  with his knowledge, correspondingly he has carried out bhava pratyakhyan also. Such is the nimitta-naimittik relationship between dravya and bhava. The one who accepts other dravya, he naturally entertains raga bhavas corresponding to them and therefore he is doer of those ragas and accrues karmas also. When the soul is Gyani form then he does not have  desire to receive any dravya and therefore he does not have ragas pertaining to them and thus he does not accrue future bondage also.

Acharya advises that in this manner one realises the nimitta-naimittik relationship between other dravya and own bhavas. Knowing this and by discarding other dravyas the continuity  of ragas etc. form bhavas gets broken and then soul experiencing own self gets illuminated within self. Hence this is the means for success against bondage.

Once  bandh is conquered  with knowledge then shedding the disguise bandh exits the stage.

Chapter 9 ( Moksha Adjikar) ( Gathas 288-307) –

Now Moksha enters the stage.

Acharya opens this chapter by describing the means to Moksha. The means is nothing but Pragya (intellect) form chisel using which one separates the bandh and soul by identifying them differently by their natures. This intellect is the only means and there is none other.

In gathas 288-290, Acharya dispels the notion of some other believers who think that knowledge of the bondage in terms of its intensity, duration etc. suffices to get rid of the bondage. He says that just as knowledge of shackles alone is not sufficient to remove the shackles, in the same way the knowledge of bondage cannot remove the bondage. Just as one has to cut the shackles to be free, in the same way by making efforts only one can be free of bondage.

Further in gatha 291 the notion of some other believers who believe  that thinking about the bondage is adequate to attain Moksha is also dispelled. Some people think that thoughts pertaining to karma bondage which are of the form of dharma dhyan can break the bondage. To them also it is told that dharma dhyan is also manifestation in shubha form and that too cannot lead to Moksha.

The means for Moksha is revealed in Gathas 292-294. Just as breaking the shackles only is the means for getting rid of shackles, in the same way the separation of soul from bandh is the only means of Moksha. Those who realise the true nature of soul as different from the nature of bondage and get detached from the characteristics of bondage, they can be free of the karmas.

The means of separation of soul from bondage is the Pragya (intellect) in the form of a tool. By knowing that the nature of soul is consciousness which is extraordinary quality not present in other dravyas, while the characteristics of bandh are ragas etc. form passions;  using the tool of intellect they can be separated.  Consciousness manifests in all the infinite paryayas of soul which are of the form of sequential as well as together( qualities). By their nature of consciousness they can be identified and determined. The bandh is identified by its characteristics of ragas of different kinds which by being  in close proximity of soul appear to belong to soul. But one can distinguish them from their characteristics. Just as the lamp illuminating the pot reveal the illuminating nature of lamp and not the characteristics of pot, in the same way the ragas etc. appearing in the knowledge of the soul as subjects of knowledge reveal the consciousness of the soul and not the raga nature. Thus using intellect one can separate the soul from bandh.

After separation of soul from bandh, what next? This is answered in gatha 295. Once the bandh has been separated by means of its characteristics, then one should embrace the soul. Again a question is asked that how does one embrace the soul? This too is replied in gatha 296. Just as Pragya was used to separate the bandh from soul, the same Pragya is used to embrace the soul. They are not different tools.

To a further enquiry that how does one use Pragya to embrace the soul, the answer is given in gatha 297. With Pragya the soul should be so embraced that the consciousness form soul is definitely myself and the rest of the bhavas are different from myself. The non conscious bhavas of the form of Vyavahara are distinguished by their nature and they are discarded as being different from soul. In the soul, consciousness is the only activity wherein the soul is embraced with six kinds of predicates. Therefore “ I myself, for myself, by myself, with myself, within myself, embrace myself”. Or from the aspect of dravya , even these six predicates are divisive hence they are not within me. I am pure consciousness form soul- in this manner the soul should be embraced by means of Pragya i.e. one should experience soul in the consciousness form.

Continued……

The Essence of Samaysar - 08

 

Now Acharya describe the eight constituents  of Samyakdarshan  by means of gathas 228-236.

The first  Constituent of Samyakdarshan is being  NihShankit ( doubt free). Samyak drishti jivas  are NihShankit because they are free of seven types of fears which are generated by seven types of doubts. These fears have been described by Acharya Amritchandra as follows:

(1)  Fear of present birth : Agyani always fears whether suitable amenities would be lasting for lifelong in this birth The gyani knows that his consciousness alone is his world which would always be present in this life. Nobody can take away his conscious nature. Hence experiencing his knowing self he is fearless.

(2)  Fear of next birth: Agyani always fear where he would be taking birth next, whether it would be pleasant or unpleasant. The Gyani knowing that his consciousness form world is his own domain and none can touch it hence he remains fearless.

(3)  Fear of sufferings: Agyani is always fearful of sufferings and desires to enjoy all the time. The gyani always experiences his knowledge form nature and knows that the sufferings induced by pudgala karmas do not belong to him.

(4)  Fear of lack of protection: Agyani always feels unprotected and fearful for his wealth and assets. The gyani knows that  his dravya is ever existent and can never be destroyed. For this reason he does not need protection by anybody and experiences his knowing nature.

(5)  Fear of lack of secrecy: The agyani is always fearful that his secrets may be revealed to others therefore he keeps trying to hide his information and secrets. The gyani knows that his soul in form of knowledge is his own secret in which no one else can venture or penetrate. His knowledge itself is the fort.

(6)  Fear of death: Agyani is always fearful of death.  Gyani knows that his prans (life) does not reside in senses but his knowledge which is indestructible. Therefore the soul cannot die. Therefore he is fearless.

(7)  Fear of unforeseen: Agyani is always fearing the unforeseen which could  be in any unknown form. The gyani knows that the knowledge of soul is immobile, beginningless, endless, undivided one in  which could nothing unforeseen could happen. Hence he remains fearless.

Now Acharya concludes by telling that although even the samyakdrishti jiva is afflicted with fear on fruition of previously bonded karmas of fear, even then the Samyakdrishti jiva remains doubt free knowing his nature to be that of knowledge and the karmas of fear are not in his nature. Hence he merely knows them and the karmas also shed away on fruition. This is how the Nirjara of karmas of fear occurs by means of NihShankit quality of Samyak drishti.

Next constituent of Samyak darshan  is NihKankshit (desire free) quality. The samaykdrishti jiva is free of desires. He is not interested in the fruition of karmas being favourable or unfavourable resulting in happiness or sorrow. He remains of knower form only. Although at lower level of spirituality he does indulge in enjoyments due to his weakness of conduct and fruition of charitra moha karmas, still he is aware of it and indulges in enjoyments with reluctance like a patient taking medicine. Therefore even his enjoyments result in Nirjara of karmas, without bondage of future karmas.

The third constituent of Samyakdarshan is NirVichikitsa ( Aversion free)  quality. The samyak drishti jiva does not have repulsion towards any quality of any dravya, knowing it to be in their nature therefore he remains aversion free knowing his own  nature to be that of knowledge. Therefore the fruition of jugupsa (aversion) karma do not result in bondage and is shed away in Nirjara.

The fourth constituent of Samyakdarshan is AmudhDrishti ( ignorance free) quality. The Samyakdrishti knows the nature of all substances correctly hence he does not have raga-dwesha-moha towards any of them while ignorant jiva believes things to be his. Although due to fruition of charitra moha, the Samyak drishti may have some weakness of conduct but he does not lose his knowing nature hence those karmas also shed away in the form of Nirjara.

The next constituent of Samyakdarshan is Upagoohan ( protection) quality. The samyakdrishti protects his own nature and increases his self virtues. He protects self from falling prey to  desires etc. form allurements and contemplates upon his knowing nature.

The sixth constituent of Samyakdarshan is SthitiKaran (Non wavering )  quality. By his own steadfastness he ensures self to remain unwavering in the Moksha marga and protects self from deviating from the path. In this way the fruition of karmas which would have caused him to deviate from the path shed away in Nirjara.

The seventh constituent of Samyakdarshan  is Vatsalya (affection) quality. The samyakdrishti jiva has immense affection towards the Moksha marga and those following it. Hence he does not accrue bondage on account of  ignorance of Moksha marga and his karmas attain Nirjara on fruition.

The eight constituent is Prabhavana ( glorification) quality. Those who continuously practice and enhance their knowledge, they directly or indirectly promote the dharma conveyed by Jinendra bhagwan and thus ensuring Prabhavana of jina marga. For him also nirjara accrues.

Since Samaysar deals with Nishchaya naya primarily the above eight constituents of Samyak darshan have been described from aspect of Nishchaya where the qualities of soul are described. The same eight are described briefly  from aspect of Vyavahara naya as follows:

1.     NihShankit : Not having doubt in the words  preached by Jinendra bhagawan  and not deviating from the vyavahara samyakdarshan- gyan-charitra in spite of fear.

2.     NihKankshit: Not deviating from the path of Vyavahara Moksha marga on account of worldly desires of enjoyments or other philosophies.

3.     NirVichikitsa : Not having repulsion in the path of Vyavahara Moksha marga due to nimitta of smelly, impure objects.

4.     AmudhaDrishti: Not having ignorance with respect to forms of Deva, Guru, shastra (scriptures) with right understanding of the forms of Tatvas(elements) of other religions.

5.     Upagoohan: Ignoring and belittling the mistakes of other co-followers and promoting the activities of Vyavahara Moksha marga.

6.     SthitiKaran: Reinstating those deviating from Vyavahara Moksha marga into the right path.

7.     Vatsalya: Having affection towards the followers of Vyavahara Moksha marga and supporting their activities.

8.     Prabhavana: Promoting the glorification of Vyavahara Moksha marga by various means.

Acharya Amritchandra concludes this chapter on Nirjara adhikar by stating that with the revelation of eight constituents of Samyakdarshan, the Samyakdrishti jiva attains nirjara of previously bonded karmas, preventing bondage of fresh karmas, he enjoys his own knowledge of the nature of all pervasive, continuous, indivisible form on the stage of entire world.

With this Nirjara exits the stage

Chapter 8 ( Bandh Adjikar) ( Gathas 237-287) –

Now bandh enters the stage.

To begin with Acharya praises the glory of Samyakgyan who knows all the Tatvas truly. The bandh tatva has been dancing in the world fooling everyone. The Samyakgyan knows him correctly and is immersed within self enjoying the nectar of bliss being unperturbed and free of engagement of receiving or discarding any possessions.

Now in gathas 237-241 the reason for bondage is described by means of example.

Consider  a person who exercises  with sword etc. equipments after anointing his body with oil etc. in a field having lot of dust. As part of the exercises he penetrates/ strikes various trees, destroys sentient insentient substances as a result of which his body is covered with dust. Now Acharya asks to answer what is the cause for dust to get attached to the person’s body. It cannot be dusty ground since even those who have not applied oil would  have also been covered with dust. Exercising with sword etc. equipments also cannot be the cause since those who are exercising without applying oil would have also been covered with dust. With the same logic, equipments or destruction of sentient/insentient substances is also not the cause otherwise all those who have not applied oil would have also been covered with dust. 

Therefore with this description, it can be concluded that application of oil was the reason for bondage of dust on the body. In  the same way the Mithyadrishti jiva indulges in ragas of different kinds in this lok which is pervaded with different kind of karma particles and engaging in activities of mind-speech-body using different kinds of tools he destroys sentient and insentient substances and thereby accrues karma bondage. Now what is the cause for the bondage of karma particles? Firstly the lok pervaded with karma particles is not the cause otherwise even Siddhas who are residing in the lok shall also have to suffer bondage. Activities of mind-speech-body cannot be the cause for bondage otherwise even the practitioners of Yathakhyat charitra ( 11^th and above gunasthana) would accrue bondage. Different kinds of tools(senses)  are also not cause for bondage otherwise even the Keval gyanis would have to accrue bondage. Destruction of sentient and insentient substances is not the cause otherwise even the sadhus who practice samiti with effort would also undergo bondage. With this logic, it is established that manifesting in the form of ragas in the Upayoga alone is the cause for bondage of karmas.

It must be borne in mind that this consideration has been described from the aspect of Nishchaya naya wherein the accrual of karmas on account of weakness has been ignored being insignificant compared to bondage accrued on account of Mithyatva.

To substantiate the same conclusion Gathas 242-246 describe the opposite scenario. In this the person has not applied oil of any kind and is practicing in a dusty field with sword etc. kind of equipments penetrating, striking various kinds of trees and destroying sentient and insentient substances in the process. Acharya asks to answer why that person has not been covered with dust? Surely it is because of lack of application of any oil and not because of any activities of the body. In the same way, the Samyak drishti jiva does not indulge in ragas in his upayoga, even though he is carrying out various activities of mind-speech-body  and hence he does not accrue any bondage.

Acharya concludes by lauding the strange glory of Samyak darshan. While the lok is full with karma particles and  activities of mind-speech-body are going on wherein  destruction of sentient/insentient substances occurs, even then the Samyak drishti soul is definitely not accruing karma bondage since his upayoga is not indulgent in ragas and he is manifesting in knowledge form only. Of course it does not imply that one can become despotic  or promiscuous thinking that he would not accrue bondage being Samyakdrishti. It is understood that all the above statements are made from aspect of Nishchaya . If the intent of the jiva is to harm others then surely he would accrue bondage. Unintentionally and in spite of taking due care if some jiva is harmed then yes he is not responsible for it and hence he does not accrue bondage. Therefore one should consider these principles keeping the aspect of view in mind.

Acharya Amritchandra cautions again with a beautiful kalash(167) at this juncture stating that the one who is a knower, does not do, and the one who is a doer , does not know. This can be understood by recalling the real nature of jiva is just knowing.  Doing is nothing but raga of karma, which is described by Munis as due to ignorance form uncertainties. Such ignorance is characteristics of Mithyadrishti jiva and hence he surely undergoes bondage. 

Now the state of ignorance of Mithyadrishti jiva is described in Gathas 247-249, in the context of hurting or killing another jiva. If one thinks that he can kill another jiva or another jiva can kill him then it is his ignorance and he is Mithyadrishti. The one who does not  have such ignorance is Samyakdrishti.

Acharya says that Jinendra deo has told that all jivas die on account of fruition of their Ayu Karma. Then how do you think you can kill someone since you cannot take away his Ayu Karma. By the same logic how do you think others can kill you if they cannot take away your Ayu Karma? Since you do not have access to other’s Ayu karmas nor others have access to your Ayu karma then how can one kill another at all? Therefore such beliefs are nothing but ignorance out of Mithyatva.

Again it is cautioned that the above statements are made in aspect of Nishchaya naya. From aspect of Vyavahara one is said to be nimitta for killing of another person although  the death of person surely occurs on fruition of his own Ayu karma.

Someone may enquire that although he may not be able to kill someone but surely he can protect someone from being killed? This too is answered in gatha 250. ‘I can protect someone or someone can save me’, such bhavas also are agyan , hence the jiva is Mithyadrishti. The one who does not entertain such thoughts is truly Samyakdrishti. The logic behind it is explained in gathas 251-252. Acharya says that people are alive due to fruition of their Ayu Karma as told by omniscient. Now you cannot give them Ayu karma then how can you protect or extend their life? By the same logic they cannot give you Ayu Karma hence how can you say that they protected you? In this manner it is emphasized that neither you can  give Ayu Karma, nor you can take away Ayu karma hence you cannot kill or protect another jiva. All such thoughts of doing so are agyan and Mithyatva.

Now in gathas 253-256 the same logic is extended to thoughts of making other jivas happy or unhappy. Those who think that others make him happy or unhappy and he can make others happy or unhappy are ignorant Mithyadrishti only. The reason is every jiva enjoys happiness or unhappiness on account of fruition of their karmas. Now you cannot give them those karmas nor they can give karmas. Hence neither you can make others happy/unhappy nor other can make you happy/unhappy. Hence any such thoughts are borne out of ignorance and Mithyatva. Again it is reminded that this is the reality from aspect of Nishchaya. However from aspect of Vyavahara of nimitta-naimittik relationship, one is said to be responsible of making other happy or unhappy.

Gathas 257-258 consolidate the same principle that whoever dies or lives,  enjoys happiness or unhappiness, does so on account of fruition of their karmas since these do not happen without fruition of their own karmas. Therefore anyone who thinks otherwise that he can make other live or die, make other happy or unhappy is Mithyadrishti agyani.

Now an important fact is revealed in gathas 259-261 that such ignorant bhavas described as Adhyavasaya are cause for bondage of the jiva who indulges in them. ‘I kill or protect other and I make other happy or unhappy’ all such bhavas are out of ignorance and Mithyatva. They themselves are ragas and hence accrue bondage of karmas. The important point highlighted by Acharya is that although protecting or making other happy is shubha bhava while killing or making other unhappy is ashubha bhava, their root lies in Mithyatva wherein the notion of doing good or bad to others is entertained. Hence both are cause for bondage and one should not think that the cause for punya bondage is different from the cause for pap bondage. Both are cause for bondage of Mithyatva being of the form of ignorance.

Therefore in Gatha 262 Acharya makes a startling statement which makes Jainism so different from other philosophies. It is the universal law of real justice which tells that even though one can get away with sins  without being detected, they cannot escape the justice of Karmas. This gatha states unequivocally that whether the other jiva was killed or not, the karma bondage is accrued based upon the Adhyavasan bhava of killing. In reality, this is the summary of bondage of jivas. The bhava of killing the other jiva is the real cause for bondage. The other jiva gets killed only on fruition of his Ayu karma hence the actual killing may or may not take place. But the accrual of karmas has happened the moment such thoughts were entertained. Further the thought that I can kill others is nothing but  Mithyatva hence there is bondage corresponding to that ignorance also which is far more harmful than the actual deed. 

Continued…….