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…..