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……
No comments:
Post a Comment