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 .......
No comments:
Post a Comment