Seventeen Questions…14

 

36 Rebuttal of certain arguments posed in counter question 3

The rival group organises the arrangement of each deed based  upon the external materials, then in such a state the objection of siddhas becoming worldly again becomes possible. In reply the rival group stated that Siddhas do not have conjunction of karmas and ragas etc. form manifestation hence Siddhas cannot become worldly. However when rival group does not accept characteristics of Nishchaya Upadan and accepts generation of deed on the basis of external materials, then this too should be accepted that in Siddhas Dravya shakti form Upadan capability is present only, hence with its nimitta and conjunction of karmas, the siddhas would need to become worldly again.

The rival group enquires that’ if manifestation at every samaya occurs in well established order then why do you make resolution to carry out a deed in the mind?’ The answer is that making resolution is also a predefined deed, which is carried out in the presence of external-internal materials.

Due to manifestation in raga-dwesha form the soul undergoes sankalpa-vikalpa ( resolution- analytical) activity as a rule. By accepting it as sequential order form the topic of ekant Niyativad does not arise but anekant form illumination  is seen there- such decision should be taken.

The form of Anekant is to highlight opposite dharma partners in one Dravya but rival group wishes to use it to imply that the true reason of a deed exists in upadan as well as nimitta. But Anekant has its own limits.

37-39 According to Karma shastra also all deeds are Kram Niyat only

If Udwelana ( dissipation) of Samyaktva and Samyak Mithayva is destined to occur in Mithyatva gunasthana as a rule then can it occur in another gunasthana with the aid of external materials? If not, then it should be accepted that every event occurs by own capable Upadan with nimitta of external materials in swa-kaal only. With the attainment of  place and capability destined for them to occur, then only the deeds of karmas are carried out. This only is Niyati.

In Mithyatva gunasthana only Udeerana (dissipation) of Mithyatva occurs and with attainment of Vedak Samyaktva only udeerana of samyaktva occurs. These are also rules. That only is swa-kaal for udeerana to occur.

In the last samaya of Sookshma Samparaya gunasthana, the manifestation is one only but there how many differentness are seen in the duration, intensity bondages of gyanavarana etc. karmas. From these it can be inferred that for all deeds the internal-external materials are predestined. The manifestation of every substance occurs independent of external reasons. Therefore external materials which are nimitta for several deeds which may be one or many , the deed occurs in accordance with Upadan independent of external materials. The same is written in Harivansh Purana- soul does karma by himself, himself he enjoys its fruition, himself he traverses the world and himself he attains salvation.

We ask the rival group that in which Agam it has been written that Dravya form Upadan having  immediate previous paryaya has different capabilities and out of them depending upon  which capability the suitable external materials are available, the deed is carried out accordingly. Is this not self imagined theorem?

All the karta-karma form narration pertaining to one Dravya is real while by describing one Dravya as karta for another Dravya, whatever is narrated, that is Upacharita being asadbhoot vyavahara form.

Towards upadan, in generating its predestined activity whatever external material functions as supportive nimitta from aspect of vyavahara, it is called as Udaseen nimitta and whatever external material functions as Karta nimitta or karan nimitta from aspect of Vyavahara, it is called Prerak or Prayojak or Nirvartak nimitta. Hence two divisions are created in external materials of the form of Prerak nimitta or Udaseen Nimitta according to Agam. However rival group wants to treat them in same category of Prerak Nimitta since their hypothesis involves deed carried out by  Upadan to be decided by nimitta only.

When we describe  the Maran(death) with non reduction of Nishek sthiti of Ayu Karma as Kaal Maran while with reduction of Nishek Sthiti as Akaal Maran, then both statements being dependent upon others, come in the category of Vyavahara naya. However when from aspect of self dependent Upadan we call the expenditure of previous paryaya as Maran then these two differences of kaal maran and akaal maran do not remain and they can merely be called as swa-kaal-maran only. Hence being self dependent, it comes in the category of Nishchaya naya. The rival group has called soul as immortal and they have used Param Paarinamik bhava form Nishchaya nay which is not applicable here. Here Nishchaya naya implies dependence on own soul while Vyavahara implies dependence upon others.

40 Divya Dwani etc. all events occur in Niyat Kram only

After attainment of Keval Gyan, the non materialising of divine speech immediately is natural only. Due to non availability of Ganendra, it did not so happen- it is merely a Vyavahara statement only, which denotes the conjunction of external material.

The Nishchaya statement would be this only that the kaal at which a deed occurs, it is destined for that kaal only- such is the nature of manifestation of substance. Dravya equipped with immediate previous paryaya is called as Upadan. With this rule, the moment divine speech materialised, in the previous moment only the Bhasha Vargana became capable Upadan for the same. Keval Gyan is not Upadan for divine speech, it is just nimitta only like Ganendra.

When time for materialising of divine speech occurred then in  conjunction with Ganadhar, the Keval gyan became nimitta for its dispersion.

41 The time of Karma Nirjara and Salvation  is Niyat only and not Aniyat

The rival group says that the time of Karma Nirjara is not Niyat quoting Tattvartha Vartik but that statement talks about the irregularity of time of Karma Nirjara from aspect of several jivas. Some jivas attain salvation by Karma Nirjara  in numerable kaal and some jivas attain salvation after innumerable kaal. It is not with respect to one jiva. From aspect of one jiva, depending upon his Niyat kaal of Karma Nirjara he attains salvation.

Dhavala 14/143- Always the past kaal is infinitesimal of all jivas quantity, otherwise it raises the issue of all jivas being absent.

Siddha jivas are always innumerable part of past kaal since there is rule of jivas attaining Moksha in 6 months period.

In how much period, how many jivas attain samyaktva and how many jivas attain benefit of salvation in how much period; these are predefined rules. Hence the one whose time has come for attainment of Samyak darshan, he attains at that time only and the one whose time has come for attainment of Moksha, he attains Salvation at that time only. The arrangement of all Gati-Agati pertaining to all Jivas is predefined pertaining to everyone’s Upadan. Each deed is performed in accordance with it.

In spite of Mohaniya karma becoming ksheen at the first moment ( first samaya of 12^th gunasthana) , the capability of destruction of Gyanavarana has been said to  occur at the last moment of Ksheen Kashaya gunasthana, in the same way the capability of destruction of all remaining karmas has been believed to happen at the last moment of Ayogi Jina.

All this makes clear that Upadan reason for generation of Keval Gyan of every soul occurs  at the last moment of 12^th and not the first moment of the same.

The rival group has tried to establish that the Upadan cause was present earlier itself and the nimittas became available at that moment which is not correct.

42. The fruition of karmas is predestined only

The rival group has tried to tell that if fruition of karmas is there but if suitable external materials are not present , then jiva does not have to undergo their fruition or he attains fruits of opposite nature.

For proving the above statement, they have written that ‘ The fruition of Asata Vedaniya karma of Arihant Bhagwan occurs in Sata form. In narak the fruition of sata occurs in asata form. In Deva Gati due to lack of painful resources the fruition of Asata is not painful.’

In Agam such a rule has been told as applicable to kevali Jina only. There are reasons for such a statement-

(1) Firstly Vedaniya karma harms jivas like Ghatia karmas, with the power of Mohaniya karma, hence amongst Ghatia Karmas, in the middle Vedaniya has been placed before Mohaniya karma. In the absence of Mohaniya karma, the Vedaniya karma is incapable of performing its activities of sukh-dukh form.

(2) In the first samaya of Kshapak shreni the intensity of Pap Prakritis becoming infinite times weaker, the intensity of Asata Vedaniya of Sayog Kevali becomes infinite times weaker than that of intensity of Sata Vedaniya which is bonded there. On account of Irya Path Asrava, the fruition of Sata Vedaniya is present at every moment hence in the fruition of Sata Vedaniya having infinite times intensity the fruition of Asata Vedaniya having infinite times weaker intensity gets merged. Therefore it has been stated that the fruition of Asata manifests in Sata form.

This is not right to say that Sata does not have intensity since there is absence of Kashaya. There, the intensity of Kashaya has been negated but not intensity itself. Since by accepting so, Sata would not have any role. In reality it should be understood that the bondage of Sata of Kevali Jina is infinite times that of the intensity of Asata  present.

In this way Agam accepts that for Kevali Jina the fruition of Asata manifests in Sata form but nowhere in Agam this has been stated that’ in the Narak the fruition of Sata takes place in Asata form’. Nor is this written that ‘ in Deva Gati since there are no painful resources, the fruition of Asata does not result in misery.’  This is mere imagination.

External resources are neither dukh form or sukh form. It depends upon the different situations of different jivas that which one functions as nimitta for dukh and which one as nimitta for sukh.

With such kind of imaginations the entire cause-effect tradition becomes null and void and further with fruition of which karma which deed would be performed – without such rule the entire Karmik organisation becomes haphazard.

By nature this jiva is knower-seer only. In manifestation also it has to become  knower-seer. But at one end if he keeps believing the vikalpas of accumulation as venerable and other end he keeps telling that I am proceeding on the path to become knower-seer- this would be considered as mockery  of Moksha marg. If internally such bhavas exist then such marg should be practiced also.

Acharya Amritchandra Kalash 23- O brother! By any means with lots of pain or even at the cost of life, being curious and becoming neighbour of body etc. insentient Dravya for one Muhurta only, experience the soul due to which upon observing own soul in glorious state different from all other dravyas , you shall forgo the moha of oneness with corporeal pudgala Dravya immediately.

The rival group writes that when you are believer of the Siddhant that ‘ all the paryayas of all dravyas occur in predestined order only, or all the events occur in swa-kaal only ‘ then what is usage of five Samavaya for generation of event in your view?

The answer is that with the conjunction of five, in the next samaya the deed is performed as per Upadan hence  these five have been accepted to be the cause. For example when Mud in the form of kushool paryaya generates the paryaya of pot, then in that mud has continuity. But whenever mud would become pot, it would do so after kushool paryaya only. From this lamp, dish etc. form paryayas cannot be generated in all the three periods of time. Hence in kushool paryaya, being cause for the pot is accepted. At the time of generation of pot paryaya from  kushool paryaya, mud by itself would modify into pot, hence the presence of veerya or purushartha is accepted. At the time of generation of pot paryaya from kushool paryaya, the predestined kriya form potter etc. have been accepted as the cause . Further the generation of pot paryaya from mud would occur at predestined kaal only hence predestined kaal also is accepted as cause. In this way with the samvaya of the above described five the deed gets done. Hence all five are accepted as causal.

Pandit Kailash Chandra Shastry has written in Bhavartha for Kartikeya Anupreksha 321-322-

“ Samyak Drishti knows that dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava of each paryaya is predestined. The paryaya which is supposed to manifest for the substance at whichever time, in whichever kshetra, that only manifests and no one can prevent it. It has not become predestined because it is known by Omniscient, but since it is predestined, he has known it in that form. From previous paryaya, predestined next paryaya only gets generated. Otherwise without Sthas paryaya of mud, the pot paryaya would get generated. Some people believing it to be Niyativad, with that fear, they accept Dravya, kshetra, bhava to be Niyat but do not accept kaal as Niyat. They think that by believing kaal to be Niyat the purushartha would go waste. But with Dravya. kshetra, bhava being Niyat the Kaal cannot be Aniyat. If kaal becomes Aniyat then kaal labdhi would not be  any thing. In such a case in spite of more than Ardha Pudgala paravartan kaal remaining balance for worldly transmigration, one would attain Samyaktva and without spending that kaal one would attain salvation. But all this is against Agam hence kaal also should be accepted. Coming to the worry pertaining to absence of purushartha in this, so just by completing a deed before time does not constitute the meaningfulness of purushartha. But completing the job on time only is applicability of purushartha. The wheat gets ripened on time only, so whether the purushartha of farmer would be called a waste? Hence the time at which a paryaya of a Dravya has to happen, it would surely manifest. Knowing this the Samyak Drishti does not engage in sorrow in calamity, or happiness in wealth, nor does he beg Devi-Devatas for attainment of same.

In this way all the paryayas of all dravyas occur in Niyat Kram only and do not manifest in Aniyat Kram in all the three periods of time.

Continued…..

Seventeen Questions…13

 

20. The manifestation kriya and result are not two

The rival group writes that ‘the self established nature of jiva is only manifestation’  - but it is not so. The deed generated in Dravya at a given moment, generating that is its self established nature.

If merely manifestation is accepted as self established nature then producing result would not be its self established nature. Then the presence of keval gyan and blissful nature in Siddhas would have to be  accepted as caused by others. But the manifestation, the one manifesting and the kriya of manifestation – all these three are one only in the substance and not three.

Hence from aspect of Nishchaya the jiva Dravya without dependence upon others, himself generates own anger etc. form manifestation – this should be understood.

Fruition of karmas etc. are accepted as nimitta form from aspect of asadbhoot vyavahara naya in generation of ragas etc. but those ragas etc. manifestation being that of the jiva are manifested as that of jiva without external reasons of karma fruition etc. Jiva himself generates them being Upadan. Manifestation alone is not the self established nature of jiva but generation of raga etc. with recourse to others is also his self established nature. If he experiences himself as pure then in the generation of Shuddha paryaya, the karma fruition etc. are not nimitta but only kaal Dravya etc. are nimitta. When with recourse to others, he experiences himself in ragas etc. form then in the generation of ragas etc. the karma fruition etc. are nimitta. In this way for generation of each deed, along with Upadan, external materials are pervasive being nimitta. All other considerations are only imaginary.

21.  Meaningfulness of the term “Niyama”

The rival group has applied this term with deed alone and derived the meaning that ‘ previous paryaya state Dravya is called cause and next paryaya state Dravya is called effect as a rule.’

In this we have to state that the previous paryaya state Dravya may be called as Cause  but if he is not decider of the resultant deed, then who would accept it? This Upadan is not a Upacharita characteristics of cause but is Nishchaya characteristics. The rival group wishes to declare it as Upacharita cause. To prevent faults of Avyapti, AtiVyapti and Asambhava only in this Gatha pertaining to characteristics of Upadan cause and effect relationship, in the end the term “ Nimaya” has been applied. This means that ‘ The Dravya in previous paryaya state is Upadan cause as a rule’ and ‘Same Dravya in next paryaya form only is effect as a rule’. This establishes that by means of Upadan any other deed is not generated but specific deed only is accomplished.

22. Considerations of Nimitta

The totality of internal-external effects is in accordance with the deed and not as per desire.

Upadan may be pertaining to some deed and some other deed depending upon the wishes may get generated- this is not possible in all the three periods of time.

Poor shruta gyani may or may not know what has been reflected in the knowledge of Keval Gyan but that does not matter. The Agam pertaining to same is existent in front of him wherein the definite rules pertaining to cause-effect bhava are mentioned. The role of shruta gyani is not to establish his own desires by deriving opposite meanings of the definite meanings of cause-effect bhava.

23. Updan cause only is the decider of the deed.

The rival group believes that Upadan is  pertaining to anger etc. all the four, but the generation of result is of one of them depending upon the external materials. But it is not so. In the immediate next moment the paryaya which would be generated out of anger etc. all four, the Upadan would be favourable towards that only. The karma and nokarma form nimittas also would be favourable towards the same.

The reason is that according to the rules in Karma Shastra, in spite of having existence of the anger etc. four types of Dravya karmas, the process for fruition of one of them has been laid down on this basis only that depending upon the Upadan of a particular Kashaya which is ready to materialise, the fruition is also pertaining to same Kashaya Dravya karma. Both have such relationship.

This establishes that the Upadan cause is generated one samaya prior to the deed, while the external material which is treated as Nimitta vyavahara, that is produced at the time of generation of the deed only. Since the prakriti which has to be fructified at the next samaya, that is dormant in the kaal of Upadan in Udayavali while remaining Prakritis undergo Stibook Sankraman into the same Prakriti. This is the arrangement in karma shastra describing the cause-effect bhava in totality.

In the swabhava state, just as specific  samyaktva etc. paryaya form manifestation is its own established nature, in the same way in vibhava state the specific anger etc. form manifestation is also its self established nature and not just swabhava form manifestations.

The intent of rival group is that raga-dwesha, sukh-dukh, Narak-Tiryanch etc. form worldly deeds and Samyaktva, Keval Gyan etc. form salvation acts which occur in the jiva, they all occur in accordance with the karmas and external materials only. Just as Jiva cannot do raga-dwesha etc. form worldly deeds independently, in the same way he cannot carry out samyaktva etc. form salvation activities also since his self established nature is merely manifestation only. That manifestation in the kriya form would occur in which form is dependent upon the karmas and external materials. Generating them is not his nature.

Then this too should be accepted that in vibhava state also the manifestation activity is generated based upon the power of nimittas. That is not own activity of jiva since the manifestation activity is indifferent from raga-dwesha etc. form results. If the real karta of raga-dwesha etc. form manifestation is accepted to be another Dravya then the karta of  indifferent manifestation kriya would also be the other Dravya only. In such as state in Vibhava state, Jiva Dravya would become inactive himself and in the end he would become absent only.

The conclusion is that specific Upadan only is the real karta of the specific manifestation. It is not logical to accept that in accordance with the availability of the nimitta material  favourable to specific capability of Upadan, the deed is accordingly performed.

24. The real meaning of the two Agam Pramans.

(1) Kartikeyanupreksha gatha 222 commentary- “ With unrestricted capability of  jewels, incantations etc.  the specific previous paryaya form Dravya, in the presence of supporting causes, generates the deed in the next moment.”

It informs that when Upadan generates its deed then along with  the absence of restricting materials , the completeness  of supporting causes is present as a rule. It is not clear how they derived  this meaning that there the presence of jewel, incantations etc. form  restricting reasons and limited nature of resources is possible.

(2) second topic is that of Ashta Sahasri . By means of it the rival group has tried to establish that nimittas cannot be considered irrelevant. But from the same Pramans it establishes that the Upadan being capable, having power by itself and by having the nature of manifestation, with his  own power, in his own kaal, with nimitta of external materials from aspect of Vyavahara naya, generates the specific deed. No where it is stated that by the power  of external commodities the deed is carried out.

25. Immediate Previous-Next these two paryayas only have cause-effect relationship

The rival group has written that “ If obstructive materials are present or supporting materials are insufficient for the desired task, then instead of desired task another deed would be accomplished for which the supporting causes are sufficient. “

By writing in this way they have made Upadan having several capabilities and in this way they have negated the Upadan nature of immediate previous paryaya and accepted merely nearness of Dravya as being of Upadan causality. For this purpose they have accepted the nearness of kaal of the external materials.

By this statement of rival group, the only fact which can be implied is that any deed, which is carried out in every Dravya, is carried out by means of external materials only. Every Dravya has capability for carrying out all its deeds, this much only is the meaning of being Upadan Cause.

According to Agam every Upadan does not have several capabilities and it is Dravya having capability of predefined paryaya alone. Therefore in the next samaya the predefined deed only takes birth. For that also predefined parayaya form external materials function as nimitta.

25-33. Real meaning of the 80^th Gatha of samaysar

Correct meaning- With the nimitta of manifestations of Jiva, the pudgalas manifest in karma form and with the nimitta of pudgala karmas, the jiva also manifests in the same way.

Rival group interpretation- With the assistance of manifestations of jIva, the pudgalas manifest in karma form and with the assistance of pudgala karmas the jiva also undergoes manifestations. Therefore such manifestations of Jiva and pudgala are also accepted as swa-para-pratyaya.

Here the rival group has exchanged the phrase ‘ manifests’ for the meaning of kriya, with ‘undergo manifestation’ which has changed the meaning.

Nishchaya six types of  predicates are real while Vyavahara six types of  predicates are Upacharita. That is Vyavahara six type predicates imply that real karta etc. dharmas of one dravya are being implied to be carried out by another dravya.

Panchastikaya 60^th gatha has written that Jiva is karta of its own bhava and karma is karta of its own manifestation. This is Nishchaya.

From aspect of Vyavahara naya one Dravya has been declared as karta of another Dravya which is not real but is Upacharita or implied, untrue or unreal.

The rival group has derived the meaning of 80^th gatha only to establish the Vyavahara statement as real.

Based upon the answers given to counter question 2, the answers to again posed questions in Counter Question 3-

34-35  3 Gathas of Swamy Karttikeyanupreksha etc.

Question is what rival group is calling as only subject of shruta gyan, whether it is outside the scope  of Keval Gyan? What is that cause-effect procedure which Keval Gyan is unaware? Upadan-Upadeya bhava only is called as cause-effect relationship which is real. If it is outside the subject of Keval Gyan and has not been sermonised in Divya Dhwani then how can the shruta gyani accepting it be Samyak Drishti?

The rival group says that any maran (death) is Vyavahara form whether it is Kaal Maran or Akaal Maran. This is not correct since ‘Kaal Maran’ being  expendable form paryaya  of jiva , it is real from aspect of Paryayarthika Nishchaya Naya. However, when considered from aspects of external materials then the naya applicable is surely Upacharita since consideration is relative. It is for this reason, Akaal Maran has been called as Vyavahara (Upacharita) from this aspect by us.

This statement of rival group is also against the Siddhant that ‘ soul is naturally immortal ‘ since just as it is immortal from aspect of Dravyarthika naya, in the same way from aspect of Paryayarthika naya it has generation-destruction nature also. Both statements are real. Same substance, subject of Shuddha Nishchaya naya, upon division it becomes subject of Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya also. 

Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya is Upacharita but sadbhoot Vyavahara is not Upacharita since the existence of guna-paryaya in indivisible substance is real. In Kartikeya Anupreksha Gatha 219, two things are clearly mentioned-

1. Every Dravya manifests being Upadan by itself.

2. When it manifests in deed form then Kaal etc. materials function as nimitta in same.

In this way this gatha promotes Niyat Kram only and not uncertain kram. Every Dravya manifests being karta by itself and from aspect of vyavahara the favourable external materials are nimitta

We would like to ask the rival group that who carries out manifestation in each substance – external materials or Upadan or both ? If external materials carry it out then does it remain different or indifferent? If you say that it remains different then how can manifestation in Upadan be accomplished by different external material? It is not possible.

If you say that they are indifferent then both dravyas become one only. If you say that Upadan and external materials together result in manifestation then both cannot be karta of same kriya and two dravyas do not join to become one.

Hence the conclusion is that Upadan does its own deed and external materials are nimitta in vyavahara sense.

The statement of rival group telling that ‘name of Dravya shakti is Upadan’, it is against the dictates of shastra and not real. They should accept Paryaya shakti also.

The rival group has also written that ‘ just as self established nature of gyan is to know the substances, but the manifestation of gyan in Upayoga form occurs in in which substance form? – this arrangement is dependent upon  that substance only’. We were quite sorry to read this.

On one hand Acharya says that darkness being gyeya, hence being a substance like illumination, it is  not cause for generation of gyan , even then gyan is its knower. Telling that Upayoga form manifestation of gyan is dependent upon the substance is very regrettable.

It implies that Gyan shall not be able to know the past and future deeds at all. Even Avadhi and Manah Pratyaya gyans would not be able to know them. From finer aspect even Mati and shruta gyan also would not know.

Every substance has been said to be Samanya-Visheshatmak (general-specific). The indifferent manifestation in a substance at every samaya is also samanya-visheshatmak only, since only samanya substance does not exist. With recourse to others, manifesting in vibhava form and with  recourse to self , manifesting in swabhava form is its self established nature.

Only manifestation alone is not the task of Upadan, but in the next moment of Upadan, the deed which would be carried out, manifesting in that form is also responsibility of Upadan. If manifestation is believed to be dependent upon external materials then in the every samaya manifestation of Kevali Jina, he cannot have infinitely blissful sukh.

Continued…..

Seventeen Questions…12

 

14. Right meanings of the terms Kram-Akram described in Agam

The term ‘Akram’ referred in Dhavla is used for meaning ‘simultaneous’ and not  in the sense of non-sequential. The Gati, indriya, kaya etc. paryayas of jiva are simultaneous while anger etc., deva etc. states are sequential paryayas.

Hence it is not proper on the part of rival group to imply that ‘ sequential and non sequential manifestations are natures of the substances and due to their predefined reasons they manifest in those forms’. In the end the rival group writes-

‘ In this way understand the cause-effect bhava for accomplishing the objective. Engage in purushartha. Accumulate necessary nimittas also, but do not become proud of them, nor be impatient and do not be miserable with lack of success. Being sensible, serious, stable minded with conviction, engage on the path of duty- this is symbol of Samyak. It represents Astikya bhava, in this only you shall attain illumination of Anekantvad.’

On the other hand, we analyse this Siddhant promoted by rival group where in it has been told that ‘Upadan has several capabilities. Out of them which capability shall manifest depends upon the nimittas.’ Then we get shocked. On one hand they are quoting these words for propounding the importance of independence and on the other hand the other statement accepting dependence in cause-effect relationship.

Gita also says that you do not have control upon the result i.e. deed, since that is dependent upon Ishwaara. The rival group says that which Upadan produces the result, it is not dependent upon the Upadan, it is dependent upon the nimitta. Then please contemplate that now where is  the control of Upadan in the karma?  

We are blamed to be Niyatvadi for this reason that we accept definite Upadan for each deed and its external implements also in definite form. On the other hand the rival group does not wish to accept themselves as Niyatvadi since they accept the external matters as Niyat for each deed while in accepting Upadan as niyat , it creates impression of Niyatvad for them.

15. Nimittavadi cannot be purusharthi

We notice that in the Lok there are infinite sentient-insentient substances and at every moment they engage in their deeds since arth-kriya is characteristics of substance. Out of them in some deeds the efforts of purush are nimitta while in rest of them they are not. All deeds are carried out with the nimitta of purush, this is not Jain philosophy but that of Ishwara-vadi. It is not right for the rival group to state that whatever has to happen shall happen- by accepting it we shall become devoid of purushartha. Upon consideration it can be known that so long as this worldly jiva keeps dreaming of accomplishing deeds with the means of others , till then his Samyak Purushartha would not awaken nor would he progress on Moksha Marga by being alert to the  deeds for  own soul.

The result of having belief that deeds can be accomplished by means of others only is cause for the world. Hence abandoning such belief only is purushartha which is right purushartha and opens the doors of Moksha.

“ Keep doing lots of purushartha” those who say this, we ask them whether doing purushartha is within their capability? When you say that deeds are accomplished according to nimittas then who is controlling the purushartha?

When rival group does not have information of their own Upadan then who is nimitta for any specific deed- this  information where from they shall get? Nimittas only would have to accumulate the necessary nimittas. Hence the way Keval Gyani has known, the Shruta Gyani also decides based upon the shruta and in this way engaging in attainment of own soul only is right purushartha.

16. Coordination between belief and duty

“ The way Veetraga  has observed  happening at whichever period of time, with the assistance  of whichever  implements, the same would occur at the same time, with the assistance of the same implements, not in any other way.” This is rationale. If he gets impatient then he should realise that his duty and belief are different. In spite of several efforts we did not find anywhere  such definition that “ where in one kaal, capability to carry out several deeds is existent, that is named as capable Upadan.”

 Now where lies the real welfare of soul and how can that be attained- this is examined.

Realising the causes for worldly transmigration as despicable hence renouncing them and engaging in Samyak Darshan etc. with sense of reverence is the prime duty of worldly jiva.

The only means of its attainment is taking recourse to nature of soul.

Samaysar (Gatha 186)- Knowing Shuddha ( different from bhavas of other dravyas) soul, the jiva attains Shuddha soul only. Knowing ashuddha soul, the jiva attains ashuddha soul only.

Samyak Drishti knowing the worldly worries to be despicable, believes engaging in purushartha of being detached from them as his prime duty. This is the right conjunction of belief and duty. For that purpose, the decision that “ all deeds happen at their own swa-kaal by themselves “ – it is not hindrance towards benevolence of soul but actually instrumental only.

The one who did not decide in this way, he does not get free from the ego of performing. He cannot be free of sankalpa-vikalpas happening by taking recourse to others. For him being alert in activities of soul by engaging in own nature is impossible like  drawing oil from sand.

17. Difference between Ekant Niyati and Samyak Niyati

In Gommatsar the Ekant Niyativad has been defined-

“ Whatever happens to whomever at whichever time, by whichever means with whichever rule, that happens at that time, by that means only to him “ – such a statement is Ekant NiyatiVad.

With respect to the subject reflected in the knowledge of Keval Gyan also, it is known that at whichever time, whatever has to happen to whomever, it would be that only and not in any other way. In this way all these statements appear to be the same to those with peripheral view.

Their difference is realised by observing the context of the subject handled in Gommatsar. There only Ekant Niyativad is not described but additionally ekant KaalVad, Ekant IshwaraVad, Ekant AtmaVad, Ekant SwabhavaVad are also narrated.

-        Believing in generation-destruction  of all events by means of Kaal only is KaalVad

-        Believing that sukh-dukh of soul , swarg-narak etc. are all created by Ishwara is IshwaraVad.

-        Believing that single soul alone is Purush, same is Deva,  all pervasive and supreme is AtmaVad.

-        The sharpness of thorns, differences of deer, birds etc. is SwabhavaVad.

There are 180 types of Ekant KriyaVadi Mithya Drishti who accept one reason out of the five given above as the cause for generation of event, by self or others, in permanent or transitory manner.

From these it is clear that Ekant Niyativadi is one who neither believes kaal as means, nor purushartha as means, nor swabhava as means. Out of the 180 divisions of Ekant KriyaVadi there are 36 divisions of Ekant NiyatiVadi.

Jain Darshan, in spite of accepting Niyati as causal for every event, accepts it along with Swabhav, Purusharth, kaal etc. This  is the difference between Mithya Niyati and Samyak Niyati.

After understanding this, the rival group shall never wite that ‘ From aspect of shruta Gyan some deed is carried out in Niyat Kram and some deed is accomplished in Aniyat Kram’.

We are still at a loss to understand that by their statement, what  do they wish to imply?

(1) Is it that the deed which is reflected in the knowledge of Keval Gyan as happening by certain means at certain kaal, that deed can happen by the same means at some other kaal instead of happening at that kaal?

(2) Is it that the deed which is reflected in the knowledge of Keval Gyan as happening by certain means at certain kaal, that deed happens with those means at that kaal only, but that deed is not dependent upon merely Niyati at that kaal but happens by means of Niyati as well as other reasons also.

(3) Or us dim-witted people should have belief in that way only since we do not have knowledge, but since we do not know which deed is going to happen by which means at which kaal, therefore we should not pay attention upon Kaal, Niyati, Swabhava etc. and concentrate upon purushartha mainly ?

Now we consider these three options-

(1) – Since this statement does not accept Keval Gyan, by itself it is Apraman (untrue).

(2) By accepting it all the deeds are established as Kram Niyat.

(3) This is also like second option wherein the importance is given to purushartha which is logical.

Here someone enquires that when you talk about Kaal Labdhi and Bhavitavya, then where does it have scope for Purushartha? The answer is that in Paramagam it is told that one deed is accomplished with several causes together. So where the attainment of Moksha occurs, there all the causes come together and where it is not attained, there none of the reasons are available.

The rule is that the reason by which the accomplishment of objective is attained, if the soul makes efforts in the same way then other means also become available and the result is also accomplished. Hence those jivas who practice means for Moksha as preached by Jineshwara by means of purushartha, then accordingly the kaal labdhi and bhavitavya also are favourable. Also the upasham etc. of karmas are in accompaniment  that is why the jiva is making such efforts.

However those jivas who do not make effort for Moksha with purushartha, for them the kaal labdhi and bhavitavya also are not available. The upasham etc. of their Karmas have also not occurred.

Everyone listens to the preachment but only some make efforts for Moksha and not others? The answer is that those who after listening to preachment carry out purushartha, they can make efforts for Moksha and those who do not do purushartha, they cannot make efforts for Moksha. The preachment is just lesson. The result is attained based upon purushartha only.

The question arises that the reason for purushartha is also Karma? The answer is that Ekendriyas etc. do not have capability for thinking hence their external cause is karmas only. However the jiva has revealed capability to decide based upon the kshayopasham of gyanavarana etc. Hence where he would apply Upayoga, there decision can be made. But if he applies his Upayoga is deciding other things then it is his fault only, in this karmas do not have any role.

18. Consideration of Upadan

Dravya in immediately previous paryaya form is called Upadan. However the characteristics described by rival group are as follows-

‘ Dravya in the state of previous manifestation  is causal form and when it attains the next paryaya state, then definitely it becomes deed form.’ – Kartikeya Anupreksha (222-230).

But the right meaning of the Gatha is as follows- ‘ The Dravya having immediate previous manifestation state definitely manifests in causal form and the immediate next manifestation form of dravya is deed as a rule.’

The difference between the two meanings is considered-

The Dravya having immediate previous paryaya form is called as Upadan – this is the nature of Nishchaya Upadan.

However by accepting this characteristics by rival group would result in scenario of their accepting all deeds as kram-niyat hence they have generated this meaning – ‘ in the state of previous manifestation’ which is incorrect.

The dravya in the immediate previous paryaya state is Upadan Cause while rival group has called merely dravya in the state of previous paryaya as Upadan cause which is misleading.

19. The decider of deed is Upadan cause

The rival group interprets it as follows- ‘ The deed carried out by the Upadan cause is decided by the nimitta material’ and not Upadan cause.

They say that poor shrutagyani does not know that what has been reflected in the knowledge of keval gyani. Hence whatever is carried out is dependent in their view of  cause-effect bhava only.

Hence jiva existing in anger form previous paryaya state definitely manifests in the next moment but out of anger, pride, deceit, greed which shall manifest, this is dependent upon the external favourable materials. Based upon this surmise we analyse as follows-

It is our stand that the decider of the deed is Upadan cause only. The other external materials are nimitta by which we know that at this moment this Upadan has accomplished this deed with this external material as nimitta.

Defining the nimitta material as decider from aspect of Vyavahara naya is a different matter. The statement of rival group is not correct that in accordance with the fruition, upasham, kshayopasham and kshaya of karma the deed is carried out; and not in accordance with Upadan. As per them the fruition of karma etc. also is not dependent upon own Upadan but in accordance with nimitta material. In such a condition, with the availability of external materials like samosharan etc. the fruition of karmas for all should be the same ? Does it not prove that the manifestation of each dravya at every samaya is in accordance with own Upadan?

Kaal itself is detached nimitta in the manifestation of dravyas manifesting in different ways. The other dravyas also function the same way as kaal Dravya. In other words, the condition of other dravyas is same as that of kaal Dravya from aspect of being nimitta.

Hence from aspect of nishchaya naya the Upadan is decider of the cause-effect relationship and from aspect of asadbhoot vyavahara naya the nimitta material is decider of the deed. Such rule gets established.

Continued…..

Seventeen Questions…11

 8. The root cause for problems is ignorance bhava and not shrutagyan.

The rival group accepts all deeds carried out in swakaal as predestined from aspect of keval gyan and from aspect of shrutagyan they just keep such faith only. Even then they do not see the solutions to all the problems of shrutagyani jivas and hence they wish to accept the cause-effect relationship to be different. How far such belief is valid, this needs to be examined.

This statement  appears to be contradictory by nature since first anomaly is that the rival group believes the subject of Keval Gyan to be different and subject of shruta gyan to be entirely different form aspect of cause-effect relationship. The second anomaly is that they ask to have right faith in accordance with the subject of Keval Gyan while establish cause-effect relationship in shruta gyan devoid  of right faith, and even then accept it to be real. This needs to be discussed- their statement is as follows-

“ In Granths of Jain Sanskriti the description is to have faith  from aspect of Keval Gyan while it is for performing duty from aspect of shruta gyan. Whereas the Keval Gyani are KritaKritya ( do not need to do anymore), the shruta Gyanis have the problem of performing deeds. Keval Gyani are merely knower-seer while Shruta Gyanis need to adjust and manipulate. Hence they need to adopt cause -effect bhava procedure.

In Keval Gyan all deeds are happening due to their predefined reasons in their own swa-kaal. From aspect of subject of shruta gyan all deeds being swa-pratyaya and swa-para-pratyaya they are being experienced to be accomplished by applicable Upadan reasons or Upadan-nimitta reasons.

Keeping faith alone is not useful for shrutagyani hence for him it has been preached to adopt cause-effect bhava procedure also. Those who do not follow this procedure would become Niyativadi Ekant Mithya Drishti. If being effortless and thankless, based upon faith in keval gyan, if the shrutagyani gets misled then under influence of Mithyatva he would transmigrate in infinite world only. “

For understanding the above  statement we would first have to know that’ if the subject of shruta gyan is in accordance with keval gyan or is it different?’.

Acharya Samant Bhadra ( Apta Mimamsa) have highlighted all the elements of Syadvad (shruta gyan) and Keval Gyan . Within them the difference is that of indirect and direct. What is not their subject matter is non-matter.

The rules of cause-effect bhava procedure which have been reflected within Keval Gyan, the same rules are known to shrutagyani in the same way with his knowledge. All the deeds are reflected to be  performed in kevalgyan in their predestined order only. Hence shruta gyani   also knows the deeds to be happening in predestined order based upon the words of Agam.

The reason is the way Keval Gyani described the details of 6 dravyas etc., the Ganadharas also received the same by means of Samyak ShrutaGyan in the same form.

Just imagine that if according to Keval Gyan, all dravyas at every moment with their predestined Upadan with the nimitta of predestined paryayas of other dravyas give rise to predestined actions then would ShrutaGyan decide contrary to it and would that be termed as Samyak Shruta Gyan?

The Rival group, even after accepting organisation of substances and cause-effect relationship in accordance with Keval Gyan wishes to accept the subject of Shruta Gyan in another way ; this is a wonder. The writing of Swamy Kartikeya of 321^st Gatha is for faith alone or is it for knowing also?

In reality the cause of worldly problems is raga, dwesha, moha and not shruta gyan. Shruta Gyan is not dependent. Amritchandracharya says that by accepting Bhootartha (real) naya once the darkness of ignorance is eliminated then how can gyan ghan soul get bonded again?

In reality if any deed appears to be in undefined order in any Dravya then it should be understood to be due to the influence of Moha only.

9. The believer of words of Omniscient can not be devoid of Purushartha-

The rival group writes that based upon faith in the Keval Gyan alone, if the Shruta Gyani Jiva became devoid of Purushartha and astray then on account of Mithyatva he would traverse in infinite world. This is a contradictory belief. The fact is that without generating infinite purushartha, any jiva cannot have faith in the words of Omniscient. This is the only path for avoiding infinite perturbations. The one who has realised the form of omniscient, he has realised  the form of soul and he has realised the real obligation.

10. The meaning of the term Kram Baddha or Niyat Kram –

The rival group has given examples imagining  Aniyat Kram and Niyat Kram in some paryayas from aspect of shruta gyan –

‘ A jiva after manifesting in anger paryaya form can manifest in any one of the anger, pride, deceit, greed form paryayas. There is no paryaya which is Niyat (predefined). In the same way it should be known pertaining to Manushya, Deva, Tiryanch, Naraki paryayas. There is no redefined order of these paryayas. In this way it should be known accordingly, pertaining to Niyat Kram and Aniyat Kram  paryayas.

The rival group has conceded that in Keval Gyan all paryayas have been reflected in Niyat Kram only and not in Aniyat Kram. In such as situation, all these paryayas should be accepted to have Niyat Kram only, even in shruta gyan manifested in accordance with the Agam. If these paryayas being indirect are unknown in shruta gyan, by this much alone they cannot be accepted to have Aniyat Kram.

The rival group has enquired that in which order the manifestations of paryayas of anger, pride, deceit, greed and Narak etc. would be considered to be Niyat and in which order they would be treated as Aniyat? Such an arrangement is not available in Agam. After anger, at the next moment, depending upon its predefined Upadan and with the nimitta of paryaya of other Dravya, any one of the anger etc form four paryayas can manifest, there is nothing to prevent it.

11. Sanskrit commentary of Gatha 323 –

‘ The one who knows and believes the six dravyas and their paryayas in accordance with the Agam of Omniscient in this manner, he is pure Samyak Drishti. The one who does not have such faith, he is Mithya Drishti.’

According to this lesson all the divisions of three kaals, 6 dravyas, 9 padartha, 6 kayik jivas, 6 leshyas, 5 Astikayas, vrita, samiti, gati, gyan and charitra etc. and all the paryayas and dravyas described in Jinagam are Niyat and kram niyat only. Dravyas are niyat and paryayas are kram niyat only since the order of all the paryayas of niyat form Dravya would be kram niyat only. Otherwise the Dravya, guna, paryayas cannot have a single existence. The rival group has derived wrong meaning in the context of the above shloka.

12. Gyan in accordance with right belief only is the right shruta gyan-

Keval gyan knows some gyeya (subject of knowledge) in some particular way and shruta gyan knows the same gyeya in some different way, such a distinction does not exist between these two gyans. Nor is it the intent of the above described karika (323). In Pravachasar the Sadhu has been declared to be Agam Chakshu from this view only.

Here it has to be considered that if in Shruta Gyan all the events do not appear to be occurring in Niyat Kram due to their predefined reasons in their own swa-kaal , then whose fault is it- Keval Gyan’s or Agam’s or that Shruta Gyan’s ? The Keval Gyan or the Agam cannot be accepted to be faulty. Then the shruta gyan which does not know in accordance with Keval Gyan and knows differently – how can that be called as Samyak shruta gyan?

In agam only that gyan has been accepted as Samyak shruta gyan which is in accordance with Agam and with Samyak belief.

It is clearly seen that all the statements made contrary to be above are made for the satisfaction of external sensory perception and imaginary thoughts.

13. Explanation of certain statements made in the above counter question-

(1) ‘The nature of liberated jivas is to travel upwards only but on account of lack of dharma Dravya for movement, they become stationary at the top of the Lok.’

The statement above is made by rival group. Here it has to be considered whether the deed is carried out by the capable Upadan within the limits of its own nature, in own swa-kaal with the nimitta of another Dravya or whether  without Upadan, with the nimitta of other Dravya, it is carried out by nature only ?

The second side is not valid, since in Agam anywhere without Upadan and by nature alone with the nimitta of other Dravya,  the generation of deed has not been accepted.

On accepting the first side, this only can be concluded that the Upadan of liberated jivas is to traverse up to the end of Lok hence the movement upwards is also up to the end of Lok. In this movement or stationing the contribution of external dravyas is also favourable only. If the liberated jivas are not accepted to become stationary at the peak of the Lok naturally, then we have to accept a vibhava form Upadan for that vibhava form state, as well as a favourable nimitta. But accepting it neither in agreement with Agam nor is it logical.

Hence accepting this only is right that the movement and stationing of siddha jivas is in accordance with their upadan naturally. There the prime karta is siddha jiva and not dharma adharma dravyas.

Therefore the statement of Tattvartha sutra that ‘ in absence of dharmastikaya the siddha jivas do not traverse beyond the peak of lok’ – this should be treated as statement of Vyavahara naya.

(2) The other point which the rival group has mentioned is related to capability of Dravya. In Agam there is description of unlimited capability of Keval Gyan, or the description of capability of Devas of Sarvartha Siddhi to traverse up to 7^th Narak is given, or the capability of Devendra to overturn the Jambu Dweep is described ; so all these are from aspects of Dravyarthika or Paryayarthika nayas?  If this point was considered by rival group then they would not have written what they had tried to establish.

The real question is that how does the deed occurring at every samaya occur? The mud having Dravya-paryaya capability which is manifesting in pot form at a given moment, whether it can manifest in cow etc. toy form at the same moment? From aspect of Dravya Drishti in every Dravya all the paryayas pertaining to all the three periods of time which are feasible are existent in capability form. But at every samaya only one paryaya manifests- so what is the reason for that? Acharyas have explained the real internal reason as  the Dravya with given paryaya capability. In the same way  from aspect of all samayas the cause effect relationship of all dravyas should be understood.

From this it is clear that by describing capabilities of Dravya, calling certain deeds as Niyat and certain deeds as Aniyat is not correct.

(3) The third point mentioned by rival group is pertaining to Dravya capability equipped with paryaya-shakti. Mud can be called mud then only when it manifests in specific paryaya form of pudgala. The cloth is produced by vegetable paryaya form pudgala and not mud paryaya form pudgala. Hence specific paryaya shakti form Dravya only generates specific deed. It cannot carry out other deeds in all the three periods of time by the power of external implements.

(4)  The fourth point which rival group has mentioned is that “ From the aspect of generation, all the paryayas pertaining to all the three periods of time of every substance would be same as the number of samaya of the three periods of time. However from this the capabilities of generation of paryayas of substance cannot be ascertained. “

In this subject, it is our submission that all the dravyas have the same number of paryayas as the number of samaya of all the three periods of time. The number of Upadans also are the same. From aspect of capability, even though the Dravya shakties  may be huge in numbers  but it does not make any impact upon the arrangement of deeds. Since the paryaya shakti of present functions as Upadan joining with Dravya shakti to decide upon the deed to be carried out at next moment. The same order should be known for all the paryayas of all dravyas.

Therefore it is not right to call  Upadan to be uncertain with respect to its deeds on the basis of several Dravya shakties. It is clear that whatever be the number of Dravya Shakties , at a given moment all of them do not engage in performing the deed. Based upon the paryaya shakti which is Upadan for the deed, Dravya shakti favourable to the same deed engages in performing the deed.

(5). Firstly rival group accepted the deed being  carried out according to Upadan and later upon seeing the loss for their side, wrote –

‘ Here, after the paryaya of an entity, the next paryaya which is possible, in this sentence “ is Niyat” is not mentioned since after the deed a specific paryaya would be generated , such rule cannot be adopted. The reason is with the availability of different nimittas, out of different paryayas any one is possible to happen.’

So the question is that in Agam the characteristics of Updan has been given from aspect of possibility or from the aspect of accomplishing the deed?

In Aapt Mimamsa the Upadan is called as decider of the deed  while rival group is declaring it as possibility. It appears to us that the form of shruta gyan  which rival group has vowed earlier for establishing the cause-effect relationship; with that only as basis the rival group is writing all this. Not on the basis of Samyak shruta gyan as per the dictates of Agam.

In Agam what is called as Prag Bhava, same is called as Upadan. Both of them inform the same meaning in positive and negative manner. If paryaya shakti is not accepted as Upadan of the next deed and only several Dravya shakties are accepted as Upadan form then subsequent to generation of the deed, the immediate previous paryaya would not have Pradhwansa bhava, since towards the specified deed, the immediate previous paryaya did not become active, only some one dravya shakti only became functional. In such a situation the immediate previous paryaya would remain unchanged at the time of deed. It shall not undergo Pradhwansa bhava and in this way by accepting the generation of deed by Dravya shakti alone, at the time of every deed, all past paryayas would need to be accepted. In such a situation, any Dravya shall not be able to perform any deed. Due to this the Dravya shall become non-manifesting and in the end all dravyas would be eliminated. Therefore accepting specific work from specific Updan only is the right state of cause -effect relationship. Along with it the predefined nimitta should also be accepted since towards production of every work both of these have friendship.

In Apta Mimamsa the shruta gyan has been told to be similar to Keval gyan with difference being of indirect and direct. The rival group is misusing it to establish shruta gyan devoid of right belief.

Continued…..