Validation
of Arhat
After refuting the Aapt nature of Ishwara, Kapil, Sugat
and Bramha, now the aapt nature
of Arhat is established. Like earlier clarified, there are three qualities
essential to have in Aapt : 1) Omniscience, 2) Destruction of Karma mountains
and 3) leadership in the path of Moksha marga. Hence these three are
established one by one in the next three chapters. Then Acharya concludes in
the last chapter declaring the objective of his prayers.
Validation of Omniscience of Arhat
Karika 87 : In this shloka Acharya declares that such Aapt is Arhant only
who is venerated by all Munis. Further to establish his qualities, sufficient
proofs are available which cannot be refuted.
Karika 88 : That logic is as follows- Distant objects are directly observed
by Arhant since they are objects of knowledge , just as we observe the nearby
objects clearly.
Here the inference logic is being invoked. All the
objects of knowledge have a quality that they are subjects of knowledge of
someone or other. No such object exists which is not known to anybody. This
quality of substances is known as Prameyatva i.e. the quality of being subject
of knowledge. Just as one infers from the smoke on the mountain that there is
fire in the mountains. This is known as Anuman or inference. The inference
tells that although only smoke is seen, there is fire and someone could see the
fire. In the same way every object of
knowledge has the quality that someone can know it. Here inference is being drawn
that since all objects have that quality of being known hence someone can exist
who can know them all. This cannot be refuted. After all it is observed that
people have different extents of knowledge. Someone knows less and someone is
highly intelligent. In fact the animals know much less. Hence it is inferred
that there can be somebody who would have highest level of knowledge who could
know all.
(Mimansaks): This logic is flawed
since Prameyatva quality exists even in distant mountains like Sumeru etc. and
minute Paramanu etc. but we cannot see such distant objects nor we can observe
such minute things like Paramanu with direct knowledge. Therefore how can
Arhant know them directly?
Karika 89 : (Jains): There is no flaw
in the logic provided since all of such objects like distant Sumeru and minute
Paramanu are party to it.
Firstly it is clarified that when distant objects are
mentioned, then there are three types of distant objects- 1. Distant because of
distance like Sumeru Mountain. 2. Distant with respect to time. All past and
future objects of knowledge are distant with respect to time such as Ram, Ravan
etc. 3. Distant with respect to nature. The minute objects like Paramanu are
distant with respect to nature. Here all the three types of distant objects are
accounted for in making the assertion.
There is no rule that the objects which we cannot observe
with direct knowledge, cannot be known to anybody with direct knowledge. After
all there are lots of minute objects in the world which are seen by people by
means of microscope etc. and the distant objects which are not seen by us, can be observed by eagles or people with help
of binoculars etc. Hence we have to necessarily accept that those objects which
cannot be seen by us, can be seen by someone or other directly.
A doubt was raised that
the reason provided for the inference is corrupt since it is applicable
to other side of the argument also. This is clarified as follows:
The inference is all distant objects are known to Arhant.
The reason given is ‘since they are subjects of knowledge’. Here the doubt was
raised that other objects like Paramanu etc. are not accounted for. The
clarification is that distant objects are of three kinds as described above
hence all the possible objects are accounted for hence there is no corruption.
The same aspect is told in next karika.
Karika 90: All the objects distant by distance, time and nature such as
dharma etc. are proven to be directly known to Arhant bhagwan. These include
six kinds of dravya from aspect of dravya, five kinds of Astikaya from aspect
of kshetra, nine types of tatvas from aspect of kaal, and seven types of tatvas
from aspect of bhava.
Karika 91: (Mimansak): All the direct knowledge in the world is by means of
the senses only and no sensory knowledge is capable of knowing paramanu etc.
minute substances. Hence how do you believe the minute substances etc. to be
subjects of direct knowledge of Arhant Deva?
(Jains): How do you know that
all the direct knowledge is by means of the senses only and in all the three
loks and in all the three periods of time, no one is there who does not have
knowledge beyond senses? When you do not know people of past and future as well
as distant places by means of senses directly, then how can you tell if the
people of past or future have direct knowledge with senses or with knowledge
beyond senses? Another thing is that knowledge by itself is substance beyond
senses, then you cannot even decide about a person present in front of you at
present itself that what type of knowledge he has at that time. Then what is
there to talk about the knowledge of people of past and future? Thirdly if you
have the direct knowledges of all the people of all the three periods, i.e. you
know with your direct knowledge that nobody can know all the substances with
his direct knowledge, then your
knowledge cannot be sensory at least. Since you have the knowledge of the
knowledges of all the people, then your direct knowledge would have to be
believed to be knowledge beyond senses and by accepting so, you yourself would
be established to be omniscient. Hence there would not be any logic in your
opposing the existence of omniscient. Hence you should accept, the direct
knowledge as well as the knowledge beyond senses.
Another thing that whatever is directly known to us is
anyway known to Arhant and there is no argument about that. The argument was
only about the distant objects with respect to time, distance and nature.
Therefore in this inference they also have been proved to have directly seen.
(Mimansaks): When all the objects
do not have Prameyatva ( being subjects of knowledge) then how can you
establish with the reasoning of Prameyatva, the feasibility of direct knowledge
of all the substances?
Karika 92-94 : (Jains): There is no substance in the world which is not Prameya
i.e. the subject of knowledge of someone or other. Mimansaks themselves accept
that they do not oppose the existence of knowledge of all the substances by
means of six pramans namely pratyaksha, anuman, upaman, shabda, arthapatti and
abhava. The subjects of knowledge only are called Prameya hence with their
statement itself the existence of Prameyatva is established in all substances.
Further from the statements of Vedas also, Mimansak believe the knowledge of
minute and large substances. Therefore Vedic knowledge also establishes the
existence of prameyatva in all the objects. Hence the argument of Mimansaks is
refuted by their own Vedas.
(Mimansaks): Normally the reasons
are accepted when their absence and presence both are satisfactory. In the
proof for omniscience you give the reason of Prameytva (being subject of
knowledge) but you do not define what happens in the absence of Prameyatva.
Karika 95: (Jains): All the objects of the world have several
dharmas(qualities) within them. There is no substance without those qualities.
Each substance exists since eternal times to endless time without its absence.
Whatever does not exist also does not exist eternally. Therefore the substances
have quality called existence. Each substance keep undergoing modifications in
its condition continuously but it does not transform into another substance.
Therefore we can formulate the ruling that those substances which are not
subject of knowledge of Arhant deva, are not Prameya either. In this manner the
absence condition of Prameyatva is also defined.
Karika 96: In this manner with this logic Arhant deva is established to be
knower of all the substances by his knowledge beyond senses and there is no
hindrance to this logic.
(Mimansaks): In
the Arhant deva believed by you, the omniscience is not proved by any of
Pramans like Pratyaksha, Anuman, Upaman, Arthapatti , Agam. In fact all these five
are hindrance to the praman. Therefore one should accept absence of omniscience
in Arhant deva.
Karika 97 (Jains): Firstly we ask Mimansaks that they refute the existence
by means of sensory Pratyaksha (direct) knowledge or Atindriya (knowledge
beyond senses) Pratyaksha? The sensory direct knowledge does not have the
capability to know that no one is Omniscient in all the three loks and all the
three periods of time. Even if we accept that, even then the existence of
omniscient cannot be refuted. Since the person who is refuting the existence of
omniscient in all the three loks and all the three periods of time by knowing
all the people of these times, then himself is established to be omniscient.
Therefore the sensory direct knowledge cannot be hindrance to existence of
Omniscient. Regarding direct knowledge beyond senses, it serves to establish the existence of
omniscient rather than be hindrance.
(Mimansaks): Even if direct
knowledge is not accepted as hindrance, the other Pramasn like Anuman, Upaman,
Arthapatti and Agam do prove to be hindrance for existence of omniscient.
Karika 98 : (Jains): These four Pramans also do not refute the existence of
Omniscient since they establish presence of a thing rather than its absence.
Karika 99: (Mimansak): ‘Arhant is not knowledgeable of all the substances
since he is a speaker and purush (man). Those who are speakers and are men are
not knowledgeable of all substances like Bramha etc.’ (Mimansaks believe Bramha
also to be a deva and they believe Vedas only to be praman.)
Karika 100: (Jains): The statement above does not refute the existence of
omniscient since being speaker or being man does not oppose omniscience. In
fact as the knowledge increases the oratory is seen to increase accordingly. Therefore
these reasons do not negate the presence of omniscient. Hence Anuman
(inference) praman does not refute the omniscient.
Karika 101: (Jains): The knowledge
of another thing which appears like something is described as Upaman Praman by
Mimansaks. (Jains call it Prtyabhigyan or recognition). For example saying that
his face is like moon. Here by seeing the presence of moon, the face of someone
is being compared to it. Now in using this praman to refute the existence of
omniscient, firstly you have to show the presence of omniscient and then tell
that another person is like him or unlike him. In any case you have to
firstly accept someone as omniscient to
use this praman. On the other hand if you say that all the people of all the
three loks and all the three periods of time are not omniscient like some
person, then also you have to have knowledge of all the persons of all the
three loks and all the three periods to make the comparison. This too is not possible. Therefore Upaman Praman also cannot serve to
refute the presence of omniscient.
Karika 102: (Jains): Someone said ‘ Devadatta is quite fat even then he does
not eat in the day.’ By means of Arthapatti praman it is understood that since
Devadatta does not eat in the day hence he must be eating in night to justify
his fatness. Otherwise an apatti (impossibility) is experienced. Now in
applying this Arthapatti praman, no impossibility is experienced by accepting
the presence of omniscient.
(Mimansaks): The
preachment of omniscient is an impossibility.
(Jains): How do you know that
the preachment of Omniscient is an impossibility?
(Mimansaks): When
the non-human Vedas exist for preachment then how can omniscient provide
preachment. (Mimansaks believe that Vedas are not written by any human and they
provide all the knowledge).
(Jains): Question arises that
the one who is preaching the Vedas is omniscient or non-omniscient? If you say
omniscient then it refutes your claim that the existence of omniscient is an
impossibility. If he is non-omniscient then then he could be preaching false meaning of Vedas and Vedas cannot be
accepted as Praman.
In this manner Arthapatti praman does not refute the
existence of omniscient.
Karika 103-104: (Jains): Non-human Agam ( Rigveda, Yajurveda,
Samveda, Atharveda etc.) cannot be hindrance to existence of omniscient since
you yourselves say that all the statements there establish procedure for
prayers. Nowhere these prayers negate the presence or absence of omniscient. If
your Agams are not preached by omniscient then it raises doubt on their
validity as well as statements. Therefore Agam praman also cannot refute the
existence of omniscient.
Karika 105-107: (Jains): Lastly the abhava praman deals with absence of a thing
when it is known to be present. For example someone has seen a pot. Then he can
say that the pot does not exist in a particular place i.e. there is Abhava of
pot in this place. If the person does not know the pot he cannot talk about its
Abhava. In the same way if you have not known omniscient then how can you
establish his Abhava ? Again to establish his absence one has to know all the
people of all the three loks and all the three periods of time. This
automatically renders one as omniscient.
(Mamansaks): We
can establish the absence of omniscient by Jains’s knowledge of the three loks
which is claimed to have been preached by omniscient.
(Jains): Our knowledge of the
three lokas and omniscient etc., do you accept it as Praman or Non-Praman? If
you accept it as Praman then you cannot refute the omniscient known by that
knowledge. If you call it Non-Praman, then your non-praman knowledge cannot be
believed to refute the existence of omniscient.
(Maimansaks):
Jains themselves believe that to establish the absence of a thing, one has to
have knowledge of that thing . Now you negate absolute permanence or
absolute transitoriness saying that
these are Mithya (Untrue). On the other hand you do not have knowledge of such
substances.
Karika 108: (Jains): Since substances are not singular i.e not having single
property and they are multifaceted, this automatically refutes the existence of
singular substances. Therefore even if we accept it or not, such substances do
not exist which are singular. But you cannot say the same regarding omniscient
that he does not exist anywhere in the world.
Karika 109-110: (Jains): With the refutation of possible objections towards
existence of Omniscient and without establishment of omniscience in
Vaisheshiks, Samkhya, Bauddha etc. believed devas namely Ishwara, Kapil, Sugat
etc. , the omniscience is established to be in Arhant Deva.
Further he only is established to be destroyer of
mountains of karmas, since within his soul the qualities opponent of karmas
have enhanced . Just as a thing gets warmer, it would keep becoming destroyer
of coldness, in the same way his quality opposing karmas keep enhancing,
therefore his karmas keep getting destroyed. In this manner the validation of omniscience
of Arahant is carried out by means of arguments favouring his presence and
secondly by establishing that there are no valid arguments against his
existence.
Establishment of the Karma
destroying nature of Arahant
Three qualities of Arahant were described earlier-
omniscience, capability to destroy karmas and leadership in the path of Moksha
marga. The first was established in previous chapter. Now the Karma destroying
capability is described.
Question: You established
Arahant as omniscient, that is alright. But karmas exist since eternal times
having tradition of cause-effect
relationship. How can anyone be their destroyer ?
Answer: Although they are
eternal, even then if the opposing reasons are profound then there is no
hindrance towards their destruction. Just as seed and sprout are eternal but
with adequate reasons such as fire, they can get totally destroyed.
Question: What is the means
for destroying mountains of Karmas?
Karika 111 : Karmas are of two
kinds. First is those karmas which have been accumulated so far. Second is the
karmas that are accrued for future. Now prevention of accrual of karmas is
called “Samvar” and the destruction of previously accumulated karmas is called
“Nirjara”.
The influx of karmas is stopped by Samvar which is
attained with the jewel-trio of right belief-right knowledge-right conduct of
the Jiva. These are accompanied with five Samiti (carefulness), three gupti (
restraints), ten dharmas(observances), twelve bhavana (reflections), 22
Parihsh-Jai (subduing of sufferings), five charitra (conducts). (The details of
these should be seen from other Jain scriptures). The Nirjara is attained with
rigorous penance both internal ( purification of soul) and external (related to
body) in addition to practices described for Samvar.
Karika 112: The attributes for destruction of karmas are most profound in
Paramatma since he has acquired such purification of soul of highest order just
as heat is able to destroy the cold nature of water even though such nature is
eternal.
Now the form of Karma-mountains is described:
Karika 113-115: The karmas acquired by Jiva are of two kinds: dravya karma and
bhava karmas. Dravya karmas are pudgala (matter) by nature which are of eight
kinds and which are conjoined with the jiva on bondage of karmas. The bhava
karmas are the corrupted manifestations of the consciousness of the Jiva with
the nimitta of fruition of previously accrued dravya karmas. These bhava karmas
are of the nature of passions of anger, deceit, pride, greed etc. Thus these
are experienced by the Jiva and thus are in some aspect indifferent from the jiva.
The accumulated dravya karmas in bulk form are described
as mountains here. Further it should be known that their separation from the
jiva on becoming inactive itself is
called destruction. In reality the karmas are not destroyed since matter can
never be destroyed. Their becoming inactive alone is destruction.
Validation
of leadership of Arhant in the path of Moksha
Firstly the meaning of Moksha is described:
Karika 116: The realisation of the soul on destruction of Karmas completely
by means of Samvar-Nirjara, is termed as Moksha- this is accepted by all the
theists.
Now it is told that some atheists dispute existence of Moksha.
But that is not worth paying attention to-
Karika 117: Some atheists dispute the existence of Moksha but such negation
does not have any proof. Hence their utterances are meaningless and not worth
paying attention to by wise people.
Now the path to Moksha is described-
Karika 118: The path to Moksha is really the unity of Samyak darshan-Samyak
gyan- Samyak Charitra and not otherwise. Believing any other way is
contradictory.
Now it is told that the preacher of Moksha Marga is Arahant only-
Karika 119: The real preacher of Moksha Marga without any hindrances is
Arahant who is omniscient.
Validation of reverential nature of Arahant
So far in accordance with the third karika of this book,
the omniscience, destroyer of karma mountains and leadership in path of Moksha,
qualities of Arahant were described. Now with respect to fourth part of the
same karika, his reverential nature is also being described-
Karika 120: Arahant is free of defects and is like an ocean of qualities. He
is reverential to all saints for the purpose of attainment of all his great
qualities. This is the implication of the third karika in brief.
Now it is told that why wise people worship Veetrag,
omniscient, promulgator of Moksha marga
Karika 121: The one who is afflicted with Moha can not be Guru (aapt) since
he cannot promulgate the path to Moksha. Without promulgation of Moksha marga,
the realisation of soul, experienced with the destruction of all karmic
impurities, cannot be attained by the disciples. This is the reason O Arhan! O
Prabhu! You alone are free of Moha and know all the Tatvas clearly like a
sapphire gem kept in the palm of hand. Therefore you are the most reverential
guru, supreme aapt for the realisation of the soul.
Conclusion
Now conclusion is carried out by means of three Karikas-
Karika 122-124: This Aapt Pariksha is quite capable of complete refutation of
all the opposing Aaptabhasa ( false Gurus). Hence wise people should always
keep it in mind for the attainment of Moksha Lakshmi.
Shrimat TatvarthaSutra scripture is like an extraordinary
ocean generating great jewels. In its beginning Acharya Umaswami has written
the Mangalacharan as karika 3 here for the invocation of destruction of hindrances. That itself is like
a Tirtha which illuminates the path of all followers. Shri SamantBhadra Swami
also has written Aapt Mimamsa for explaining the same. Same Mangal invocation
has been used by myself (Vidyanand) with my limited capability for derivation
of true path and means in the form of
Aapt Pariksha.
In this way this Aapt Pariksha has been written for
elimination of all controversies related to Aapt.
The End
No comments:
Post a Comment