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…..