Preface
The entrance
of Kanji Swamy in Digamber faith in 1935
brought a revolution in the practice of Digamber Jain faith. He
emphasised upon the following of religion based upon the dictates of shastras
with particular emphasis on Adhyatma. He preached followers to concentrate upon
the soul so as to realise its differentness with respect to all other worldly
objects. For this he used Samaysar written by Kunda Kundacharya around 49 AD as
the primary means for discourse. Prior to Kanji Swamy those who could
understand or preach such shastras could be counted on finger tips. In fact,
there was also a decree that these shastras are not meant for householders and
they should merely concentrate upon the pooja and fasting. Kanji Swamy brought
a revolutionary change in this practice. The importance was laid upon
understanding each thing before undertaking it. Experiencing the soul became
the prime objective. People who listened to him realised that there was some sense
in what he was preaching and they thronged Songarh in thousands to hear and
understand him. The culture of reading shastras took birth. As a result people
started asking questions if they found discrepancy between the dictates of
shastras and practices.
This brought
about a fissure in the followers of Digamber Jain faith. Both sides used to
quote heavily from scriptures to support their arguments and the common
householder was caught in between with uncertainty. Fortunately there were
people In Digamber Jain faith who gave more importance upon the brain rather
than the brawn. They suggested to have
discussion in peaceful conditions to sort out the differences and result in
proper understanding of the religion. Acharya Shivasagar took the lead invoking
both sides to organise a conference and
settle the differences.
Such
conference was held for 10 days between 20/9/1963 to 1/10/1963 in Khaniya near
Jaipur where a great number of Digamber Jain scholars and pandits participated.
Rules for debate were laid down. It was agreed to have deliberation in three
rounds of written form in terms of questions and answers. Fortunately two
rounds were completed during this conference itself and third round was
completed by June next year . These were published in the form of Khaniya
Tattva charcha in two volumes of nearly 700 pages each. For those who want to
understand the logic behind the controversies between the two sides, these
books are an excellent source.
Both sides
were represented by scholars of renowned reputation and standing. On one side
it was Pandit Phoolchandra Shastry while on the other side it was led by Pandit
Makhan lal ji shastry.
During this
conference seventeen questions were raised and answered. If we examine these
questions then we find that these were excellent questions which were debated
since it explains the whole thinking and logic of each side in totality which
is an ideal means for understanding the subject. One should look at these questions and answers not from
the objective of victory and defeat but from the objective of understanding the
thinking which goes behind every question. It lays bare the entire
thought process behind the questions and helps in arriving at the cause for
fissure and resolving the matter. Both sides need to be complimented on
participating whole heartedly with full vigour. Such literature only enhances
the magnificence of the Jain tradition. In my view these are excellent books
which one should read and they constitute the most important original books
which have been written in this century.
I have
attempted to provide a gist of these books in brief here. It is a difficult
task since at several places the translation may be inadequate. However I love
these books and attempted it nevertheless. I hope people who are interested
would read it with due cognizance of this fact. The three rounds of questions
have been numbered in their order. I have used italics to highlight the
thinking of the rival group which is quite informative as to the line of
thinking which was prevalent in those times and even now lot of people have such conceptions. The
highlighting in yellow has been used to mark important points which we should take
note. There is no doubt that those who can, should read the original only. I
engaged in this translation since it gives me opportunity to understand it
better myself. Hence I hope my mistakes would be forgiven and people would
understand it in the right spirit.
The Seventeen questions which were raised are
listed here-
1. With the fruition of dravya karma the worldly
soul manifests in the form of corrupted bhavas and transmigrates in four gatis
or not?
2. Whether
the activities of live body result in dharma adharma for the soul or not?
3. Believing
compassion towards jivas to be dharma – is it Mithyatva ?
4. Is Vyavahara dharma instrumental in attaining
Nishchaya dharma or not?
5. All the
paryayas manifesting in the Dravya occur
in pre-ordained sequence only or non sequential manner also?
6. In the
deed form manifestation of Upadan, does the nimitta reason assist or not?
7. The
Omniscience of Kevali Bhagwan is from aspect of Nishchaya or Vyavahara? If it
is from aspect of Vyavahara then whether it is Real or Unreal?
8. Whether
Divya Dhwani and Keval Gyan or Kevali Atma have any relationship or not? If it
is there then what is that relationship? Is it real? Or Unreal? The Divya
Dhwani is Pramanik (true) or Apramanik (false)? If it is Pramanik then its
Pramanikata is dependent upon self or due to relationship with the soul of
Kevali Bhagwan ?
9. Worldly
jiva is bonded or free? If he is bonded then with whom is he bonded and due to bondage, is he dependent or
not ? If he is bonded then what is the means for him to be rid of bondage ?
10. The bondage of Jiva and pudgalas and those of two-anu
etc. skandhs is real or non-real? If it is non-real then Kevali Bhagwan is
aware of it or not?
11. The manifestation has two divisions namely swa-pratyaya
and swa-par-pratyaya; what is their real difference?
12. Similar to having faith in KuDeva, KuGuru, KuShastra,
having faith in SuDeva, SuGuru, SuShastra is also Mithyatva – Is believing or
telling so, in accordance with the shastras?
13. When the fruition of punya has been told to be the attainment
of the state of Arihant due to which this soul becomes owner of the three loks,
that has been called as extremely magnificent punya, then is it in accordance
with shastras to call that punya as poor
and renounceable and believing so ?
14. Punya, after reaching its pinnacle or after soul
manifesting in Shuddha swabhava form, is given up by itself or whether for
abandoning the same any Upadesha or effort is required?
15. When abhava (absence) is chatushtaya (foursome) substance
form then why they cannot be considered as cause and effect form? Accordingly
why the destruction of Ghati karmas does not produce Keval Gyan?
16. What is the form of Nishchaya and Vyavahara ? Is the
subject of Vyavahara naya untrue or what? If it is untrue then is it absence
form or false form?
17. What are
the characteristics of Upachar? If there is Upachar of being causal and
Naya-ness between Nimitta cause and Vyavahara naya sequentially then please
apply Upachar Characteristics on them to explain.
1.1. Answer : The fruition of dravya karmas and the
corrupted bhavas of worldly soul resulting in transmigration in four gatis has
nimitta-naimittik relationship from aspect of Vyavahara but not as karta-karma
(doer-deed).
Soul is karta (doer) of own bhava but he is not karta of any of the bhavas which are carried out by pudgala karma. In agam, wherever karta-karma relationship has been described between the specific paryayas of two dravyas, it is done so in vyavahara sense only.
Counter Question 2: Our question is from the aspect of Nimitta karta only and not
from the aspect of Upadan karta – Panchastikaya Gatha 88- Just as in the
unfurling of flag the wind is causal karta agency. In the generation of
Manushya etc. form paryayas of jivas the karma has been considered to be karta.
Pudgala has such power that it destroys the keval gyan of soul . The ragas
etc. form bhavas are not generated in soul alone as Upadan but for them the
necessary reason is karmas.
1.2. Answer : You
have tried to establish causal relationship between worldly jiva and fruition
of karmas with an intent to establish that with the causal means the task in
dravya can be carried out earlier or later any time. However the causal karta
relationship is only in nimitta sense.
The Nimitta
cause are of two kinds- 1) Those which
are nimitta in the activities of another Dravya by means of their own
activities. 2) Irrespective of being active or inactive dravyas, those who are
not nimitta by means of activities but are nimitta in the deeds of other
dravyas remaining inactive. Both types are same. The real producer of the deed
is the timeliness of the moment of the
deed only and not nimitta.
Samaysar
Kalash 51- The one which manifests is the karta; the result is the karma and
the manifestation is the kriya (activity). These three are not different. Therefore
it is logical to accept nimitta karta as karta in Vyavahara (upachar) sense
only.
In reality
to indicate that which Dravya is the nimitta cause in the deed, the nimitta is
stated in Upachar (formal) sense as karta. But one dravya cannot function as
karta of another dravya.
Although
every person before attainment of Bhava Ling accepts Dravya Ling, but that
Bhava Ling does not get attained right
at the moment of acceptance of Dravya Ling. However when the Upadan (material
cause) attains Bhava Ling then at that moment its nimitta Dravya Ling is
present. It is clear that the real promoter of the deed is Upadan (material
cause) karta only. The Nimitta is attributed to be karta only in Upachar ( formal) sense.
Continued……..
No comments:
Post a Comment