Aapta Pariksha ( Validation of Omniscient )- 3

 

Karika 64 : (Vaisheshiks): In Maheshwara only the knowledge is experienced and it is not experienced in sky etc. others, hence the ‘Samavaya’ of knowledge is believed in Maheshwara only and not sky etc.

(Jains): How did you accept the existence of knowledge within Maheshwara only without a corresponding rule?

Karika 65: (Vaisheshiks): Sky is seen to be insentient while Ishwara is sentient hence insentience can be considered to be the decider for knowledge to have ‘Samavaya’ with Maheshwara.

(Jains): Just as sky is considered to be insentient in absence of knowledge, in the same way Maheshwara has to be considered as insentient in the absence of knowledge as per your philosophy since from the aspect of knowledge, there is no difference between Maheshwara and the sky.

Karika 66-69: (Jains): If you say that Ishwara is by himself neither sentient knower, nor non-knower (insentient) by himself but he is knower by the Samavaya of knowledge while sky by itself is insentient , hence there is difference between sky and Maheshwara. Then we ask you that just as you believe Ishwara not to be sentient by himself nor insentient by himself , in the same way do you accept soul to be within Ishwara or not?

(Vaisheshiks): Ishwara by himself is neither soul nor non-soul. With the Samavaya of ‘Atma’, he is believed to be soul.

(Jain): Just as Ishwara is neither soul or non-soul, is he not even dravya ?

(Vaisheshiks): When we believe that there is absolute  difference between dharma and dharmi (owner of dharma) then  how can Ishwara be dravya or non-dravya himself? With the Samavaya of dravya only Ishwara can be called dravya.

(Jains): Then it appears that you would not be even accepting the Sat Swaroop (existent nature) of Ishwara.

(Vaisheshiks) : There is no doubt. Ishwara by himself is neither Sat or non-Sat (existent or non existent), but only with the Samavaya of Satta (existence) he is called existent form.

(Jains): If in this manner all the dharmas(qualities) of Ishwara you believe to be absolutely different from Ishwara then Ishwara would not have anything of his own. In such a case Ishwara cannot be even called a specific type of substance. Hence existent or non existent, some form of Ishwara you would have to definitely accept.

Karika 70-71 ( Jains): In case you accept Ishwara to be non existent and have Samavaya of existence with him, then the question would arise that just as Ishwara is non-existent, the flowers in the sky are also non-existent. Then why should one accept Samavaya of existence in Ishwara but not in flowers of the sky? In case you say that Ishwara is existent and then you have accepted Samavaya of existence with him then we shall ask that when Ishwara is existent by nature then what is the purpose of Samavaya of existence with him? Further if you believe already existent Ishwara has Samavaya of existence then you can also accept Samavaya of existence in Samanya etc.(general etc.)

Karika 72-73: (Jains): Just as you have accepted existent to have Samavaya of existence, in the same way you should accept Samavaya of dravya, sentience, soul-ness in already existent dravya, sentient, soul since whatever is not of the form of dravya etc. by itself, cannot have a Samavaya of dravya nature etc. You can call is Samavaya, we call it Tadatmya (oneness), we would have no objection.

Karika 74-75 (Jains): When just like other dharmas(qualities), the knowingness is established to be own  nature of Ishwara, then believing Ishwara to have knowingness with the Samavaya of knowledge is also meaningless. Further when you have accepted the knowledge of self and others to be the nature of Ishwara i.e. having Tadatmya (oneness) relationship, then between your Ishwara and our Jineshwara, no difference exists.

Karika 76-77: (Jains): Therefore it establishes our statement that Veetrag (detached), omniscient, having body and great punya of Tirthankara naam karma- such Arhant deva only can preach the path to Moskha . Those who are different from knowledge, who have not destroyed their karmas-  such Shiva, Ishwara, Maheshwara etc. whether with body or without body, cannot preach the path for Moksha.

                                                Validation of Kapil

Samkhya philosophy is considered to be one of the most ancient philosophies in India. It is attributed to Kapil Muni who is considered to be their Aapt. As per Jain scriptures, son of Bharat was Marichi and his son was Kapil who was the founder of Samkhya philosophy. Thus he was the great grandson of Rishabha deva who was the first tirthankara in the current cycle of time in Bharat Kshetra.

In Samkhya philosophy there are two main Tatvas ; they are Purusha and Prakriti. Purush is conscious soul while Prakriti is pudgala i.e. matter. Prakriti gets divided into 23 further tatvas which are all corruptions of Prakriti. Now in this philosophy the soul is never corrupted from any aspect. It remains pure, permanent and inactive, thereby not even manifesting in any form. On the other hand Prakriti only manifests into various forms. Knowledge is also the attribute of Prakriti.

Karika 78-79: From the same logic as described earlier, the leadership of Kapil in the path of Moksha Marga can be rejected since he is said to be different from knowledge. Hence he cannot be omniscient and therefore cannot be preacher of Moksha Marga.

Even if himself ignorant Kapil is said to be omniscient in conjunction with the knowledge of Prakriti , even then he cannot be really omniscient. If with the nimitta of Prakriti Kapil can be omniscient then even sky can be omniscient in conjunction with knowledge of Prakriti. If it is said that only Kapil is conscious and hence he alone can be the preacher, then it can be asked that other liberated Jivas also as conscious, why can’t they be preacher of Moksha Marga. ( In Samkhya philosophy only Kapil is considered to be preacher).

(Samkhya): The liberated jivas do not have any relationship with Prakriti and hence they cannot be Gyani, nor can they preach. Kapil etc. can have  relationship with Prakriti hence they can be Gyani also and can preach.

(Jains): In such a case you will have to have two kinds of Prakriti wherein they can have relationship or not.

(Samkhya): In reality Prakriti is one only and the  two divisions of having relationship or not is imaginary. Since imagination is not real hence Prakriti is one only.

(Jains): If such division is imaginary then the divisions in Purush of liberated and worldly also should be imaginary?

(Samkhya): We accept the divisions of Purush into worldly and liberated as imaginary only, since liberated and worldly are also divisions of Prakriti only and knowledge is also dharma of Prakriti.

Karika 80-83: (Samkhya): Being knowledgeable Prakriti only gives the preachment of Moksha and omniscience is also attribute of Prakriti. The destruction of karmas of the form of Rajo-gunas and tamo-gunas is also carried out by Prakriti.

(Jains): When Prakriti is non conscious substance then how can it have omniscience and how can it destroy the karmas? If worldliness is due to lack of right knowledge and liberation is with attainment of right knowledge and these are considered to be attributes of Prakriti only then  why imagine existence of Purush needlessly at all?

(Samkhya): Although all the acts are carried out by Prakriti, even then the fruition of all the acts of prakriti is experienced by Purush only.

(Jains): When you call Purush as enjoyer of the fruition of all the deeds then you should also accept Purush only as the doer of all the deeds. You cannot call Purush as enjoyer but not the doer. Further when you call Prakriti as preacher of Moksha, even then in your philosophies Kapil is worshiped for attainment of Moksha. It is sad commentary on your wisdom that one is benefited from Prakriti and Purush is worshiped. Or, Moksha is attained by Prakriti and Moksha is desired by Purush. Lastly how can purush be enjoyer and still be called inactive since enjoyment is also a deed.

                                                Validation of Sugat

The followers of Bauddha philosophy believe Buddha or Sugat was omniscient and preacher of Moksha Marga  since he was with body as well as omniscient.

Karika 84: (Jains): You have a principle that the substance which is not the cause for the knowledge, cannot be known by that knowledge also. Then the substances which have not yet materialized cannot be known by knowledge. Sugat cannot be omniscient since he cannot be knowing the manifestations which would materialize in future. When his omniscience itself is not proved then he cannot be preacher of Moksha marga like Kapil.

Karika 85: (Jains): If you say that Gautam Buddha is omniscient by imagination and he is preacher of Moksha Marga hence he is venerated, then all these imaginary talks are like knowledge of a dream and even the dream knowledge would have to be venerated.

Karika 86: (Jains): In the Vigyan Adwaitvad or the followers of Yogachar in Bauddha sect, they believe transitory knowledge only to be the substance and nothing else in the world. Whatever is being seen in the world is just manifestation of knowledge only. This is similar to Purush Adwait or Gyan Adwait accepted by Vedant followers. If you use any logic or means to prove or establish it then it becomes another entity which defeats the singularity of Gyan Adwait.

                                                Validation of Param Purush

Param Purush stands for Bramha which is accepted as Aapt by Vedant followers. Although in  Aapt Pariksha no separate Karika was written to negate the Aapt nature of Bramha, but in his own commentary by Acharya Vidyanand, he has extended the logic of Karika 86 to apply on Vedant philosophy as follows:

(Jains): The description of Param Purush or Bramha as narrated by you does not withstand the scrutiny of logic. You (Vedants) say that Param Purush is consciousness form cognizance-general which is real since in spite of differences of  place, time or shape, the cognizance-general is never absent.

We ask you that this cognizance-general is accompanied with cognizance-specific or devoid of it? The first part cannot be established since no cognizance-general is experienced without cognizance-specific. All the cognizance-general are experienced along with cognizance-specific only.

Now this cognizance specific is existent and not imaginary. Further the general cannot exist without specifics hence issue of duality arises. Therefore the Adwait cannot be established.

(Vedant): The cognizance-specifics are there but they are imaginary, not real.

(Jains): If you say so then cognizance-general would also become imaginary and unreal. Further in accepting Gyan-Adwait, the Gyan(knowledge) only would also be Gyeya (subject of knowledge) hence in lieu of Purush-Adwait there would be Gyeya-Adwait.

(Vedant): In the absence of Gyan how can Gyeya be established?

(Jains): In the absence of Gyeya, how can Gyan be established? Both are complimentary to each  other.

(Vedant): In the dreams, mesmerism etc. gyan is seen even without gyeya.

(Jains): No there also Gyeya-general exists. Hence if you accept Gyan then you have to accept existence of Gyeya also. Otherwise the Gyan itself cannot exist.

In this manner the Purush-Adwait or Vigyan-Adwait is not established therefore the Param Purush as Aapt also can not be  established.  

To be concluded .......

Aapta Pariksha ( Validation of Omniscient )- 2

 

Karika 22-24: (Followers of Shankar sect): Just as worldly people form their bodies from the previous body and the previous body is formed from earlier body endlessly, in the same way it could be accepted for Ishwara also. This would not lead to Anavastha flaw.

(Jains): By accepting this, Ishwara also would becomes like common folks inflicted with karmas transmigrating from one body to another. Thus Ishwara too would be proved to have karmas.

Karika 25-26: (Jains): Hence it is proved that Ishwara does not have body nor does he have any specific dharmas because those exist only in the presence of body. It is also not right to say that he functions like Jineshwara without having desire.

In this manner the beliefs of Naiyayiks etc.  who accept Ishwara as doer of body etc. form worldly activities, are refuted. Now Vaisheshiks say that leave aside the desire, body etc. of Ishwara, we accept the knowledge alone of Ishwara as cause for the worldly activities. What is the flaw there?

(Jains): Tell us whether knowledge of Ishwara is permanent or transitory? Is it all pervasive or non-pervasive? Is it different or indifferent? Whatever you answer, there shall be flaws in the same as follows:

Karika 27 : If the knowledge of  body-less Ishwara is permanent then there should not be a chronological sequence in the events of the world. All the events should have happened in the same instant. It a rule of Nyaya (logic) that in the presence of sufficient reasons the deed  always materializes.   If the cause does not have sequence then how can the effect have a sequence? (the knowledge is always present without sequence so events should happen at the same instant.)

Further there is another flaw that the permanent Gyan cannot be said to be either Praman (cause form) or its result (deed form). Since-

Karika 28-29 : Just as Jains believe the impermanent Samyak Gyan as Praman ( cause) and the subsequent eradication of Agyan is the result (fruition) of the Praman, in the same way if the knowledge of Ishwara is believed to be permanently of the Praman form  then it does not lead to any result (fruition) since no work is done. If the same knowledge is cause as well as its effect then it becomes impermanent which goes against Vaisheshik’s belief. Similarly if the knowledge of Ishwara is said to be only fruition then again it cannot be permanent since it can be accepted as fruition only if it is the result of Praman (cause). And if it is accepted to be result of Praman then it cannot remain permanent. Further if the knowledge is accepted to be fruition without its generation then how can it be called as result? In this manner the permanent knowledge of Ishwara cannot be proved to be either Praman or its fruition. To avoid this flaw if Vaisheshiks accept the knowledge to be impermanent then also it cannot be satisfactory as follows-

Karika 30-31: If the knowledge of Ishwara is believed to be impermanent without a cause ( of the form of Ishwara)  and generated on its own then what is the necessity of accepting Ishwara as cause for generation of other acts also? (If knowledge is generated without Ishwara then other things can also be done.) Or, if that knowledge is said to be generated from another knowledge and that another knowledge from a third knowledge, it leads to flaw of endless connotation without any knowledge being the cause. If to avoid this endless connotation if you accept knowledge to be of eternal form like tree and seed, then Vaisheshiks would also have to accept the presence of eternal karmas, since without accepting a sequence in the cause there cannot be a sequence in the result. With the Ishwara form reason being permanent, there cannot be a sequence. Without the progeny of karmas, there cannot be a cause for the knowledge to be sequential. The progeny of karmas cannot be established without accepting Ishwara with a body. Accepting Ishwara to have a body form makes him non liberated while Ishwara has been accepted to be liberated by Vaisheshiks. In this way there are several flaws in accepting the knowledge of Ishwara as impermanent.

Karika 32-35 : If the knowledge of Ishwara is believed to be non-pervasive and at the same time accepted to be cause for all the events of the universe, then with that knowledge all the events in all the places cannot be accepted, since knowledge within a limited area can be a cause for events in a limited area only, not in all the areas. If you say that knowledge residing in limited area can be cause for all the events of all the areas, then we can say that just as knowledge residing in limited area can be cause for all the events of all the areas, in the same way the knowledge within a limited period can be a cause for all the events of all the times ( which otherwise occur sequentially in time). In other words, if limited area knowledge can be expanded to cover all the acts of the universe, then same logic can be extended to time and limited period knowledge should suffice for all events of all times to be culminated simultaneously.

If to counter the above described flaw, it is said that due to absence of other reasons, all the events do not occur together, then the question arises that in spite of knowledge being there, and due to absence  of other reasons the events do not occur and with the presence of those reasons definitely those events occur, then those reasons only should be accepted to be the reasons for the producing the activities of the universe. Since with the presence of those reasons the events take place and with the absence of those reasons the events do not take place. The knowledge of Ishwara was always present and was never absent. Hence knowledge of Ishwara is inconsequential since even in its presence sometimes the events occur and sometimes it does not occur. On the other hand in the presence of other reasons the events occur and in their absence the events do not occur. Therefore the knowledge of Ishwara residing in limited area cannot be  a cause for the worldly events.

Karika 36 : If the knowledge of Ishwara is believed to be all pervasive and permanent, then also the same logic as described above  can be extended. Such knowledge, like the Ishwara cannot be a reason for the events of the Universe to occur sequentially. In other words all the events of universe of all times should transpire within one moment itself.

Now it is asked that whether the Ishwara knows himself or does not know himself?

Flaw if he does not know himself :

Karika 37- 39: The Naiyayiks and Vaisheshiks believe that knowledge of Ishwara knows all the substances of the universe but does not know himself. Then the doubt arises that if he does not know himself then how can he be called omniscient? One is omniscient only if he knows all the knowables. Therefore it does not establish his omniscient nature.

If you say that Ishwara knows himself by means of another knowledge, therefore he becomes omniscient, then the question arises that if second knowledge enabled him to know self, then how did he know the second knowledge? If you say a third knowledge enabled to know second then again how did he know the third knowledge? In this way it would continue ad infinitum  and finally a knowledge would exist which would not be known to anybody. So it would hinder the establishment of Ishwara as omniscient. Or other wise you have to accept that Ishwara also knows himself.

Vaisheshiks say that there is no harm in accepting that the knowledge is different from Ishwara either.

Flaw if Ishwara knows himself:

Karika 40-42 : (Jains): If the knowledge of Maheshwara is entirely different from Maheshwara then how does one say that the knowledge belongs to Maheshwara or the sky?

(Vaisheshiks): The knowledge of Maheshawara belongs to Maheshwara by means of ‘Samavaya’ relationship. Sky does not have ‘Samavaya’ relationship with knowledge.

(Jains); As per your philosophy the ‘Samavaya’ also is totally different from Maheshwara and the knowledge. Therefore the question arises that why ‘Samavaya’ relationship is between Maheshwara and knowledge? Why not between sky and knowledge?

(Vaisheshiks): Between Maheshwara and knowledge only there is hindrance free relationship and not between sky and knowledge.

(Jains) : If you say that hindrance free relationship is the cause for ‘Samavaya’ relationship then there would be no difference between conjunction and ‘samavaya’ just as it is said that ‘curd is there in the pot’.

(Vaisheshiks): Our objective was to establish that ‘knowledge is there in Maheshwara’. This establishes their relationship.

(Jains): Just relationship is alright but the purpose of ‘Samavaya’ could not be established. In this way the belief of Maheshwara knowing himself with the knowledge being different from him is also not established.  

Karika 43-44 : (Visheshiks): Although ‘Samavaya’ is not established from relationship, even then the substances which are ‘AyutSiddha’, they can have ‘Samavaya’ relation. In this manner Maheshwara and knowledge can have relationship.

(Jains): You are accepting ‘AyutSiddha’ objects as the criterion for ‘Samavaya’ relationship, this is refuted by your own philosophy. ‘AyutSiddha’ are those substances which do not have different support i.e. they are inseparable like milk and water, which is accepted as the worldly definition of ‘AyutSiddha’. But you do not yourself accept milk and water to have ‘Samavaya’ relationship. In your philosophy the threads and the cloth have ‘Samavaya’ relationship and you yourself accept the support for cloth to be its threads and the support for threads to be its constituents. Hence from your own philosophy the ‘Samavaya’ relationship is established between substances having different supports. Therefore they cannot have ‘AyutSiddha’ relationship. If ‘AyutSiddha’ relationship is not there,  they cannot have ‘Samavaya’ relationship. In this way Maheshwara and knowledge are not established to be ‘Ayutsiddha’, hence they cannot have ‘Samavaya’ relationship.

Karika 45-48 : (Vaisheshiks): The characteristics of ‘YutSiddha’ is defined as substances having different support. The Maheshwara is all pervasive hence he does not have any support. The knowledge cannot have any different support. Therefore Maheshwara and knowledge cannot have ‘YutSiddha’ relationship as they do not have different support. Hence they can be accepted to have ‘AyutSiddha’ relationship. 

(jains): If you accept Maheshwara and his knowledge to have AyutSiddha relationship since different supports for them  cannot be  established, then we ask that the sky and soul also are all pervasive hence they do not have different supports, then they should also be treated as ‘AyutSiddha’ and hence should have ‘Samavaya’ ? Now the qualities of dravya etc. also do not have separate support, therefore they cannot be said to be ‘YutSiddha’. Hence being ‘AyutSiddha’ they too  should have ‘Samavaya’ with sky, soul. If they are not treated as ‘AyutSiddha’ then due to absence of ‘Yutsiddha’ and ‘Ayutsiddha’ both, there would be great contradiction.

Karika 49: (Vaisheshiks): In the all pervasive substances like sky, soul etc. the togetherness is experienced hence they can be said to be ‘YutSiddha’.

(Jains): Such togetherness is also experienced even where you accept ‘Ayutsiddha’ such as substance and its qualities, doer-deed, substance and its constituents etc. There too you should accept ‘Yutsiddha’ and hence they cannot have ‘Samavaya’ and instead they would have togetherness.

Karika 50-51 (Jains): In this way since ‘Ayutsiddha’ is not established which was described as  cause for ‘Samavaya’ hence that too cannot be established. Hence that cause cannot be used to differentiate between substances.

Another point which we would like to know is that just as knowledge of Maheshwara has Samavaya relationship with Maheshwara, how does the  samavaya itself attaches to Maheshwara? Is it by means of another ‘Samavaya’? But you have not accepted this and described it as the relationship between substance and its quality. Therefore the cause for establishment of ‘Samavaya’ has been corrupted and due to corrupt logic the ‘Samavaya’ can not be established.

Karika 52-55 (Vaisheshiks): If the substances entering into samavaya are believed to be carried out by another samavaya then that samavaya would need a third samavaya to attach it. In this manner infinite samavayas shall be required resulting in the flaw of infinite connotation. Therefore we accept samavaya to have relationship with substance like that of quality and qualified. In such a case the flaw does not arise.

(Jains): If you accept that in Maheshwara and knowledge, the Samavaya resides with quality and qualified relationship, then we ask that how the quality-qualified relation is retained between its relatives? As per your own logic, the quality-qualified would need another quality-qualified relationship to retain it between the relatives, which would need a third quality-qualified relationship. In this manner the same flaw of infinite connotation is  encountered.

Karika 56: (Vaisheshiks): The anomaly is eliminated by knowing the relationship of quality-qualified by means of quality-qualified knowledge.

(Jains) : Just as  ‘Knowledge in Maheshwara’ has anomaly of support-supported, in the same way the anomaly of support-supported appears here.

Karika 57-59: (Vaisheshiks): The anomaly of infinite connotation can come only when we believe the quality-qualified relationship to be single only and to avoid anomaly we have to imagine several quality-qualified relationships. In reality itself we accept infinite quality-qualified relationships, then how can the anomaly exist? So long as the people desirous of knowing wish, they can imagine the relationship of quality-qualified, and when the desire is satiated then the imagination of quality-qualified also gets quenched. In this manner the anomaly of infinite connotation is not encountered.

(Jains): If you accept infinite relationships of quality-qualified then why do you need ‘samavaya’ and ‘togetherness’ relationships ? Why do you not accept quality-qualified relationships everywhere and believe ‘samavaya’ and ‘togetherness’ as one of their divisions ?

(Vaisheshiks): The ‘Samavaya’ relation is an independent different entity. How can it be a division of quality-qualified relationship ?

(Jains): By believing ‘Samavaya’ as and independent entity, the following flaws are experienced-

Karika 60-62: (Jains): You believe ‘Samavaya’ to be an independent substance, then why do you call it dependent upon its relatives and if you accept it dependent then why do you call it independent? If in spite of ‘Samavaya’ being dependent upon others, you call it independent then nothing shall be dependent.

(Vaisheshiks): In reality the ‘Samavaya’ is an independent substances but the Vyavahara of ‘Samavaya’ is carried out in the presence of relatives hence formally it is accepted as dependent. There is no harm in accepting so.

(Jains): If we accept that in the presence of relatives the ‘Samavaya’ is considered to be dependent in Vyavahara sense then in the same way the Vyavahara of direction etc. pervasive substances is carried out in the presence of corporeal substances, then direction etc. pervasive substances should be treated as dependent. If they are treated as dependent then it contradicts your own philosophy.

If you accept ‘Samavaya’ as absolutely independent then then you cannot make a rule of ‘Samavaya’ with respect to its relatives that this ‘Samavaya’ belongs to these relatives only and not others. To establish relationship of ‘Samavaya’ it should be treated as dependent upon the relatives only.

Karika 63 : (Jains): Further by accepting ‘Samavaya’ as a single substance, the question arises that when ‘Samavaya’ is absolutely  single substance, then why does knowledge remain with Maheshwara only with ‘Samavaya; relationship, and not with sky etc. insentient substances?

Continued…..

Aapta Pariksha ( Validation of Omniscient )....1

 

Preface : The author of this book is Acharya Vidyanand  swamy whose period is believed to be around 775A.D. to 840 A.D. These were the times when there used to be serious debates between various philosophies  in the courts of the kings and people also used to take deep  interest in them. Prominent philosophies in those times were Naiyayik, Vaisheshik, Samkhya, Vedanta, Bauddha and Jain.  Acharya Vidyanand have written several scriptures which are followed even now in several universities. These are Ashta Sahasri, Tatvarth Shloka Vartika, Aapta Pariksha, Praman Pariksha, Satya Shasan Pariksha etc. The present book under our consideration is Aapt Pariksha. It has only 124 Karikas or shlokas which compare different philosophies for their belief of Aapt or the Omniscient Guru. It is established with indisputable arguments that out of all the philosophies the form of Aapt or Omniscient Guru  believed by Jains is quite valid and true while all other beliefs have some flaw or other. It is important to keep in mind that the objective of the book is not to criticize or ridicule other philosophies. While it is charitable and noble to say that all religions are alike; when one considers the objectives, the path and the results, the differences can be explicitly observed.  Even Jain followers get doubts sometimes between the concepts of Jain and other philosophies. Therefore it becomes necessary to use a mechanism to decide between the right and the wrong. Without knowing what is right how can anyone follow it?  For taking such decisions what kind of tests one should apply, is the subject of this book. This line of subject was known as Nyaya ( Logic) and a significant amount of Jain scriptures dealt  with this subject. Notable among the authors were Acharya SamantBhadra, Acharya Akalank, Acharya Vidyanand etc.

Tatvartha Sutra written by Acharya Umaswamy in 1^st century  is considered to be the  most widely followed Jain scripture. Large number of commentaries have been written by later Munis and Acharyas on this book to explain it in detail.  Its Mangalacharan itself has been subject of great admiration and reverence. Acharya Samant Bhadra (3^rd century) wrote Aapt Mimamsa simply based upon this Mangalacharan which again is source for several subsequent  books by many authors. Acharya Vidyanand himself wrote Ashta Sahasri as a commentary on this book. The present work of Aapt Pariksha also uses the Magalacharan of Tatvartha Sutra as basis on which the decisions on form of Aapt i.e.  the most venerable Guru is taken.

 Acharya Vidyanand even wrote the commentary on Aapta Pariksha himself to explain the various karikas in detail. Therefore there was no need for any other author to write commentary on the same. For writing this translated version I have made use of simplified versions edited  by Prof Veersagar Jain and published by Akhil Bharatiya Digamber Jain Vidwat Parishad, and another written  by Umarao Singh Jain written  in 1914, both of which I gratefully acknowledge. Basically I have not attempted word to word translation but conveyed the gist of each karika in simplified form in my own words.

                                                            Aapta Pariksha

Karika 1 : Mangalacharan : Myself Vidyanandi Acharya hereby offer my obeisance to Jinendra Deva who is like a moon which has destroyed the darkness of Moha and has known all the objects by means of his knowledge of the form of sun.

In this Mangalacharan Acharya Vidyanandi has offered obeisance to Jinachandra which could mean all the Jinendra Devas or eighth Teerthankara Shri Chandraprabhu. Further in describing him acharya has cleverly incorporated all the salient qualities of omniscient which are going to be subject of this book. These three qualities are omniscience, detachment and capability to preach the Moksha Marga.

Now he says why Mangalacharan is carried out –

Karika 2 : Great saints have told that with the pleasure of Parameshthi (Paramatma) one attains the Moksha. Hence in the beginning of scripture one should offer him obeisance.

In the commentary several aspects have been explained:

1)    The Moksha is described in two way: In first with the destruction of four types of Ghati karmas the Arihant state is attained. This leads to attainment of infinite knowledge, infinite vision, infinite bliss and infinite strength form infinite foursome qualities. The other is the attainment of siddha state with the destruction of eight types of karmas.

2)    The destruction of all the karmas of the soul is not without proof since praman (proof) for the same is available.

3)    The bondage of karmas is also not without proof since for that also praman is available.

4)    The cause for bondage are Mithyadarshan (deluded belief), Avirati(lack of restraints), Pramad( carelessness) , Kashaya(passions)  and Yog (vibration of soul space) . The means for Moksha are Gupti, Samiti, Samvar, Nirjara etc.

5)    The attainment of Moksha can be described in three ways. One is production of non existent, second is attainment of desired, and third is attainment of right knowledge. Here the first is not applicable since the context is that of knowledge.

6)    The pleasure of Parameshthi is explained. Paramatma is basically Veetrag (detached) who does not have quality of being happy with someone. However the happiness of disciples itself is the pleasure of Parameshthi. Just as some person says that I overcame sickness with the pleasure of this medicine. Here the medicine does not have the quality of being pleased with someone. The patient only consumed the medicine with his pleasure. Hence he attributes his pleasure to that of the medicine. In the same way the disciples attribute the pleasure to that of Parameshthi for attaining the right path.

7)    Offering obeisance to Parameshthi is Mangal(auspicious) hence it should be carried out in the beginning, middle and in the end for uninterrupted completion of objective.

8)    Mangal word has two meanings: One is destruction of Pap form impurities and second is impartment of true bliss. Both are applicable here.

9)    Although the prime purpose of offering obeisance to Parameshthi is attainment of Moksha Marga, even so it is also carried out for observing protocol, acceptance of existence of omniscient and uninterrupted completion of scripture.

10)  All authors offer prayers to Parameshthi even though it may not be apparent in written form and might have been carried out with mind-speech-body in unwritten form, since the authors are saints and they never forget their benefactors.   

Now it is asked that how the prayers to Parameshthi are offered?

Karika 3 : The one who is leader in the Moksha Marga, destroyer of the mountains of Karmas and knowledgeable of all the Tatvas (elements), I offer my obeisance to him for attainment of his qualities.

This karika is the famous Mangalacharan of ‘Tatvartha Sutra’ written by Acharya Umaswamy which has been subject of several scriptures. Here too Aapt Pariksha has been written taking this shloka as its baseline. On the basis of this shloka only the form of Aapt believed by several other philosophies has been negated and it is established that the form of Aapt believed in Jain philosophy is correct. Therefore it has become a part of this scripture Aapt Pariksha itself.

Here three necessary qualities of the true Aapt (Guru) are stated :

1.     Should be a leader in the path of Moksha marga

2.     Destroyer of mountains of karmas

3.     Should have the knowledge of all Tatva etc. thus being omniscient.

The entire Aapt Pariksha employs this yardstick to compare various philosophies to decide whether they are worthy of following.

Karika 4 : These three extraordinary qualities which have been described of the Aapt (in the previous karika),  have been stated for the complete negation of Aapts as believed by other philosophies.

The other philosophies which were prevalent in those times were Naiyayiks, Vaisheshiks, Samkhya and Bauddha who believed in Ishwara, Kapil, Sugat etc. as their Aapts.

Now it is told that why the other’s belief need to be refuted -

Karika 5 : The refutation of other’s believed form of Aapt and establishment of Arhat Bhagwan as the right Aapt is necessary for institution of Moksha Marga.

In the Loka, generally all are accepted to be Aapt and preachers of Moksha Marga. If those Maheshwara etc. are not refuted and Arhat Parameshthi is not established as the true Aapt then which preachment is right and which is false, this cannot be decided. Either all will be said to be right or all false. Therefore by negating other philosophies only the true Aapt form need to be established. This is also necessary for the benefit of Jain followers who may have inclination or doubts regarding the form of Aapts accepted in other philosophies.

In this way 5 karikas form the Mangalacharan of this book. In first Mangalacharan is carried out. In second it is told why Mangalacharan is performed. In third the form of Mangalacharan is stated. In fourth it is told that why Mangalacharan is carried out in specific manner. In fifth it is told that without Mangalacharan being in such specific manner, the establishment of Aapt cannot be carried out.

Now the validation of each of the Aapt forms is carried out one by one.

1.     Ishwara Praiksha ( Validation of Ishwara)

 Naiyayik and Vaisheshik philosophies (together they are called Yaug) believe Ishwara or Maheshwara  to be their Aapt. They say that Ishwara is eternal and free of karmas since beginningless times, therefore he is Siddha without making any efforts. Hence although  he is not destroyer of Mountains of karmas, he is leader in the path of Moksha Marga as well as knower of all the Tatvas(elements)  of the world.

Karika 6: Now those Yaug ( Naiyayik-Vaisheshiks) who say that in Aapt it is not necessary to have the quality of being destroyer of mountains of karmas, is being explained in detail.

Karika 7 : The Yaugs say that their Aapt is omniscient since there is no proof contradicting the same. He is always Shiva, i.e. ever liberated free of karmas. He has Veetrag and omniscient nature but he is not destroyer of mountains of karmas since he is eternal.

Karika 8 : The Jains answer that those who are omniscient have to be destroyer of mountains of karmas also. Other wise he cannot remain knower of the substances of the world either. He would be like ordinary human beings.

Karika 9 :  (Jains) No one can be Siddha without making any efforts. It is not possible  that someone be  untouched by karmas and be omniscient.

Karika 10-11: Vaisheshiks say that you have to accept eternal presence of Ishwara since without him the creation of the Universe cannot be carried out. The Universe is his act in which things  have been joining and separating eternally. The existence of creator has to be accepted. 

(Jains) This is not without flaw. The cause-effect relationship is accepted when there is Anvaya-Vyatirek relationship between the things. With the presence of right reasons, the happening of events is called ‘Anvaya’. In the absence of right reasons the non-happening of events is called ‘Vyatirek’. Now you believe Ishwara to be omnipresent and permanent. Even with the presence of Ishwara all the events of the universe have not happened at the same time ( since joining-separating is going on even now) hence ‘Anvaya’ is ruled out. Now if you say that whatever events have to occur, happen in the presence of Ishwara. If such is the form of ‘Anvaya’ then such ‘Anvaya’ is possible in the presence of other Jivas also who are eternal but not Aapt. Then what is the speciality with Ishwara that in his presence only events happen and not other Jivas? Further ‘Vyatirek’ is possible only when in the absence of Ishwara the events do not occur. Now absence of Ishwara has never occurred at any time  therefore ‘Vyatirek’ is also not possible. Therefore it is not possible to say that Ishwara is responsible for all the events of the universe.

(Yaug) The preachment of Moksha Marga cannot be carried out without accepting an eternal omniscient Ishwara. Hence it establishes his existence.

(Jains) This point also cannot withstand examination. Tell us whether that eternal Siddha omniscient is with body or without body? If he is without body then he cannot be preacher of Moksha Marga just like other jivas who have attained salvation. ( The Yaugs believe the Ishwara only to be preacher of Moksha Marga while other Jivas who are attaining salvation are not preachers) If he is with body then also he cannot be preacher of Moksha Marga since he is proved to be bonded with karmas like other worldly jivas.

Karika 12 : (Vaisheshiks) For preachment of means for Moksha, Ishwara does not require to have body nor does he need to be without body. For each act, he needs to have knowledge, desire and effort. All these three powers are within him hence there is no obstruction for him to preach the Moksha Marga.

(Jains) If you believe Ishwara to be without karmas then he cannot have desire or efforts since all these attributes are seen in Jivas with karmas only. Further, even if we accept that he has desire, the question arises that whether the desire is explicit or obscured. If you say explicit then there has to be someone to express it. If that someone is transitory then question arises that how could that person be born without expression of the desire? On the other hand if that someone is permanent then why did he not express the desire earlier. Therefore it is not possible to accept desire as explicit. If the desire is said to be non-explicit or obscured then no act can be performed by them just like the worldly people.

Karika 13 : (Vaisheshiks) Even if you do not accept desire and effort, Ishwara can perform all the acts by means of the power of his knowledge.

(Jains) This too is unacceptable since no example of the same is witnessed.

Karika 14-16 : (Yaugs) Just as your Jineshwara preach even without desire, in the same way Ishwara can also be accepted to carry out acts without desire.

(Jains) The example of our Jinendra cannot be quoted here. Jinendra Deva does not give preachment merely on account of having knowledge, but on account of fruition of Tirthankar Naam karma which enables him to preach. This fruition is present till the karmas are existent in his body. The moment Jinendra Deva destroys those karmas also and becomes Siddha , then he also cannot preach because of non availability of karmas or the body.

Karika 17: (Yaugs): We also concede such a special dharma and specific yoga in Ishwara just as you people accept Tirthankara Naam Karma of Jineshwaras.

(Jains): If you do so then you  will also have to accept them to have divine body and you shall not be able to believe them to be body-less.

Karika 18 : (Yaugs): We accept Ishwara to incarnate in the form of body for favouring the devotees or punishing scoundrels.

(Jains): This too  does not withstand examination.

Karika 19-20: (Jains): If Ishwara can incarnate in the form of body without having another body, to favour or punish, then he can as well do those deeds even without taking the form of the body. What is the necessity to take birth in body form? Further what is the necessity to provide bodies to others also.

On the other hand if he makes one body from another body, then for the second body he would need to make from third body and so on. This leads to the flaw of Anavastha (endless connotation).

Karika 21: (Jains) If you say that Ishwara does not make his own body and his body is generated on its own then the existence of Ishwara would become precarious since just as his body was made without his wish or efforts then all other events of the world can happen without his wish or efforts. Ishwara would no more be a requirement.

Continued…..

The Essence of Samaysar – 12 (Gathas 366-415) (Concluding part)

 

The reason why  so much is  being stressed about the objects of knowledge is that these objects are  cause for raga-dwesha in the jivas. If the soul remains in the knower state in spite of knowing the objects then he has attained total detachment. Till such time the efforts of jiva to overcome the ragas continues. The same is now being elaborated in Gathas 366-371. Here it is told that darshan-gyan-charitra (vision-knowledge-conduct)  do not exist in insentient objects, karmas or bodies; hence  how can soul harm them? He cannot harm them at all ! Further the damage to darshan-gyan-charitra cannot cause any harm to pudgala dravya being insentient. In this manner the qualities of the Jiva do not  exist in other dravyas. Knowing this the Samyak drishti jiva does not entertain raga towards the other objects. Therefore the raga-dwesha-moha are manifestations of jiva only which are not caused by words either.

Acharya clarifies it by telling the rule that if one thing belongs to something  then with the destruction of that something, that one thing also gets destroyed. In other words if a thing is supported on another, then with the destruction of the support, the supported thing also gets destroyed. For example the illumination of lamp gets destroyed if the lamp is destroyed. Conversely, with the destruction of supported thing the support also gets destroyed. That is to say that with destruction of illumination the lamp also gets destroyed.

On the other hand if the thing is not supported by another then with its destruction the other thing does not get destroyed. For example with destruction of pot, the lamp kept inside the  pot does not get destroyed. Conversely also it is true.

With this logic, the darshan-gyan-charitra qualities  of soul do not get destroyed with the destruction of pudgala dravya  or vice versa. Therefore it proves that darshan-gyan-charitra are not attributes of pudgala. In fact it can be extrapolated to say that none of the qualities of jiva exist in pudgala dravya.

A very important question is raised by Acharya himself. “ If it is so then what is the source of raga for the jiva?” The answer is also  given by himself, “ The ignorance of jiva only is the source for generation of raga-dwesha-moha. These are not existent in other objects  since they are other dravyas nor are they there in Samyakdrishti jiva since he is not ignorant. Therefore the raga-dwesha-moha do not belong to other dravyas nor to the Samyakdrishti hence they do not exist.”

The statement above highlights that moha-raga-dwesha are generated out of ignorance of jiva and their elimination can also be carried out by taking recourse to pure nature of soul only. Hence the means is also the soul. That is why the samyak darshan-gyan-charitra generated by taking recourse to soul only  has been declared as the means to salvation.

These aspects are summarised in the Gatha 372 in the form of a rule. It says that one dravya  cannot generate the qualities of another dravya. In other words all dravyas are existent having their own nature. Hence one should not doubt that other dravyas cause raga-dwesha-moha in jiva since other dravyas do not have capability of generating qualities in jiva.

The same is elaborated with an example. It is asked that the mud taking the form of a pot, is produced by the nature of potter or mud? If it is said that nature of potter is responsible for the pot to take shape then pot should have the shape of the potter but that is not seen so since the other dravya cannot cause manifestation of another dravya. It establishes that mud only takes the shape of the pot without transgressing its own nature and potter is not responsible for the generation of the pot.

The example quoted above is now extended to all dravyas in the form of a query. “ Manifesting in the form of  their own paryayas, all dravyas manifest in accordance with the nature of other dravyas acting as nimitta or their own nature?” It is replied that since manifestations are not seen to be of the form of other dravyas hence they must be in accordance with their own nature. Therefore  Acharya says that  we do not see the other dravyas as the cause for generation of raga etc. form bhavas in jiva, nor do we know or believe it to be so. Hence why should we be angry with other dravyas? We ourselves are guilty  for the generation of raga-dwesha in self.

It is not that whatever way the nimitta form dravya orders, the soul manifests accordingly and the soul does not have any purushartha (effort) in the same. Those who do not realise the nature of soul believe that soul manifests in accordance with the wishes of other dravya. Such people cannot cross the mire of Moha. Their raga-dweshas cannot be overcome since their soul’s are helpless. Therefore understanding that raga-dweshas are own and can be overcome by self - believing so from certain aspect is Samyak Gyan.

The same sentiments are reflected in gathas 373- 382. The ignorant jiva gets angry or happy listening to words of criticism or praise but those are manifestations of pudgala dravya in words form whose qualities are different from those of yours. Then why do you get upset?

The good or the bad words do not ask you to listen to them, nor does the soul shifts from its position to listen to the subjects of ear senses. The good or the bad colour, taste, smell, touch do not ask you to see, taste, smell, or touch them, nor does the soul shifts from its position to see, taste, smell or touch the subjects of eyes, tongue, nose, touch senses. The good or bad qualities or the dravyas do not ask you to know them, nor does the soul shifts from its position to know those subjects of knowledge. Knowing thus, the ignorant jiva does not take solace and desires to know all these subjects.

Acharya further explains by means of an example. Just as a person named Devdatta holds the hand of another person named Yagnadatta to direct him to do some work, the worldly objects pots, clothes etc. do not ask lamp to illuminate them. Nor does the lamp shifts from its position like a magnetic needle drawn by a magnet to go and illuminate them. Irrespective of their distance the lamp illuminates the objects in accordance with the nature of the lamp and pleasant or unpleasant objects do not cause any perturbation in the nature of the lamp.

Now the example of lamp is extended to the soul. Subjects of touch, taste, smell, vision, hearing, qualities and dravyas do not ask soul to touch, taste, smell, see or hear or know them. Soul also does not shift from its position to touch, taste, smell, see, hear or know them. Irrespective of their distances the soul knows them in accordance with the nature of the soul. The pleasant or unpleasant natures of the objects do not cause any perturbation in the nature of the soul. In spite of this the soul does not remain  detached like the lamp and indulges in raga-dwesha. This is ignorance. Acharya asks out of compassion, ‘ This is the reality then why does the soul manifest in ignorance form and indulges in ragas-dweshas? Why does he not remain in his natural detached state?’

 Now, those gyanis who have given up raga-dwesha and accepted the conscious nature of soul, who have given up oneness with the karmas of past, present and future; they now adopt the Charitra (conduct) separating themselves from all other dravyas. With the power of such conduct they differentiate themselves from karma-chetna ( desires to do things) and karma-phal-chetna ( happiness or unhappiness on fruition of karmas) and experience only the gyan-chetna  which is manifestation of conscious self. Here it is important to understand that Jiva firstly differentiates himself from karma-chetna and karma-phal-chetna by means of scriptural and inference form Praman (truth) and then realises  the Gyan-chetna by his own experience of the soul. Then he continues the strengthening of this belief. These activities are carried out in fourth, fifth and sixth gunasthanas. In Apramatta state (seventh gunasthana) the jiva remains in the state of contemplation of self. At that time he is engrossed in Gyan-chetna which was experienced earlier. Subsequently he climbs the ladder of shreni ( steps of spiritual growth) resulting in generation of Keval gyan which is of the form of pure Gyan-chetna.   

Now the procedures of ordination of conduct are described in gathas 383-386. The soul which keeps the self separated from the various good-bad karmas carried out earlier, that soul is Pratikraman (Repentance). The soul which disengages self from the good-bad bhavas which cause future bondage, that soul is Pratyakhyan (Resolution). Accepting the present fruition of good-bad karmas with the spirit of detachment remaining in knower state , such soul is Alochana ( criticism). In this way the soul which is always engaged in Pratikraman, Pratyakhyan and Alochana  is Charitra. Such  soul is Gyan-chetna himself. It has to be kept in mind that these descriptions are from the aspect of Nishchaya Charitra.

Experiencing the knowledge only is Gyan-chetna. Continuous experience of the same leads to generation of Keval Gyan which is described as complete Gyan Chetna. On the other hand the Agyan chetna ( consciousness in ignorant forms) leads to karma chetna and karma phal chetna  which causes bondage of karmas which prevents purification of knowledge.

This aspect is now elaborated in Gathas 387-389. Experiencing the consciousness in any form other than knowledge is Agyan chetna. This is of two kinds Karma chetna and Karma Phal chetna. All such bhavas other than that of knowledge which have a sense of doing something i.e. ‘I do this’, are karma-chetna. All bhavas of experiencing happiness-unhappiness are  Karma-phal-chetna. This Agyan chetna is the seed for the worldly transmigration due to eight types of karma bondage. Hence people desirous of Moksha should keep attempting to destroy the Agyan chetna by practicing the spirit of renouncement of karmas as well as fruitions of karmas thus offering obeisance to gyan-chetna continuously.

At this stage Acharya Amritchandra describes the procedures for Pratikraman, Pratyakhyan and Alochana in his commentary.

The one practicing Pratikraman contemplates, “ Whatever acts I did in the past, got it done or seconded others doing it by means of mind, speech or body, all those  Dushkrita ( wrong doings) be Mithya ( fruitless). “ All the thoughts pertaining to getting something done are seeds of transmigration in the world and realising so and giving up oneness with such thoughts itself is making them fruitless.

Now the above contemplation is carried out in 7 forms by permutations of doing, getting it done and seconding other doing it. Doing it with mind, speech and body generates another 7 permutations. Thus together 49 combinations are generated.

Taking the same vows for the present karmas  forms Alochana. In this also 49 combinations are generated. Lastly taking these vows for future generates 49 combinations for Pratyakhyan.

It is to be noted that in Vyavahara Charitra, the mistakes committed in the  vows undertaken are cleansed by means of Pratikraman, Pratyakhyan, Alochana. Here the description is from aspect of Nishchaya Charitra hence all acts are flaws of the soul which are opposite to shuddhopayoga. Hence the objective in Nishchaya Charitra is to disassociate self with all the thoughts of doing something and remain steady within soul by means of shuddhopayoga.

Next the spirit of disassociation with karma-phal is elaborated by means of taking names of each type of 148 karmas saying that I remain knower of the fruition of that karma and do not wish its fruition. Let them dissipate without giving their fruition. I remain engrossed in my consciousness form soul functioning  as their knower-seer only.

The practices described above are intended for contemplation again and again in the Upayoga. When the Jiva has attained Samyaktva and become Gyani, he already has the knowledge and belief that he is devoid of all the karmas and fruitions of karmas  from aspect of shuddha naya. Now by disassociation with each of 49 types of karma-chetna for past, present and future, he has renounced all the forms of karma chetna. Further by renouncing 148 types of karma-phala he has disassociated himself with their fruitions also. Now the only thing that remains is to experience the consciousness form soul. With such spirit only he now proceeds to climb the spiritual ladder to progress towards Keval gyan wherein he would remain engrossed in Gyan-chetna forever.

In this Sarva Vishuddha Gyan Adhikar, the gyan was described as different from the spirit of doing or enjoying so far. Now in the upcoming gathas 390-404,  the Gyan is described to be different from other dravyas and their bhavas. Although due to close proximity of gyan-gyeya ( knowledge and subject of knowledge), it appears intermingled, but gyan is different from gyeyas, ever unperturbed and illuminated.

Here in these gathas, Acharya has listed the other dravyas and their qualities  which are known by gyana but they themselves do not have any knowledge since they are insentient. These subjects  are scriptures, words of speech, shape, colour, smell, taste, touch, karma, dharmastikaya, adharmastikaya, kaal, akash, adhyavasan (thoughts generated out of fruition of karmas). Jiva alone knows continuously; the knowledge and the knower are inseparable. 

Here knowledge alone is described as the indisputable characteristics of jiva by which he can be differentiated from all other dravyas. The knowledge is absent in all other dravyas while it is present in all states of jivas hence there is no contradiction anywhere. Now with knowledge only jiva can be identified indisputably since there are several characteristics which are common with other dravyas also. Hence with knowledge only the jiva can identify the soul. Further here knowledge itself is called as soul since these two are indifferent.

Now it is told here that disassociating self from the tendency of indulging in shubha-ashubha upayoga form para-samaya activity generated out of eternal ignorance,  ordaining in swa-samaya form samyak darshan-gyan-charitra , manifesting  in the form of Moksha marga,  realising in the form of block of knowledge devoid of any acceptance or renunciations , such samaysar form soul should be continuously experienced. Now this experience is that of three kinds. 1) First is experiencing  right knowledge-belief after knowing the shuddha naya. This is started from fourth gunasthana itself.  2) Subsequently discarding all possessions practicing with upayoga engrossed in knowledge itself. Knowing the self to be similar to Siddha, contemplation of the soul in concentrated form. Such experience is observed in 7^th gunasthana. This practice is continued with increment of purity progressively. Till now  the knowledge is observed indirectly by taking recourse to shuddha naya. 3) When keval gyan is generated then the soul is observed directly and the knowledge is omniscient devoid of all vibhavas. Here onwards continuous bliss is experienced. The glory of such knowledge is indescribable. Such state is described as Krita-Kratya (wherein nothing more needs to be done).

Now in next three gathas 405-407, the misconception is dispelled that the soul partakes food of karma-nokarma forms. The soul is non corporeal while food is corporeal hence how can soul partake pudgala form food? The soul cannot accept any other dravya either with the nimitta of other dravya or by his own nature. Hence soul is not Aharak (one who partakes food) therefore it is absurd to doubt that knowledge has body. Whether the soul manifests in natural form or vibhava form, it accepts or discards  its own manifestations only but not other dravyas in the minutest sense.

When the soul does not have body then how can an attire of body be declared as means to Moksha? This is now brought out in Gathas 408-409. So many people accept Dravya Ling ( nakedness) as means to Moksha out of ignorance. This is incorrect. All the Arihant bhagwans renunciate the body dependent dravya-ling and practice darshan-gyan-charitra form Moksha Marga.

This is further reiterated in Gatha 410 saying that dravya-ling is body dependent while darshan-gyan-charitra are soul dependent hence they only lead to Moksha. Body is pudgala which cannot do anything for the soul. It has already been established that one dravya does not do anything for the other dravya. Hence darshan-gyan-charitra alone are Mokha marga.

Hence it is concluded in Gatha 411 that one should give up attachments towards dravya-ling and practice darshan-gyan-charitra of the soul . This does not imply that this is preachment for giving up vows undertaken by Munis and Shravaks (practitioners). Here it is reiterated not to undertake vows just in the form of dravya-ling  hoping to attain Moksha. In reality it is the darshan-gyan-charitra of the soul which lead to Moksha. The vows undertaken in Vyavahara sense go together with Nishchaya practice. But one should not have attachments towards the vows either. Just attire does not lead to Moksha.

Now we are approaching the conclusion of samaysar hence Acharya reiterates the final message in Gatha 412. Here the Bhavya Jiva has been asked to follow the Moksha marg and contemplate of the same. Experience the same at all times without diverting attention towards other dravyas. Basically the attention should be focussed on darshan-gyan charitra in gyan-chetna form, manifesting naturally without getting drawn towards other dravyas.

In Gatha 413, Acharya reiterates that those who have attachments towards the attires of Muni Ling (nakedness) and Sravak Ling ( vows of practitioners) i.e. they believe Dravya Ling only to be the means to Moksha, they have not known Samaysar. It is obvious that even 2000 years back there were people having such inclination since Acharya has made such a scathing remark in the end of this shastra. Acharya has compared them to people who are happy with the husk without knowing the rice.  They do not know the real nature of soul and believe body itself to be soul.

The doubts regarding Nishchaya and Vyavahara are resolved by Acharya in Gatha 414. Here he says that Vyavahara naya only describes the two Lings i.e. Muni ling and Shravak ling as Moksha marg, but the Nishchaya naya does not accept any ling in Moksha marg. The reason is Vyavahara is not real and experience is of impure dravya form. On the other hand the Nishchaya is beyond any divisions of lings, only of the form of manifestation in darshan-gyan-charitra form. That experience is of the form of pure dravya hence real. Hence those who believe Vyavahara alone do not experience Samayasar  while those who believe Nishchaya ( along with Vyavahara), they only experience Samayasar and attain Moksha.

Here Acharya AmritChandra says that what is the point of saying anything more? Just experience the soul in the knowledge form. There is nothing else worth doing. Here he says that Samay Prabhrat (another name of Samaysar) in words and knowledge form is like indestructible divine eyes  which reveals the true pure nature of soul in direct experience form.

Acharya Kundakunda concludes the Samaysar with Gatha 415 telling the benefit of learning Samay Prabhrat. He says that those who learn it and understanding its meaning remain immersed within the soul shall attain sureme bliss.

 

                                       🙏     The End      🙏