Seventeen Questions…..05

 

Question 4

Is  Vyavahara dharma instrumental in attaining Nishchaya dharma or not?

4.1. Answer: If considered from the aspect of generation of  Nishchaya jewel trio form Nishchaya dharma then Vyavahara dharma is not instrumental in attaining Nishchayaa dharma since the generation of Nishchaya dharma occurs independent of others.

Always Vibhava paryaya is dependent upon self and others while swabhava (natural) paryaya is independent of others.

Nishchaya jewel trio is swabhava paryaya hence Vyavahara dharma cannot be instrumental in attainment of it, this is clear. Even so, in the Vikalpa state, on account of the Vyavahara dharma being present along with Nishchaya dharma, it is declared as instrumental (nimitta) for the Nishchaya dharma.

Counter Question 2: You are worried that if Nishchaya dharma is accepted as being dependent upon Vyavahara dharma then Nishchaya dharma would have to be accepted as Vibhava paryaya of soul. But our stand is that Vyavahara and Nishchaya both are dharmas of the soul only.

In Agam the Vyavahara dharma is called as instrumental for Nishchaya dharma. Nishchaya and Vyavahara have together objective-means relationship. Taking recourse to the Vyavahara naya, Jiva attains purity sequentially. Subsequently with elimination of objective-means bhava from aspect of Nishchaya naya he attains internally engrossed state.

Being companion the vyavahara dharma, you have  declared it as instrumental for Nishchaya dharma. Do you also accept Nishchaya dharma as instrumental for the Vyavahara dharma in the same way since they are companion?

With the above given proofs it is established that in Agam the Vyavahara dharma has not been considered instrumental for Nishchaya dharma because of being companion. If it is done so, please clarify.

4.2. Answer: The Vyavahara dharma has been called as instrumental for Nishchaya dharma from the aspect of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya only. In this way only it has been declared traditionally.

On the path of Nishchaya Moksha marga the Vyavahara dharma form accompanying raga manifestations are called as Vyavahara Moksha Marga in Agam. Since it is coexistent along with Nishchaya Moksha Marga hence it is called as instrumental for Nishchaya Moksha Marga in Upachar sense. However accepting two paths to Moksha is delusion. Believing both to be venerable is also imaginary since Nishchaya and Vyavahara are contrary to each other by nature.

Nishchaya dharma is segment of paryaya of soul dependent upon self while Vyavahara dharma is segment of paryaya of soul dependent upon others. In the beginning stage both occur in mixed form. Under these conditions by accepting attainment of Nishchaya dharma from  vyavahara dharma, the possibility of soul to be engrossed within the self does not arise at all.

Calling Vyavahara dharma as instrumental for Nishchaya dharma is Upacharita statement only. Since Veetrag charitra is adoptable while Sarag charitra is worthy of renunciation.

Counter Question 3: According to Alaap Paddhati the Vyavahara naya differentiates between subjects. Where only one substance is the subject, such is Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya and where different substances are the subject, such is Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya. From this description the Vyavahara jewel trio of soul is established to be subject of Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya. You have not forwarded any proof which does not accept Vyavahara dharma to be instrumental for Nishchaya dharma. Further you have declared it to be instrumental from aspect of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya only.

In Dravya Sangrah if is stated that the one who believes Nishchaya-Vyavahara nayas as objective- instrumental bhava, that is the characteristics of Samyak Drishti. From these proofs it is clear that declaring Vyavahara jewel trio to be merely raga form is contradictory  to Agam.

In reality the belief in seven tattvas along with their vikalpas, their knowledge and renunciations of paps form  Charitra- these three constitute Vyavahara jewel trio or Vyavahara Moksha Marg which is means for Nishchaya jewel trio and Moksha.

In Bhava Pahud it is stated that those who are engaged in the soul, they are Samyak Drishti, knowing it is Samyak Gyan and conducting within the same is Samyak Charitra.

From all these it is clear that because of companionship the Nishchaya-Vyavahara jewel trio have not been accepted as having objective-instrumental bhava. Actually it is accepted as deed-causal bhava.

In this question the prime objective was that currently such a trend of Pravachans is prevalent in the society that ‘I am Shuddha buddha pure, indivisible Dravya in all three periods of time, external charitra would not benefit the soul and instead cause karma bondage. By following it this jiva has been born is Graveyik infinite times.’ Due to this the disinterest towards Vyavahara dharma is being spread in the society. Several Tyagis (hermits)  have abandoned practice of vows undertaken. Tendencies of night food,  eating of uneatable etc. is now prevalent amongst the people. Even customary practices of ordinary householders are being dispensed by the people. The interest towards Desha Vrita and Maha Vrita is a thing of the past. With this in mind this question was asked that whether Vyavahara Dharma is means for Nishchaya dharma or not.

Samaysar 12 - Those who have attained belief by means of Shuddha naya and have attained complete knowledge and Charitra, for them it is appropriate to learn the Shuddha naya from the preachment of Shuddha naya. However those who have not attained the complete bhava of  belief, knowledge and charitra form i.e. who are in non supreme bhava state and are stationary in practitioner state, they are worthy of being preached by means of Vyavahara.

In brief the sum and substance is that the external conduct which has been prescribed in Jain Sanskriti (tradition) for the 4^th Avirat Samyak Drishti, 5^th Shravak and Sanyami Munis is called as Vyavahara Dharma and the pure uncorrupted state of soul filled with veetragata (detachment)  is called Nishchaya Dharma.

The external conduct of Avirat Samayk Drishti of the form of devotion towards Veetrag deva, Guru, Agam etc. is called as Vyavahara Samyak Darshan form Vyavahara dharma. Adopting partial renunciation form  Anu Vritas is called as external conduct of Shravak i.e. Vyavahara charitra form Vyavahara dharma. Adopting complete renunciation form Mahavritas is called external conduct of Sanyami people i.e. Vyavahara charitra form Vyavahara dharma.

The objective of the Jiva is to attain absolutely pure, uncorrupted Veetrag state of the soul – the Nishchaya dharma of such form is the goal for which the person adopts external conduct form Vyavahara dharma suitably. Vyavahara dharma is called Dravya Ling and the soul purification form Nishchaya dharma is called Bhava Ling which are described in Charananuyoga and Karananuyoga respectively. In 4-6^th gunasthanas the objective is that of external purushartha due to which the Nishchaya dharma takes a back seat. Beyond 7^th Gunasthana the jivas are engaged within internal state of life  wherein the Nishchaya dharma is primary and Vyavahara dharma is secondary.

The existence of Vyavahara dharma is seen even in the absence of Nishchaya dharma and where Nishchaya dharma is present, the presence of Vyavahara dharma would be there for sure. The generation of Nishchaya dharma and its existence is impossible without the adoption of Vyavahara dharma. Your argument, that with attainment of Nishchaya dharma the Vyavahara dharma automatically gets attained, is wrong.

“So long as Jiva does not engage in Pratyakhyan and Pratikraman of other dravyas of the form of nimitta, till then Pratikraman and Pratyakhyan of bhava form ragas etc. corruptions cannot be carried out. When Pratikraman and Pratyakhyan of ragas etc. corruptions  is attained then soul automatically becomes non-karta of ragas etc.”

This proves that the anger etc. form manifestations observed within the manifestations of soul is due to fruition of anger etc. form Dravya karmas. The generation of corruptions of the form of anger etc. do not occur on their own.

Acharya Samant Bhadra has written – “ O Bhagwan! For enhancement of Nishchaya Tapa you had practiced Vyavahara tapa stringently. “

4.3. Answer: We have stated earlier itself that Nishchaya Jewel trio is swabhava bhava of jiva hence Vyavahara dharma is not instrumental in its attainment definitely. Even so because of companionship relation the Vyavahara dharma is called as instrumental (nimitta)  for Nishchaya dharma.

You have stated that in spite of accepting Vyavahara dharma as instrumental for Nishchaya dharma, the Nishchaya dharma would remain independent of others.

In reply we had told that Vyavahara dharma has been described as instrumental  for Nishchaya dharma from aspect of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya. On account of companionship it is treated as instrumental.

We have shown quoting Gathas of Niyamsar that the Nishchaya Moksha Marga is soul manifested in  Nishchaya Jewel trio form which  is produced by taking recourse to nature of soul only. Hence Vyavahara dharma can be called instrumental from aspect of Vyavahara naya only. It is not reality. The objective is to provide the knowledge of nimitta only.

You have not clarified that from aspect of which nayas you have described the proofs. Due to this the reality cannot be ascertained. “ The renunciation of subjects of five senses etc. externally is  Charitra from aspect of Upacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya.” This is praman given in Agam. From this it can be clearly known that the Vyavahara dharma is described as Charitra or dharma names only from aspect of Upacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya. It is not really the dharma of the soul.

Only Nishchaya dharma being  present with  Vyavahara dharma being absent is not possible. Both are existent together in 4^th etc. gunasthanas – such is singular rule. Both have invariable concomitance. For this reason only in Agam, the Vyavahara dharma has been called as Nimitta for Nishchaya dharma.

However those who believe that adopting Vyavahara dharma is my duty due to which the Atma Dharma would be generated and with such belief he does not look at the knowing natured soul as the real means for attainment of self then he does not become eligible for Nishchaya dharma in all three periods of time. From this it can be understood that the real means for  Moksha Marg is taking recourse to uncorrupted dense consciousness form soul only. 

The attainment of Nishchaya dharma can be treated as independent only when the attainment of indivisible jewel trio form soul is carried  out  in the soul by  supreme means of indivisible jewel trio form soul. Contrary to it if the generation is believed in reality by means of Vyavahara dharma  then how can it be declared as independent? That would be mere mockery of independence.

The rival group has tried to establish giving proof from Alaap Paddhati that the Vyavahara jewel trio of soul is not subject of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya. But vyavahara jewel trio is not really jewel trio of the soul. It has been so declared in Upachar form only. The Nishchaya jewel trio is a different substance only.

Along with Nishchaya Moksha Marg, the devotion towards real Devas etc., practice of true shastras and practices of Anu Vrita -Maha Vrita etc. auspicious manifestations are declared as Vyavahara Moksha Marg in Param Agam. This establishes our argument that the Vyavahara dharma form raga manifestations carried out along with Nishchaya Moksha Marg are Vyavahara Moksha Marg.

Focused manifestation of permanent, unadulterated, pure soul tattva of the form of Samyak darshan, gyan, charitra is nishchaya Moksha Marg.

Panchastikaya 136 – Devotion towards Arihant, Siddha and Sadhus, practices of dharma according to rules and following Gurus is auspicious raga. 

In this way the auspicious raga carried out along with Nishchaya Samyaktva only is Vyavahara Samyak Darshan and Vyavahara Samyak Gyan. Further the renunciation of inauspicious ragas and engagement in Shubha form auspicious raga only is vyavahara Samyak charitra. This Vyavahara Samyak charitra has invariable concomitance with Nishchaya Samyak Charitra as a rule.

The objective of inclusion of vritas in asrava tattva is for this reason only that with their objective  only shubhopayoga is carried out  not shuddhopayoga.

The rival group has probably this impression that on account of specific ragas only Nishchaya samyaktva is called as Vyavahara Samyak darshan but it is not so. Along with Nishchaya Samyaktva, the auspicious raga of Devas etc. only is called as Vyavahara Samyaktva.

Renunciation of Ashubha and engagement in Shubha does not cause attainment of Samyaktva since these are not real means for attainment of Moksha, but they are just nimitta at the time of attainment of Moksha. These have been carried out infinite times but own soul was never experienced even once by engrossing within own nature.

Engaged in Shubha kriya, if this jiva  keeps on being busy with the activities pertaining to others different from the soul as the objective and in the mind also keeps contemplating of others only and even then those activities may be construed as nimitta for soul purification – this is not possible.

When with the objective of attainment of soul the activities are carried out, then those considerations or those activities are described as nimitta for them. Samvar, Nirjara and salvation form objectives are carried out with the means of soul only and not by taking recourse to others. Primarily by taking recourse to own soul and manifesting in its form, the purity of the form of Samvar etc.  has to be generated.

Paramatma Prakash 2/3 Teeka:  The disciple enquires – The Nishchaya Moksha Marg is Nirvikalpa and at that time the Savikalpa (Vyavahara jewel trio) Moksha Marg is not present, then how can that be instrumental?

It is clarified- From aspect of past Naigam Naya it is traditionally instrumental. Or, the Nishchaya Moksha Marg can be divided into Savikalpa (with Vikalpa) and Nirvikalpa (without vikalpa). Of these “ I am infinite knowledge form” such vikalpa is called as Savikalpa Moksha Marg as instrumental and Nirvikalpa Meditation form is goal. This is the Bhavartha of the statement.

From this the form of Vyavahara Moksha Marg and why it is called instrumental is understood to some extent.

From the proofs presented by rival group to define the Nishchaya Jewel trio the following things can be known –

1) The manifestation of the soul in the form of belief, knowledge and engrossment by the soul, within the soul is called as Nishchaya Jewel trio.

2) Bondage can never occur in all three periods of time in such jewel trio.

3) The means for generation of such jewel trio definitely is soul only. Being instrumental, by himself, within own soul, being karta, he generates nishchaya jewel trio.

But Vyavahara jewel trio has opposite nature. Its subject is not self, but others. It is bondage natured and only because of Nishchaya jewel trio it is called as jewel trio. Further it is generated taking recourse to Veetrag Deva etc. form other substances as means, therefore being auspicious raga natured, due to companionship form relation it is called as instrumental. Hence what we have written, that where Nishchaya Moksha Marg is present, with that existent Vyavahara dharma form raga manifestations are described as Vyavahara Moksha Marg in Agam, is as per the dictates of the Agam only.

Without paying heed to the objective of the Pravachans being discoursed presently, the rival group has created an atmosphere of opposition towards it which is improper. With this the harm being amassed by the community is beyond description. We are aware of such people who, by adopting Muni Ling have not only led to their own downfall but also created non belief towards Moksha Marg within the community. Some people, listening to dictums of Nishchaya have started practicing haphazardly; even if this were true, how can it be fair to reject the dictums of Nishchaya and follow the path of agitation for the same purpose ? On the other hand those who practice the shastras of Nishchaya discourses specifically and attend the Pravachans pertaining to same, they have renounced potato etc. generally. Daily carrying out Deva Darshan etc. has become main duty. We also desire that the Vyavahara dharma should become life form and the wrong practices should get abolished. Accepting such path only is the right way. From aspect of Veetragata this alone is the right path on which all should resolve  to tread.

The worldly soul from aspect of Param Bhava Grahi Dravyarthika naya is extremely pure while from aspect of Paryayarthika naya it is extremely impure. In this way one soul alone at any moment is Shuddha in some respect and Ashuddha in some other respect. Jinavani also states this. Knowing this the one who takes recourse to soul, subject of Dravyarthika naya within his Drishti ignoring the subject of Paryayarthika naya and manifests in such form, he alone is eligible for attainment of supreme state. From this it can be realised that while the subject of Vyavahara naya has been described  as worthwhile for knowledge but it is not venerable. For this reason the Vyavahara dharma has been called as just nimitta only in attainment of Nishchaya dharma. The real means is manifesting in the knowing natured self taking recourse to self.

The rival group has called the goal of attainment of pure-uncorrupted-veetrag soul and becoming independent as Nishchaya dharma which is not right.  Since the goal is not Nishchaya dharma but manifesting in pure-uncorrupted-veetrag state is called as Nishchaya dharma.

The rival group has told that the external conduct form Vyavahara dharma of Munis is called Dravya Ling and internal purification form Nishchaya dharma is called Bhava Ling. In Bhava Pahud the term Dravya Ling has been used  for Munis who are devoid of Bhava. From gatha of Moolachar it is clear that even following external activities also, the Nishchaya dharma cannot be secondary in the life of Munis. The statement of rival group that the presence of Vyavahara dharma can be existent even in the absence of Nishchaya dharma is against the dictum of Agam. Just as prior to attainment of Samyak Darshan all the gyan has been declared to be Mithya; in the same way without Nishchaya dharma all the activities are futile. The external activities of punya form manifestations occurring along with Nishchaya dharma only have been called as Vyavahara dharma in Agam. Otherwise Dravya Ling incorporating 28 primary qualities would not have been criticized in Agam. From this it is clear that Vyavahara dharma does not exist prior to Nishchaya dharma at all.  The affirmation of sequence of activities is a different subject and consideration of deed-causal factors based upon nimitta-naimittik is another matter.

From this it is established that Vyavahara dharma is not really instrumental  for Nishchaya dharma. It has been declared as instrumental for Nishchaya dharma from aspect of Upachar naya only.

Continued……

Seventeen Questions……04

 

                                                            Question 3

Believing compassion towards jivas to be dharma – is it Mithyatva ?

3.1  Answer: If the term Dharma implies Punya Bhava then believing compassion towards jivas to be Punya Bhava is not Mithyatva since it is auspicious manifestation. However if the term Dharma implies Veetrag manifestation then believing compassion towards jivas to be Dharma is Mithyatva. This is so since Punya Bhava is considered to be within the domains of Asrava and Bandh Tattva and not within the domains of Samvar and Nirjara Tattva.

Counter Question 2: Your statement that compassion towards Jivas does not lie within the domains of Samvar and Nirjara is not in accordance with Agam. Adhyavasan ( state of uncertainty of soul due to ignorance) only is the cause for karma bondage. In Samvar Bhavna (spirit) dharma has been declared as primarily compassion.

The purified soul is internal Tattva while compassion towards jivas is external Tattva. Upon mating of the two one attains Moksha. Hence both should be taken recourse to.

Prasham (spiritual calmness), Samvega (fear of worldly sufferings), Anukampa (compassion) and Astikya (right perception) are the characteristics of Samyak darshan with raga. Here Anukampa is compassion which being constituent of Samyak Darshan is dharma form.

3.2  Answer : The rival group has tried to establish with about 20 proofs that believing compassion towards jivas as Dharma is not Mithyatva. In some of the proofs the compassion has been described as cause for Samvar also. However is it possible to accept punya bhava form compassion to be as means for Moksha based upon these ?

Passionate always accrues karma bondage and dispassionate only can be rid of karmas. Shubha bhava, whether it be compassion, tenderness , darshan of Jina image, practice of vows or anything else, if they are Shubha manifestations then they aways result in bondage. Attainment of Samvar, Nirjara or Moksha with them is impossible.

Samyak Drishti has been declared bondage free since he does not have ownership of the raga bhava.

Samaysar 199: Raga is pudgala karma and its fruition form after completion of its duration is such bhava. This bhava is not mine. I am definitely one Gyayak (knower) bhava.

Samaysar 200 : In this way the Samyak Drishti knows the soul (self) as Gyayak natured and knowing the  real nature of Tattva he abandons the results due to fruition of karma.

The compassion of the form of Shubha raga is considered to be part of Karma Chetna hence with the fruition of karma upon its maturity he does experience such kindness but he does not consider self to be its owner. 

Manifestation in raga form is singular reason for bandh only, even though it may be the Sookshma Samparaya raga manifestation of 10^th Gunasthana, and Veetrag bhava alone is means for karma destruction, even though it may be the veetrag manifestation of Avirat Samyak Drishti of 4^th Gunasthana only.

Samaysar Kalash 107: With the nature of karma the  palace  of gyan cannot be constructed hence karma is not means for Moksha.

Counter Question 3: You have not accepted kindness towards jivas as dharma and declared it to be only punya bondage form and called punya bhava as Shubha manifestation. With about 20 proofs we have established that kindness towards jivas is dharma and punya bhava is dharma form. With Shubha bhavas one attains Samvar-Nirjara. You have told the Shubha manifestation to be only bandh form. In this way you have declared the preachment of Acharyas as Mithya (untrue).

Dhavala 13/362: Tenderness is nature of jiva hence calling it karma generated gives rise to contradiction.

Bhava Sangrah 404: The punya of Samyak Drishti is not cause for the worldly stay but is means for Moksha as a rule.

JayaDhavla 1/6: With Shubha and Shuddha bhavas the karmas get destroyed.

From 4^th to 7^th Guanasthana only Shubha Upayoga is attained. With such Shubha Upayoga manifestation of one samaya, on account of karya-karan bhava, all the three activities of karma bandh, karma samvar and Karma nirjara form keep happening. This punya only brings the soul closer to salvation.

Mithya Drishti just ready for Samyaktva also carries out innumerable times Nirjara, Sthiti Kandak Ghat and Anubhag Kandak Ghat even in the absence of Shuddha manifestations.

The Shubha bhava of Samyak Drishti in the form of compassion etc. is accepted to be Gyan Chetna form rather than karma chetna form, hence terming it as cause for bandh is contrary to the Agam.

You have accepted Gyan alone to be means for Moksha which is not right. Without Charitra with Gyan only, one cannot attain salvation.

Moksha Pahud 60- Tirthanakara surely attains salvation from the same birth. With birth itself he is holder of Mati, Shruta, Avadhi gyan and upon acceptance of Muni Diksha he becomes holder of four gyans including Manah Paryaya Gyan. In spite of this he practices Tapasya. Therefore person with gyan should surely practice Tapasya. Since without charitra, with gyan alone one does not get salavation.

Statement that with practices of vows attainment of samvar-nirjara and Moksha are impossible; it is absolutely in contravention of scriptures. In one mixed indivisible paryaya both disposition (raga) and renunciation both parts are combined hence with them Asrava-Bandh is also there as well as Samvar-Nirjara. Subsequently with continuous reduction of disposition(raga) part, the samvar-nirjara alone are carried out. Along with ragas the renunciation of paps is present due to which at the same time the Samvar-Nirjara are carried out simultaneously.

In the Agam where the preachment of giving up vows is encountered, there the preachment is meant for attaining nirvikalpa samadhi from the state of savikalpa samadhi by means of abandoning the vikalpas of vows or the adhyavasan experienced in the vows or the raga part tendencies of the vrita (vows) but not the  vritas themselves which are renunciation form. Even in the higher Gunasthana in the shreni (spiritual ladder) the vritas are existent and are not abandoned.

3.3 Answer: We had clarified that the punya (Shubha raga) bhava form compassion is not means for Moksha but if it is construed as Veetrag bhava then being Samvar- Nirjara form it is means for Moksha.

From our reply the implication derived by the rival group is that although the compassion towards jivas is Shubha manifestation form but it is not dharma form. It is true that the kindness towards other jivas is other bhava i.e. raga bhava hence it can never be dharma i.e. Veetrag bhava.

It is true that in some of the proofs given by rival group, the compassion towards jivas is called as dharma and this too is stated that with Shubha bhava the karmas get destroyed. However understanding that from which naya aspect a sentence has been stated and what is its implication is the task of sensible people. The rival group should understand that declaring archaic sentence as untrue is a different matter and explaining its meaning from the aspect it was stated using Naya view points, is another matter. The rival group wishes to mix the Vyavahara and Nishchaya dharma and call them Nishchaya dharma which is not acceptable to us.

In Jinagam, these two divisions, their reasons and their results have been described in different ways. Therefore we shall  the state the same which has been clarified by Jinagam at different places.

Pravachansar 11: If this soul having nature of manifesting in dharma form engages in Shuddhopayoga then he attains pleasure of Moksha and if he engages in Shubhopayoga then he enjoys the pleasures of swarga (heaven).

Does the rival group wish that every Bhavya Jiva believing the compassion towards other jivas only as the means for Moksha, remains busy with it and do not traverse in the benedictory path of real soul benefit by engrossing within own soul nature?

We have divided the kindness towards jivas into compassion towards self and others and the compassion towards self has been counted within the veetrag bhava while the compassion towards others has been counted as raga form punya bhava.

The rival group while quoting from Agam as proof should clarify the meaning of the statement. In JayaDhavla the Shubha manifestations have been called as means for karma destruction like Shuddha manifestations. Here the rival group should clarify that which part is stated from which aspect. Shubha bhava is means for punya bandh only but the shuddhopyoga carried out subsequently is really the cause for karma destruction. Hence Shubha bhava have been called as means for karma destruction in Upachar sense.

It is for the rival group to reflect that why does anyone who is devotee of Jina Vani, without accepting the preachment carried out from specific aspect by the great Acharyas in great scriptures, accepts it in absolute sense ? 

Tattvarthasar 25/26: Compassion, charity, tapa, morality, truth, purification, self control, forgiveness, VaiyyaVritya (pious service), respect, Jina Pooja, Arjava( lack of pride), Sarag Samyam and kindness towards jivas and practitioners of vows are means for influx of Satavedaniya.

The gist of the statements made so far is as follows-

1) The term compassion has been quoted in Agam in both meanings- in the sense of Shubha bhavas as well as in the sense of Veetrag bhavas.

2) Shubha bhava being par (other) bhava, it is counted in the category of asrava and bandh tattva in reality only. Wherever it has been called as means for Nirjara, it is from aspect of Vyavahara naya only.

3) Veetrag bhava being own bhava is treated in the category of samvar,  nirjara and Moksha Tattva only.

4) Veetrag bhava is cause for asrava and bandh in Vyavahara sense – such vyavahara  does not apply on veetrag bhava. Since veetrag bhava has been generated ignoring all kinds of vyavahara, taking recourse to singular nishchaya form Gyayak soul in engrossed form. Hence by nature it is beyond all kinds of Vyavahara. Therefore no upachar can be applicable to it.  

Definitely the result of Shubha bhava is only Asrava and Bandh while the job of Nishchaya jewel trio is just Samvar, Nirjara and Moksha in the end-  this only gets established. Raga bhava and Raga paryaya both being corrupted and having vibhava bhava nature are by themselves bandh form. In such a condition how can it be cause for Samvar and Nirjara? It cannot happen in all three periods of time. The cause for Samvar and Nirjara would be one which by itself is Samvar and Nirjara form. Raga cannot generate Veetrag bhava in all three periods of time for sure. In Agam raga has been called as means for Nishchaya jewel trio from aspect of Vyavahara. This has been done viewing their coexistence in Upachar sense.

This refutes the doctrine of the rival group that in fourth gunasthanas etc. the mixed Shubha bhava of raga part and jewel trio part is cause for Asrava and Bandh as well as Samvar and Nirjara. It only establishes that the raga part alone is cause for Asrava and bandh while jewel trio part is cause for Samvar Nirjara.

The rival group has tried to describe the manifestations of 4-7^th gunasthanas as similar to that of 3^rd Gunasthana wherein Karma bandh, karma samvar and Karma Nirjara occur  together- this is completely wrong and with it the system of Moksha Marg becomes haywire.

This statement too is also not right that in 4-7^th gunasthana shuddhopayoga does not exist. In 4^th Gunasthana the experience of the soul is not attained – saying this is contrary to Agam. In 7^th Gunasthana the Muni experiences Shuddhopayoga as a rule since there the business of the form of activities of speech-body of Shubha and Ashubha form pertaining to external subjects and internal Shubha Ashubha mental vikalpa form activities have been totally blocked; hence this soul by means of the  nature of inactive permanent pure gyan darshan gets engrossed within own soul. This alone is called as Supreme Dhyan and this only is called soul experience. If such soul experience is not experienced by the Muni then he is not worthy of being called Muni. The characteristics of gyani is this only that he should manifest in gyan nature form. Opposite to this, the one who manifests in raga nature form, he is Agyani. Samyak Drishti knows the nature of self to be different from others as it is and the manifestation of soul different from other bhavas in knowing natured form is the experience of soul. The subject of shubhopayoga is other substances while experience of soul is different from it. Hence it is established that in 4^th gunasthana also shuddhopayoga is present but the experience of the soul is for a limited duration after a long interval hence it has not been declared in gunasthanas. It is definite that the experience of the soul in these gunasthanas are called as dharma dhyan only and not Shukla dhyan. In Shukla dhyan only shuddhopayoga is present.

Only one Upayoga is present at a specific time. In the period of Shuddhopayoga samvar and nirjara are present while in period of shubhopayoga  asrava and bandh are there.

For the Mithya Drishti jiva ready to attain Samyaktva in first gunasthana, while getting engrossed in nature of soul different from the bhavas of other dravyas, the type of purity which is generated, that purity only is cause for innumerable times nirjara etc., but not the shubhopayoga manifestations engaged in  bhavas of the other dravyas. Since this jiva is Mithya Drsithi, it would not be appropriate to call it shubhopayoga similar to shuddhopayoga. Here the uniqueness is due to readiness of soul for experiencing own nature.

The vyavahara of the vows etc. told from the aspect of vyavahara naya are called as Charitra, Samyam and dharma dhyan only. Hence telling that they enable attainment of samvar, nirjara and moksha from aspect of nishchaya is against the doctrine of Agam.  

Continued……

Seventeen Questions…03

 

Question 2

Whether the activities of live body result in dharma adharma for the soul or not?

2.1. Answer : The activities of live body are  paryayas of pudgala Dravya hence they are constituted as ajiva tattva, therefore by themselves they are neither dharma bhava of jiva nor adharma bhava.

Even so, the activities of live body have nimitta-naimittik relationship with dharma-adharma in nokarma form. Hence considering the manifestations of the jiva in Shubha, ashubha and Shuddha forms from aspect of Upachar (formal) naya, it is generally stated that the activities of live body result in dharma-adharma. 

Counter Question 2 : Your statement is contrary to Agam, experience and direct observations, since by considering the live body to be absolutely Ajiva Tattva, no difference exists between the live and the dead body. If eating drinking etc. activities belong to Ajiva tattva then why the soul has to experience honour, dishonour, punishment, jail etc. from these activities? Why does he have to go to heaven and hell ?

The Anuvrita, Mahavrita etc. are practiced by means of live body only. The movements of Arihant Bhagwan and the divine sermon are carried out by the body only. The body, related speech and Dravya mind are cause for karma asrava (influx). The preachment, pravachan etc. are carried out by live body only.

Live body having Vajra Vrishabh Narach Sanhanan only can attain salvation by means of Shukla Dhyan. With the same body by indulging in pap activities one goes to 7^th Narak also.

You have  accepted nokarma body as nimitta cause for the ashubha, Shubha and Shuddha bhavas yourselves, but  you have tried to mislead by inserting unnecessary Upachar word in your answer. 

2.2. Answer: In the Agam the Nishchaya jewel trio has been declared as the real dharma. Along with it the practices of worship of devas etc., manifestations in the form of  Sanyam-asanyam and Sanyam etc. are declared as Vyavahara dharma. If some jiva believes the activities of the body as the activities of the soul by having spirit of oneness with the body, then he has been declared as ignorant in the scriptures.

Pravachansar 160: I am neither body nor mind nor speech. I am not their cause, not their karta, not their instigator, nor do I concur with their karta.

Pravachansar 161: The body, mind and speech are pudgala Dravya form. This has been stated by Jina Deva, and those pudgala Dravya are mass of paramanu drvayas.

Wherever the body etc. substances are called as nimitta, it is from aspect of heterogeneous asadbhoot vyavahara naya only.

If the activities of live body were treated as dharma then for a muni while travelling observing Irya Samati, if some jiva comes under his feet and dies then that act would result in pap bondage for the muni. But it is not so.

Therefore for each jiva, in accordance with his own manifestations only the punya, pap and dharma are carried out and not in accordance with the activities of live body, this should be the conclusion.

Counter Question 3: Dharma Adharma are the manifestations of the soul only which are expressed by the activities of the live body in nimitta form. If it were not so then the right and wrong activities carried out by the body would be useless. For attainment of deed both nimitta and Upadan are essential. With acceptance of Upadan alone the karya (deed) – karan (causal) management cannot be carried out. By calling it mere Upachar (formal), you wish to establish it as non real – untrue. If it is unreal only then there would not be any requirement of the body of man of Karma Bhoomi for  attainment of Moksha and essentiality of Uttam Sanhanan for attainment of dhyan as prescribed in shastras.

In spite of being Bhavya some cannot attain Siddha state, just as it is not definite that all gold can be separated from  gold ore containing gold. In the same way Siddha state cannot be attained in spite of having capability for attaining Siddha state, on account of non availability of suitable commodities.

In this way in spite of having eligibility, the Bhavya jiva on account of lack of nimitta of the form of preachment etc. commodities cannot attain Siddha state. Every act is accomplished with the conjunction of nimitta and Upadan causes. With just one ingredient alone the deed cannot be carried out.

You have asserted that ‘When the Upadan is ready for the deed it cannot happen that the suitable nimitta are not available for the same. ‘ – Such statement  is contrary to Agam.

As per Pravachansar the Sanyam can be undone in two ways. One is external and other is internal. The external undoing is dependent upon efforts and internal is dependent upon the Upayoga. The external damage can be rectified by means of Alochana form repentance. The internal damage is rectified taking recourse to wise Shraman for conducting Alochana. This establishes the fact that even body activities alone can result in adharma.

Arhant have fruition of supreme punya and his kriya is Audayiki,  however since he is devoid of Moha etc. hence his Kriya is accepted to be Kshayiki. Hence the activities of his body are not cause for bandh but being Kshayiki are cause for Moksha.

In this way the activities of body are assisting reasons for dharma-adhrma but in certain conditions the activities of body result in  Adharma of the form of  destruction  of Sanyam and dharma of the form of salvation from world  also.

2.3. Answer:  Activities of the live body is considered to be part of Ajiva tattva hence they are neither dharma bhava nor adharma bhava. They are nimitta in jiva bhava from aspect of asadbhoot vyavahara naya, therefore it is formal- Upacharita.

Based upon the Shubha or ashubha manifestations of the soul, the tendencies of the jiva have been declared as proper or improper. By themselves they are not proper or improper. If by themselves they happen to be proper or improper then there would not be any need for taking care of own manifestations. It is written in Sagar Dharmamrita- If the bhavas of bandh and Moksha were not the singular reason then in this entire Lok pervaded with jivas, any jiva wandering anywhere would attain Moksha.

It is clear that the activities of the live body by themselves are not proper or improper but based upon the Shubha-ashubha manifestations of the jiva, they are construed as proper or improper in vyavahara sense.

Who grants Moksha? Is it the activities of body, Vajra Vrishabh Narach Sanhanan or the body? Or kaal? If it were so, then why is it said that Samyak Darshan- Gyan-Charitra is Moksha Marg? All these external and internal commodities should have been informed. For carrying out any deed the presence of external materials along with internal materials is a different subject and believing the external materials to be producer of the deed in the same way as internal materials is a different matter. There is a vast difference. Why do we call the external materials as Upacharita Karan (formal) and internal materials as Anupacharita Karan ? Nobody has  the audacity to state that the activities of live body generate jewel trio or Moksha.

On account of spirit of like-dislike in external subjects, the activities of body which occur in accompaniment are called as nimitta for Adharma in Upachar sense. In the same way at the moment of manifesting in dharma form by engrossing within own soul, the activities of the body which take place at the same time are called as nimitta for dharma in Upachar sense.

Samyak Darshan Gyan Charitra only is Moksha Marg- is this statement made from aspect of Ekant (singular view) ? No, because this statement is from aspect of Nishchaya naya where such Ekant is favoured. The arrangement of Anekant is applicable from aspect of Praman. In certain aspect Samayak Darshan etc. individually and from certain aspect Samyak Darshan etc. all three together are stated as cause for Moksha which is known as Praman view. The Nishchaya naya view is that soul manifested in Samyak Darshan etc. all three together form is cause for Moksha in reality.

These are the statements from aspects of Praman and Nishchaya naya. From these it can be clearly known that calling Samyak Darshan etc. each individually as cause for Moksha, in spite of being Sadbhoot is indicator of Vyavahara naya. Under such conditions calling the specific kaal or the activities of body as the cause will be a statement from aspect of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya. Calling it real would be like stating two dravyas together as one.

At the moment  any deed is carried out, at that time along with the presence of favourable internal materials, the presence of external favourable materials is also necessarily there. This only is known as nature of Dravya. Now external materials can be causal only from aspect of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya. The way the internal materials are Sadbhoot (real), the external materials are not. The rival group has considered both as them as identical which is incorrect.

Neglecting  the aspect of Nishchaya naya acceptor of Param Bhava and treating the Sadbhoot and Asadbhoot Vyavahara as prime is a characteristics of Mithya Drishti, not that of Samyak Drishti.

In the Agam the arrangement of karya-karan from  aspect of Praman view combining both the views of Upachrita and Anupacharita entails that in the presence of external and internal materials only every deed is accomplished. This is the nature of Dravya. In the presence of both, the deed is accomplished that is  real and not imaginary. However of these the internal reason is real and external reason is unreal. Why they are real and unreal , this is a different matter. The one who believes them in the right spirit he is the real knower of karya-karan bhava.

The person who believes the external materials to be real reason and on account of his deluded knowledge or spirit of raga remains tied to it, he remains worldly at all times. And the person who, knowing his own soul only to be the real reason and treating the external materials as discardable,  although they are described as causal from aspect of Vyavahara, takes recourse to  his own soul , he attains Paramatma state.

At the moment Upadan is engaged in the deed, the external materials which function as nimitta in Vyavahara sense are automatically present.

If the rival group is trying to establish that in  the activity of the soul, in spite of absence of careful internal manifestations , with the activities of the body alone, dharma can be accomplished then they are sadly mistaken.

Continued…..

Seventeen Questions....02

 

Counter Question 3:  The question was that the anger etc. form bhavas of jiva occur without fruition of Dravya karmas or whether they occur in accordance with fruition of karmas. Whether the transmigration of worldly jivas in four gatis is dependent upon the fruition of karmas or not?

However you have indulged in irrelevant discussion of nimitta karta-karma. The cause for corruption of jiva is karma bondage. If the corrupted bhavas of jivas are believed to be occurring without fruition of karmas then they would be deemed to be swabhava (natural) bhava of jiva and Moksha would not exist.

The cause for having more or less knowledge is fruition of gyanavarana karma. The bhavas of ragas etc. are produced upon fruition  of karmas after completion of their hibernation period. With the fruition of Darshan Mohaniya karma the Moha of the form of non-belief bhava is generated.

This soul is like a disabled person which does not go anywhere, nor does it come from anywhere on its own. In the three Loks, karmas only carry this jiva to and fro. With the nimitta of karmas only, the jiva attains different types of states and the jiva attains such capabilities. The external paraphernalia does not have any relationship with these capabilities.

All the deeds get performed at specified moment, such Ekant (singular) rule does not exist, since the attainment of the deeds occur in accordance with kaal naya (aspect of time), akaal naya (aspect of non time), Niyati naya ( aspect of destiny) and Aniyati naya ( aspect of non destiny).

If the subject of Vyavahara naya is not accepted as true then Vyavahara naya would become false. The relationship between two dravyas is not subject of Nishchaya naya.

Our group believes the fruition of drvaya karma as Nimitta cause or Nimitta karta as assisting cause or assisting karta in the generation of ragas etc. form corruption in the soul and transmigration in four gati form deeds. Whereas your group describes it in Upacharit (formal) sense and considers it as irrelevant or immaterial in those deeds. According to you the deed is carried out by the Upadan by his own capabilities on his own and Nimitta does not have any role in its accomplishment. According to us the importance of nimitta is definitely existent in the manifestation of that deed by the Upadan. The manifestation of Upadan occurs with the assistance of the nimitta only and not on its own. The manifestation of Upadan has been accepted to be swa-para-pratyaya (own-other-means). In conjunction with other substances only the ragas etc. form bhavas are generated within the soul.

With the assistance of manifestation of jiva only, the pudgala manifest in karma form and with the assistance of pudgala karma only the jiva manifest in ragas etc. vibhava form.

All references of Agam describe the assisting cause and the nimitta-naimittik (causal- deed) bhava as real and meaningful only towards the accomplishment of the deed and not just imaginary or formal. The nimitta cause in its own form  is also real, true and existent towards the deed being  assistant to Upadan.

Prerak and Udaseen Nimitta ( motivator and disinterested causal agent)- The activities of the other substance   which causes distinction in the deeds of Upadan then that substance is described as Prerak (motivator) nimitta. Just as blowing wind is the cause for fluttering of the flag. The direction of wind is Prerak and the flag would flutter in the same direction. 

The Jain Sanskriti ( culture) accepts swa-pratyaya (own- causal) and swa-para-pratyaya (own-other-causal) manifestations. At the same time it rejects strongly only para-pratyaya manifestation.

Draya has two types of natures. One is the capability to be generated at every moment in accordance with its manifestation in the form of Shat-guna-haani-vriddhi ( six orders of increase-decrease). The second nature enables manifestation with the assistance of favourable nimittas. The Moksha Paryaya of jiva is not swa-pratyaya but is swa-para-pratyaya only. The reason is that the nature of salvation is dependent upon destruction of Dravya karmas, No-karmas and Bhava karmas only.

In Agam the Vyavahara conduct has been accepted as cause for Nishchaya conduct. Without Dravya Ling the Bhava Ling is not possible.

1.3. Answer:   The belief of the rival group accepting external paraphernalia as the cause for corruption is contrary to Siddhant.

Two Dravya do not manifest as one and the manifestation of two dravyas is also not one. Further the consummation of two dravyas is not one since several dravyas are several only and do not become one.

In the role of conjunction, one Dravya functions as nimitta with specific paryaya in the corrupted manifestation of another Dravya. Jiva himself indulges in anger etc. form corrupted bhavas hence from aspect of Nishchaya naya those bhavas  are independent of others; there is no doubt about it. The reason is that within the swa-chatushtaya (own-foursome) of one Dravya the swa-chatushtaya of another Dravya is completely absent.

However the time at which the jiva manifests in anger etc. form bhavas, at  those times the nearness of kaal (time) of fruition of anger etc. form Dravya karmas is surely there. Therefore from aspect of Vyavahara naya the fruition of anger etc. passions is called as nimitta for the generation of anger etc . form bhavas.

Our stand is that the corrupted bhava of anger etc. are generated by Jiva independently on his own and not due to anger etc. karmas. If it is not accepted so, then without elimination of anger etc. form bhavas at any time, the jiva would not be able to attain salvation. Nor would there be separation between two dravyas.

In one Dravya where the same Dravya is declared as karta as well as karma, then such aspect is Nishchaya naya. On the other hands in different dravyas calling one Dravya as karta and karma etc. of another Dravya is subject of Vyavahara naya. Where the dharma of one Dravya is imposed upon another Dravya, then it is called as Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya.

The natural activities of one Dravya occur independent of others i.e. without nimitta of fruition of karmas etc.

The argument is that with respect to the deed being performed in one Dravya with the nimitta of specific paryaya of another Dravya, who is the real karta of the same? The rival group believes that in three Loks this jiva is carried by karmas only to and fro, but this is statement of Vyavahara naya.

Jiva is independent in contacting or not contacting with the other Dravya. Just as someone pours Kerosene over his own head and dies due to burns. He definitely is subject of poor gati and the one who does not do so, does not encounter such fate. Such is the function of nimitta-naimittik. For denoting Nimitta-ness only it has been stated that the soul is like a disabled person.

If the manifestation is carried out with the objective of others then definitely the vibhava manifestation is produced. When manifestation is carried out with the objective of own nature then definitely swabhava paryaya is produced. This only is the key to the attainment of salvation or remaining as worldly for the jiva. The other substance functions as nimitta in vibhava manifestation only, when this jiva manifests with the other substance as objective. If such is not the case then the worldly jiva can never be eligible for attainment of salvation.

In Agam both types of statements are encountered. Somewhere Upadan is given prominence and elsewhere nimitta vyavahara is given prominence with importance to external materials. The primacy of Upadan constitutes Nishchaya (real) statement. Where external materials are important in nimitta vyavahara, there it should be treated as Asadbhoot Vyavahara (formal ) statement.

When this jiva manifests in a form having lack of Keval Gyan then the fruition of Keval Gyanavarana Dravya karma is nimitta for the same. If it is so believed that pudgala Dravya has such capability at all times that it can destroy the Keval Gyan nature completely, then no jiva can ever become Keval Gyani. It is clear that there the fruition capability of pudgala Dravya paryaya in Keval Gyanavarana form has been described with the nimitta of which the Jiva himself does not manifest in Keval Gyan nature form. Such is the nimitta-naimittik relationship between them.

Moha raga-dwesha bhavas have been declared as guest bhavas since Jiva himself independently generates them being karta with the objective of others.

The Dravya and Guna form in which a substance exists, it does not transit into another Dravya or Guna form and without transiting into the form of another; how can it cause manifestation of other substance, surely not.

Therefore the Moha raga-dwesha bhavas have been accepted as jiva form only from aspect of ashuddha paryayarthika Nishchaya naya.

In SamaySar they have been declared as Pudgala form due to another reason. The thing is that with the objective of conscious glorious knowledge form soul, subject of Shuddha nishchaya naya of the form of Param Paarinamik bhava, these bhavas are not experienced while experiencing the soul. Hence those ragas etc. form bhavas do not belong to Jiva. It has been stated that being of the nature of pudgala Dravya form they are different from soul experience.

The sum and substance is that in Moksha Marg the  ashuddha, Shuddha and Upacharita ( formal) bhavas have been ignored and only one knowing natured soul at all three times has been declared as the subject of contemplation. The Bhavya Jiva nearing end of worldly stay, who manifests engrossed in such indivisible form soul as the objective, he attains soul experience and in that period he does not experience ragas in all three periods of time.  

The other substances being karta themselves could generate  the spirit of oneness or spirit of like-dislike in this jiva - it is not possible in all three period of time.  That is the reason that in Adhyatma (spiritual scriptures) the Moha raga-dwesha etc. bhavas have been declared as pudgala form.

In the Moksha Marg,  indulging in the spirit of oneness with moha, raga-dwesha has been denounced from the aspect of objective or goal. ‘I know because of the gyeya (subject of knowledge)’- such vikalpa has also been denounced. Not only this! Even the vikalpa that Samyak Darshan etc. swabhava bhavas are my nature and with recourse to them I shall attain salvation with illumination of Moksha Marg, has been negated since so long as spirit of vikalpa is there the presence of raga is there. The experience of soul in engrossed form is a different thing and the experience of vikalpas generated by spirit of divisions is another thing. That one is experience of raga only.

In Samaysar Gatha 68, gunasthana or ragas etc. form bhavas have been called as pudgala form hence the rival group is accepting them as pudgala form from aspect of Nishchaya naya. However if pudgala generates them being karta himself  or since they have colour, taste, smell, touch qualities like pudgala due to which they are accepted as pudgala form from aspect of Nishchaya naya, then both the concepts are absolutely contrary to Agam. From aspect of Ashuddha Paryayarthika naya they are Jiva only. Although Guanasthana is conscious from aspect of ashuddha nishchaya naya even so, from aspect of Shuddha nishchaya naya they are always non conscious only. From aspect of Dravya karma the internal ragas etc. are conscious, with such concept, although the ashuddha nishchaya in reality is declared with Nishchaya designation, even then from respect of Shuddha nishchaya it is Vyavahara only.

The gist is as follows-

1) In the experience of the soul, generated by taking recourse to knowing natured soul, in all three periods of time,  the gunasthana bhava or ragas etc. form bhava are not observed in the  illuminated form.

2) Instead of being Shuddha conscious illumination form they are corrupted consciousness form since they are generated by taking recourse to pudgala etc. form other dravyas hence they are non conscious.

3) They do not have pervasion with jiva in all the three periods of time hence they are not jiva from aspect of Shuddha nishchaya but instead they are pudgala form only.

This jiva has been taking recourse to others forgetting the self since eternal times and has been having spirit of utility in the corrupted conscious bhavas generated with recourse to others. The objective of the above statement is to renounce them with the spirit of despicability. This is the reason that in Karta-Karma Adhikar (of samaysar) Jiva has been declared as karta of ragas etc. bhavas independently himself , whereas  in Jiva-Ajiva adhikar they have been denounced as others since they are generated by taking  recourse to others.

Nimitta Vyavahara is of two kinds- The one which mainly by own active manifestation or by means of raga with kriya manifestation assumes the role of nimitta vyavahara in the activities of Upadan, it has been declared as Nimitta karta or Hetu Karta in Agam. The same is called as Prerak Cause in the Lok. The other Vyavahara cause other than the one described above is called as Udaseen (disinterested) nimitta in Agam.

The Vyavahara causality might have been accepted in either of the two types described above, even then in the context of other’s activity they are not real and hence they are same. It means for carrying out other’s work they are both disinterested like Dharma Dravya.

Only Dravya capability is not considered as functional in Jain philosophy since it is not found isolated and nor the paryaya capability alone is considered as functional in Jain philosophy since that too is not found in secluded form. Therefore specific paryaya capability in conjunction with extraordinary Dravya capability only is considered functional in Jain  philosophy.

A person purchased cloth for a coat but since the opportune moment for the coat cloth to manifest in the form of coat paryaya had not arrived hence the tailor felt that presently he cannot stitch the coat. However when the paryaya of coat cloth became ready then the tailor, machine etc. all became nimitta in its production.

Whenever the cloth gets converted into coat, it occurs with the power of its internal capability of its Dravya-paryaya  only and at the same time the yoga and vikalpa of tailor, machine etc. other objects become nimitta in its generation.

The rival group desires to decide upon the deed-causal bhava  only on the basis of external materials which he declares as based upon experience. However his this belief is on account of not accepting the functional internal capability which is contrary to Agam and cannot be accepted in reality. Believing the decision  based upon the senses to be the experience cannot be considered as logical.

When the tailor desires and then he stitches the coat out of cloth, this experience is based upon others. The  Upadan cloth  gets converted into coat at its own right moment is the experience dependent upon the self. Both are experiences. The first experience denotes dependence and second experience denotes independence. Now the rival group only should decide that between the two whom should they accept as real.

Every activity is produced at every samaya with the nimitta of specific internal-external materials- this should be accepted. The same is the meaning of swa-para-pratyaya manifestation.

The rival group says that external material assists in the activities of the Upadan then what is that assistance? Is the carrying out of activity together by both is assistance?  This is not possible since according to Samaysar kalash 54, two dravyas cannot carry out one kriya. Does one Dravya carry out the kriya of another Dravya as assistance? But one Dravya cannot carry out kriya of another Dravya (Pravachansar 95). Does one Dravya create some speciality in the paryaya of another Dravya as assistance? But guna of one Dravya cannot be transformed into the guna of another Dravya hence it cannot bring some speciality into the paryaya of other Dravya ( samaysar 103).

Upadan has several capabilities and  the external material instigates it into performing one karya by specific capability; does this imply the meaning of assistance? But this too is illogical since in Agam, Dravya having specific paryaya only is believed to be capable (Kartikeya Anupreksha 230). Does the karya get performed in Upadan on account of Kshetra (place) or Bhava nearness which can be called assistance? But this too is not right. Since in spite of nearness of place or bhava the other Dravya as a rule performs the karya of another – such rule does not exist. Thus the meaning of assistance cannot be derived from the above. Based upon these vikalpas the arguments put forth so far are false only. Now only nearness of time remains. If the rival group accepts the meaning of assistance by the external material in the karya of upadan in the form of nearness of kaal ( opportune moment) then the meaning of assistance are acceptable by Agam, logic and experience. Since in reality the term nearness of kaal, on one hand denotes the specific paryaya of kaal, on the other hand it denotes the external internal materials having specific paryayas. Every samaya every Dravya encounters  such yoga as a rule for performing its own karya and with that every samaya the specific karya gets generated also. Such is the nature of Dravya in which there cannot be obstruction by anyone. It is clear that in reality with the discussion of assistance of nimitta whatever the rival group has written regarding swa-pratyaya and swa-para-pratyaya manifestations , it is not in accordance with Agam, logic and experience hence it cannot be acceptable in Tattva consideration.

Thus this soul carries out its own karya by himself and enjoys the result of the same by himself; on his own he transmigrates in the world and himself he attains salvation.

Continued…..