The essence of Pravachansar ( Divine Sermon) ....02

 

                                                Gyanadhikar ( Gathas 21-52)

The knowledge and bliss beyond senses which was subject of previous shuddhopayoga adhikar forms the basis of these next two chapters namely Gyanadhikar and sukhadhikar.

To begin with. it is reasserted in Gathas 21-22 that for the kevali bhagwan manifested into the form of omniscience, all the dravyas(substances) and their paryayas are directly known and nothing is indirect. He is beyond senses and all his qualities have enhanced in unlimited manner. He does not know things by means of senses in the form of Avagrah etc.

Mundane beings know by means of senses in a four step process known as Avagrah-Iha-Avaya-Dharana which constitutes the basis of Mati Gyan(sensory knowledge). These are not applicable to him since his knowledge is beyond senses. In fact there is no sequentiality to his knowledge since he knows the paryayas of past, present and future simultaneously at the same time of all the dravyas. Thus nothing is unknown to him at any time.

The extent of that knowledge is defined in Gatha 23^rd. Soul is equivalent to the knowledge and knowledge is equivalent to gyeya (subject of knowledge). Subjects of knowledge are equivalent to loka and aloka. Hence the knowledge is all pervasive.

Just as fire is equivalent to all the fuel capable of being burnt, the knowledge is equivalent to all the subjects of knowledge of all the three lokas and aloka. All the six types of dravyas and their manifestations of all times are known to him. The knowledge is all pervasive and nothing is unknown to him.

In reality the knowledge does not go to subject of knowledge to know them. Remaining within himself knowledge knows the subject of knowledge totally. Hence statement of being all pervasive is from aspect of vyavahara while in reality the knowledge remains within himself.

Now those who do not accept soul as equivalent to knowledge are addressed in Gathas 24-25 – If soul is not equivalent to knowledge then in their belief the soul must be more or less than the knowledge. If the soul is smaller than the knowledge then there would be knowledge(outside the soul) which would be non-soul hence being non conscious would not know. If the soul is larger than knowledge then there would be soul (outside the knowledge) which would not have knowledge hence would not know. Therefore from both aspects it is established that the space occupied by soul is same as the space occupied by knowledge since if either of them is larger, that extra space of soul/knowledge  would be insentient. Hence both have to be equal. 

Now when the knowledge is all pervasive then the soul necessarily has to be all pervasive as a corollary to the above. This is stated in Gatha 26^th that Jinavara is all pervasive and all the subjects of knowledge of the world are within the knowledge of Jianavar. However an important distinction has been now made by elaborating between Nishchaya and Vyavahara. From aspect of Vyavahara naya only it is stated that all subjects of knowledge are within the knowledge of bhagwan hence bhagwan is all pervasive. On the other hand from aspect of Nishchaya naya, bhagwan never leaves his soul space which is equivalent to his body to know all the subjects of knowledge. Therefore from aspect of Nishchaya naya it is said that soul and knowledge are pervasive within the soul while from aspect of Vyavahara, soul is all pervasive.

Therefore what is the relationship between Knowledge and soul? This is brought out in Gatha 27^th. Knowledge is soul – this the view of Jinavara. Since knowledge is not seen in any other dravya therefore knowledge is soul. However soul is not merely knowledge since soul has knowledge, bliss etc. several qualities.

Here it is established that knowledge does not have any existence out side the soul hence knowledge has oneness with soul. However soul is not exclusively knowledge since soul has qualities of bliss, darshan etc. Therefore they are different also.

The relationship between knowledge and subjects of knowledge is elaborated in gathas 28&29 by means of an example. Just as shapes/colours  are subjects of knowledge of eyes, in the same way all objects are subjects of knowledge of the soul. Just as eyes view all the shapes/colours without entering them as if they are immersed in them, in the same way the soul knows all the subjects of knowledge without entering them as if soul is immersed within them. Here a very unique property of knowledge is being described that is the capability to know the subject without contacting it altogether, still appearing as if knowledge is all pervasive within the subject. The subjects and the knowledge remain apart and still get known. Another important feature is that the knowledge of the subject does not cause any corruption in the knowledge. At the same time knowing the subject does not deform or corrupt the subject either.

The same aspect is further elaborated by means of two examples in Gathas 30-31. In the first example an IndraNeel jewel is quoted which is a bright jewel having blue colour. If it is immersed in milk, the whole milk appears blue due to its brightness. So just as IndraNeel jewel immersed in milk causes it to appear blue, in the same way the knowledge is immersed in all the subjects of knowledge. In this manner the knowledge is all pervasive within all subjects of knowledge.

In the next example, a mirror is quoted which images all objects within the mirror. The objects have not really entered the mirror but they represent the objects truly. In the same way in the knowledge, all the subjects of knowledge are reflected as if the objects are present within the knowledge. In this manner the knowledge is all pervasive.

The summary of the above analysis is that although in reality the soul remains within himself, even so the soul and knowledge is all pervasive due to the property of knowing all subjects of knowledge. All subjects of knowledge are reflected within the soul therefore all the subjects of knowledge are pervaded within the knowledge and the soul.

However the soul is different from all subjects of knowledge. This is brought out in Gatha 32^nd. Kevali bhagwan does not accept or renunciate others. Nor does he manifest into the form of others. He just observes and knows all the souls and all the subjects without leaving anything. Here the soul is compared to a jewel which continues to remain bright like a flame without any aberration. In the same way the soul experiences the self in completeness in all aspect. Secondly all the subjects of knowledge are observed without resorting to changes from one subject to another or changing from one shape to another since all are known at the same time. Thus in spite of knowing-seeing all, Kevali bhagwan does not manifest into any other form and remains knowledge form only, different from all subjects of knowledge.

Now it is shown that Shrutagyani is no different from Keval Gyani in 33^rd Gatha. Those who know the knower soul by means of shruta gyan are described as Shruta Kevali by great Munis. It is told that just as Keval Gyani knows the soul by means of Keval Gyan, which is experiencing the soul by the soul within the soul, in the same way the shruta kevali knows the soul by the soul within the soul. Hence one should not think that Keval Gyani knows any more. Therefore one should not be perturbed or desire for knowing more. One should remain immersed within the self.

This aspect is elaborated in Gatha 34^th. The knowledge of the Sutra i.e.  pudgala dravya form manifestation of words preached by Jinendra bhagwan itself is shruta gyan. Here an important point is being brought out. Although the words preached by Arahant Bhagwan are divine sound form which have manifested in pudgala words form known as sutras, the understanding  of their bhava is knowledge which is described as Shruta Gyan. Here the term shruta implies a blemish on that knowledge but actually in terms of experience the experience of Kevali bhagwan of own soul and the experience of shruta kevali of his own soul is not different. Therefore there is no difference of the knowledge even if it is shruta gyan,  since in terms of knowledge they are not different.

Both Kevali bhagwan and shruta kevali experience their own souls with their knowledge only and there is no difference between their experience of the soul. Therefore it is said that there is no blemish by calling the knowledge as shruta gyan.

Now in next 35^th Gatha the distinction between soul and knowledge is also eliminated. The soul is not knower by means of the knowledge. The soul himself is manifested into the form of knowledge and all substances are existent within that knowledge. In previous gatha it was being told that shruta kevali and kevali  experience their  souls by means of their knowledge. Therefore it appears that knowledge is a tool different from the soul, just as Devadatta cuts grass by means of a sickle. Here it is told that soul himself is manifested in the form of knowledge and there are no two different things apart like soul and the  knowledge. Just as fire and heat are one and the same, in the same way the soul and knowledge are not different. Soul knows by himself and not by means of knowledge. Therefore Acharya says that what is the point in saying that ‘soul knows by means of knowledge’, suffice to say that ‘ soul knows’.

Now Gatha 36^th explains what is Gyan ( knowledge) and what is Gyeya (subject of knowledge). Jiva himself is knowledge and subjects of knowledge are all the dravyas and their manifestations of all the three periods of time (past, present and future). The jiva knows self and all other dravyas. It is asserted that jiva himself is gyan since no one else manifests into the form of knowledge. The subjects of knowledge are all the infinite manifestations of each dravya belonging to all periods of time. It is clarified that just as lamp illuminates self as well as others, the knowledge also knows self as well as others and there is no hurdle in knowledge knowing self.

Gatha 37^th elaborates the nature of knowledge of past and future manifestations. It is asserted that all the manifestations of all those dravyas which belong to present or past or future, all of them appear in the knowledge as if they are present now.

It is explained with example. Just as even a mundane being can think of past or future things by taking recourse to their past or future forms, in the same way Kevali can observe all those manifestations together simultaneously. The knowledge is compared to painting in which all objects of past, present and future can appear together, in the same way in the screen of knowledge all subjects of knowledge are reflected together.

Gathas 38-39^th reassert the same quote vociferously. Those paryayas which have not been generated as yet and those which have been destroyed, all those are directly observed in the knowledge in present. If Keval gyan does not see them directly then who would call that knowledge divine?

The paryayas are compared to carving in the stone wherein the  scenes of past and future appear in the knowledge together in the present. The knowledge is at its glorious magnificence hence this is quite natural.

Gathas 40-41 describe the difference between the sensory knowledge and knowledge beyond senses. Omniscient has told that those who know the things by means of sensory knowledge, they cannot know the objects not accessible to senses. On the other hand the knowledge beyond senses knows corporeal, non corporeal, occupying no space or large space, past and future manifestations.

The sensory knowledge knows objects sequentially following the order of avagrah, iha, avaya, dharna etc. and cannot know objects inaccessible to senses. Sensory knowledge cannot sense very small objects either. Same applies to non corporeal objects. But all such restrictions do not apply to the knowledge beyond senses. Since they are all subjects of knowledge hence they are amenable to be known. Just as all fuel is capable of being burnt and fire would burn it all, the same way the subjects of knowledge can be known.

Now an important feature of knowledge is being disclosed in Gatha 43^rd. The knower does not manifest into the form of subjects of knowledge. If it did so then it would never have attained Kshayik gyan ( knowledge attained with destruction of knowledge obscuring karmas). Jinendra deva has described such being as one experiencing fruition of karmas only.

Manifesting in the form of subjects of knowledge implies having thoughts of the kind ‘this is yellow, this is green etc.’ All such manifestations into the form of subjects of knowledge are dictated by karmas and they are not experience of knowledge. Knowing without perturbation, in blissful form naturally is the nature of knowledge. Attending to each subject of knowledge and contemplate of them is not the nature of knowledge. The aberrations in the nature of knowing is caused by fruition of karmas only. The Kshayik gyan knows all the subjects directly without such manifestations.

43^rd Gatha elaborates the form of manifestation into the form of subject of knowledge and its cause. The worldly jivas necessarily suffer fruition of pudgala karmas. Due to such fruition, the jivas manifest into the forms of moha, raga, dwesha which results in manifesting into the forms of subjects of knowledge. Subsequently jivas accrue bondage. This confirms that the fruition of moha only is the cause of such manifestations and not knowledge. An important corollary is that knowledge or lack of it is not the cause for manifestations into the form of subjects of knowledge. It is the sense of oneness, mineness  which leads to moha, raga, dwesha and hence jivas accrue bondage of karmas.

An example is quoted in Gatha 44^th of Arihant Bhagwan telling that even he engages in walking, sitting, preaching naturally without any effort. In spite of this he does not accrue any bondage due to lack of Moha. Just as clouds move around, thunder and rain without any efforts on the part of people, in the same way the activities of Kevali bhagwan are seen without any intention or desire. Due to lack of fruition of moha, these activities do not result in bondage. The purport of the above is that external activities are not cause for bondage but it is the moha-raga-dwesha indulged in by jiva in the form of oneness-mineness, authorship- enjoyership  which results in bondage.

The same aspect is elaborated in gatha 45^th. Arihant Bhagwan has fruition of punya karmas which results in the form of his activities. However they are devoid of moha hence even those activities result in destruction of karmas.

However based upon the above one should not think that worldly jivas also can claim that their activities are unintentional i.e. without Moha. This is told in Gatha 46^th. If it is believed that soul does not indulge in shubha or ashubha bhavas without his own intention then the world itself would not exist for the jivas. Because in such a case all jivas would be blessed with lack of karmas and they would be in Moksha state automatically. But this is not seen. Just as sapphire jewel is observed to be coloured in the presence of coloured background, in the same way the souls  manifest in shubha ashubha forms resulting in worldly existence.

Returning back to the main topic the glory of knowledge beyond senses of omniscient is venerated in Gatha 47^th. That knowledge is termed as Kshayik (acquired with destruction of karmas) which knows all through spatial elements of his soul, all the present or non-present, corporeal or non-corporeal different kinds of subjects. Restrictions of knowing sequentially only, through specific soul spatial elements, specific objects etc. occur in mati-shruta etc. knowledges which are attained with Kshayopasham (destruction cum subsidence) of Gyanavarana karmas. These are not applicable to Keval gyan.

The magnificence  of omniscience is established by saying in Gatha 48^th that the one who does not know all the subjects of all the three periods and all the three lokas together, he does not know his own dravya along with paryayas. Just as a fire is incomplete without burning all the combustible fuel substances, in the same way the soul which has not manifested in knowledge form knowing all the subjects of knowledge is incomplete. Therefore he has not manifested in his own complete knowledge form which implies that he does not know himself completely. Therefore the conclusion that the one who does not know all,  does not know himself.

Conversely the one who does not know one, does not know all (Gatha 49^th). If one does not know his own soul substance along with all his paryayas, then how can he know all the dravyas along with their paryayas?

Acharya clarifies it by telling that soul is of the nature of knowledge and that knowledge is general form all-illuminator. This illumination manifests into the infinite specifics which are all the dravyas and their paryayas. Now the person who does not experience such general form all-illuminator soul directly, he cannot observe all the specifics which are pervaded by that illumination. Therefore he cannot know all.  From this it is concluded that knowledge of the soul itself is the knowledge of all. The knowledge of all and knowledge of self are complementary to each other.

Now it is told in Gatha 50^th that the knowledge which is sequential, cannot be all pervasive. If the knowledge is generated taking recourse to substances sequentially then  it is not permanent, not Kshayik nor omniscient. Since such a knowledge is generated taking recourse to substances one after another, it keeps getting destroyed as the recourse to substances is being changed hence it is not capable of knowing all. Such knowledge is not omniscient.

Conversely it is told in Gatha 51^st that non-sequential knowledge only can be omniscient. The knowledge which knows all the substances of all the three periods of time simultaneously only is omniscient. Great is the glory of  knowledge of Jina Deva. Such knowledge is permanent and does not change.

Now the Gyan Adhikar is concluded with Gatha 52^nd telling that omniscient does not accrue bondage by the act of knowledge. The keval gyani soul does not manifest into the forms of substances by knowing them, nor does he receive them or discard them. Hence he is bondage free. Karmas are described of three kinds.  Firstly when doer generates something totally new. Secondly when he modifies existing thing into something else. Thirdly when he neither generates nor modifies but just receives it. All the three are of the form of knowledge since knowledge only is received, generates in knowledge form and manifested in knowledge form. Hence knowledge is karma and knowing is the act. This activity is not cause for bondage. The manifestation in the form of changing from one subject to another is cause for bondage which is not applicable to Kevali Bhagwan.

In the end of this chapter Acharya recites the glory of omniscient. The knowledge which knows all the substances and their paryayas of all the three periods of time, which does not manifest into their forms due to lack of Moha, which has swallowed all the subjects of knowledge within himself, such knowledge remains free in spite of illuminating the substances of all the three lokas together or separately.

Thus the Gyan Adhikar is completed.