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 321st 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 7th
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment