Seventeen Questions ……18

 

Question 8

Whether Divya Dhwani and Keval Gyan or Kevali Atma have any relationship or not? If it is there then what is that relationship? Is it real? Or Unreal? The Divya Dhwani is Pramanik (true) or Apramanik (false)? If it is Pramanik then its Pramanikata is dependent upon self or due to relationship with the soul of Kevali Bhagwan ?

8.1 Answer : Firstly it should be known how the Divya Dhwani is produced.

Pravachansar 44: The standing, sitting, walking and dharma preachment of those Arihant Bhagwants occurs naturally only like the guile of women.

Just as movements of clouds, thunder, rain fall of clouds are seen without efforts of human beings, in the same way the standing, etc. of Kevali Bhagwan are observed to happen unintentionally. Due to lack of Moha there  is lack of desire due to which there is lack of intentional efforts. In the presence of fruition of four Aghati karmas, placement, seating, movement, kaya yog, divya Dhwani form vachan yog related activities occur naturally only. Hence divya Dhwani is primarily accepted to have nimitta-naimittik relationship with respect to fruition of Tirthankara Prakriti from aspect of asadbhoot Vyavahara naya.

Coming to the issue to Pramanikata ( genuineness ) of divya Dhwani, then real description of Vyavahara Nishchaya Moksha Marg, 6 dravyas, 5 Astikayas, 9 Padarthas, 7 Tattvas etc. are its natural capability hence its Pramanikata is self established. However upon consideration from aspect of Vyavahara naya it is called as others dependent.

This aspect is clarified by Acharya Amrit Chandra in commentary of gatha 415 of Samaysar wherein he says that this shastra being illuminator of the universe, describes Samaysar form Bhagwan Atma when this itself is like Shabda Bramha.

Counter Question 2: You did not answer the first 3 questions. It is not possible to establish Divya Dhwani based upon self dependent Praman since the words are paryaya of insentient pudgala hence they cannot be Praman form nor be Apraman form. The Pramanikata or  Apramanikata are dependent  upon the speaker only.

Acharya Samant Bhadra-  With the speaker being non Aapt, the thing that can be established by reasoning, it is reasoning dependent and in the case of the speaker being Aapt, the things which can be  established by his words, they are realized  by Agam.

Ignoring the Nimitta cause you have informed the Divya Dhwani to be merely naturally established whereas in Agam it has been declared as the deed of Kevali.

Dhavala (1/368)- Here someone enquires that when Kevali has lack of mind then how can the existence of deed form speech be accepted from him ? This question is not correct since the speech is an act of gyan.

Samant Bhadra- Keval Gyani in spite of being Aapt Veetrag , without any objective of self, preaches for the benefit of the Bhavya jivas.

The conclusion is that the pramanikata of Divya Dhwani is dependent upon the Keval Gyan or the Keval Gyani in reality and not self dependent.

8.2. Answer -  It was mentioned that Divya Dhwani is natural i.e. ‘Visrasa’ since it is produced without efforts of anyone.

For clarification of the doubts some necessary Siddhants need to be known-

 (a) Soul is not karta of the paryayas of other dravyas since it involves being immersed in pervasive-pervaded sense in them.  

(b) The Samanya (general) soul is not karta of paryayas of other dravya even by nimitta-naimittik bhava since it raises the issue of nitya nimitta kartritva (permanently being nimitta doer).

(c) The Yoga and Upayoga (raga bhavas) of agyani jiva are nimitta karta of the paryayas of other dravya.

(d) Soul is karta of Yoga and Upayoga from aspect of agyan bhava. Even then he is not karta of the paryayas of other dravya absolutely.

(e) The soul is not even nimitta karta of paryayas of other dravya with gyan bhava.

Another rule is that the Divya Dhwani is devoid  of a, aa etc. vowel letters and k, kh etc. consonant letters and during Divya Dhwani there is no activity of lips etc.

PravachanSar 45- Arhant Bhagwant has auspicious fruitions and his activities are Audayiki, it is  without Moha etc., hence it is accepted to be Kshayiki. For this reason the fruition of karmas also is not destructive of his nature.

The upayoga of Kevali gets engaged in the issuance of Divya Dhwani- it is not so. In this way for Divya Dhwani the speaking activity by means of bodily activity is also not possible.

However the issuance of Divya Dhwani does occur and along with fruition of Tirthankara Prakriti the fruition of four Aghati Karmas and Yoga activity is also present for the Arahant. From this it can be concluded that-

(1-2) Kevali Jina has nimitta-naimittik relationship with Divya Dhwani from aspect of Yoga- Pravachasar 45.

(3) Kevali and Divya Dhwani are different sentient and insentient dravyas hence the nimitta-naimittik relation shown between then in Vyavahara sense is true in Upacharita sense.

(4) Kevali has two vachan-yogas namely satya and anubhaya. In the same way the Divya Dhwani is also satya and Anubhaya form since it highlights the satya and anubhaya form meaning.

(5) The Pramanikata and Self dependency of Divya Dhwani has been declared in Jaya Dhavala as follows-

            The Pramanata should be accepted in all Pramans by themselves since the capability which does not exist in the substance by itself cannot be imparted by another. Hence the Pramanata of Divya Dhwani is self established since it cannot be produced by another. Even then considering from aspect of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya it has been said to be others dependent being produced with the nimitta of fruition of Tirthankara etc. Prakritis also.

Counter Question 3 : Our question was not pertaining to the generation of Divya Dhwani . You have not told the relationship between Divya Dhwani and Keval Gyan and soul of Kevali.

We have established with proof that the Pramanata of Divya Dhwani is by means of Pramanata of speaker and since it is deed of Keval Gyan hence Pramanata of Divya Dhwani is dependent upon others. 

Dhavla (1/196)- When the illumination of substances by means of words itself requires activities of person then how can they have self dependent Pramanikata? In this way your calling Divya Dhwani to have self dependent Praman is contrary to Agam. Its Pramanata is derived from the Pramanata of Keval Gyan since with the Pramanata of speaker only, the words gain Pramanata, such is the rule.

Dhavala (3/26) – These words have emanated from the lotus lips of Jinendra which are free of the reasons to be untrue, hence they cannot be considered to be Apraman.

Arth Gyan generated out of the words of Aapt is called as Agam. With several Agam Pramans it is established that Pramanikata of Divya Dhwani of Veetrag Omniscient is with the nimitta of Keval Gyan only since Keval Gyan is Praman.

From your conclusions, on account of the issue of engrossment in pervasive-pervaded sense, no soul is karta of these written question-answers and counter questions -counter answers. Since you are not Agyani either hence your Yoga and Upayoga also are not even nimitta karta of answer-counter answer form Pudgala dravya paryayas. Hence based upon these answers-counter answers we cannot have a dialog with you.

With the fruition of any Prakriti, there would be Audayik bhava or conjunction of other dravya, but it cannot result in Pramanikata. If fruition of karmas lead to Pramanikata then siddhas would not have Pramanikata. Therefore saying that ‘ with the fruition of Tirthankara etc. Prakriti the Pramanikata of Divya Dhwani is others dependent’ is not right.

When you are prepared to accept omniscient to be nimitta by means of Yoga itself then accepting Keval Gyan to be cause of Pramanikata of Divya Dhwani is in accordance with Agam.

Sarvartha Siddhi- The speakers are of three kinds- Omniscient Tirthankara, Shruta Kevali and Munis. Tirthankara gave preachment of meaning form Agam hence it is Praman since it is based upon direct vision and free of flaws. Ganadhar Shruta Kevalis created the scriptures of the form of Poorvas which are Praman by Pramanata of Omniscient. Acharyas also created scriptures for benefit of disciples which are Praman.

8.3. Answer – The gist of our answers so far is as follows-

(1) The Divya Dhwani of Kevali Jina is self dependent Praman form from aspect of Nishchaya and other’s dependence Praman form from aspect of Vyavahara.

(2) In the issuance of Divya Dhwani the Vachan Yoga and fruition of Tirthankara Prakriti etc. are nimitta, from this aspect the Kevali Jina also has nimitta-naimittik relationship with Divya Dhwani.

(3) Since karta-karma relationship between the specific paryayas of two dravyas occurs from aspect of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya only, then it is not considered to be real truth but true only from aspect of Vyavahara only. Same is called as Upacharita satya.

On the basis of these answers the 5 secondary questions of the prime questions get answered. However the rival group does not accept self dependent Pramanata nor do they wish to accept nimitta-naimittik relationship as Upacharita. It is their insistence that whichever way the real kartritva of nimittas should be established with respect to the deed. We would attempt to throw light on the same afresh.

1. Relationship between Kevali Jina and Divya Dhwani

Divya Dhwani is vyanjan paryaya of pudgala speech vargana hence from aspect of Upadan the speech varganas only manifest into Divya Dhwani form. In this way the speech vargana and divya Dhwani have Upadan-Upadeya relationship. In the minds of rival group, divya Dhwani is karma and Bhagwan Tirthankara is hetu karta/ instigator karta – this bhava only is overpowering.

Ordinarily Hetu karta has been used in Agam in 3 meanings-

(1) Firstly manifestation is called as characteristics of kaal and in Sarvartha Siddhi etc. kaal is described as Hetu Karta. In spite of being Udaseen (detached) Nimitta the term Hetu karta is used for kaal.

(2) The active dravya which by their own activities are nimitta for the kriya of another dravya, for them also Hetu Karta term is used.

(3) Those jivas who by their vikalpa and yoga are nimitta in the act of other dravya, for them also, the term Hetu Karta is used in Agam.

Rival Group accepts hetu karta term in which respect, this  has not been clarified by them.

Here this has to be considered that the Divya Dhwani has relation with Kevali by means of Yoga or by means of Tirthankara Prakriti etc. or by means of Keval Gyan. In the original question the relation of Divya Dhwani with Keval Gyan or Soul of Kevali has been asked. In spite of presence of Yoga in Kevali, there is absolute lack of vikalpa hence yoga and vikalpa form nimitta cannot be called as hetu karta. The reasons for the same are as follows-

(a) Kevali Bhagwan is always associated with keval Gyan but he does not engage in issuance of Divya Dhwani specifically, hence Keval Gyan is not direct nimitta for the issuance of Divya Dhwani . If karma destruction is believed to be prime nimitta for the vachan yoga then Ayogi and Siddhas should also have vachan yoga. From these it can be derived that recourse to vachan varganas only should be the prime cause for vachan yoga. Therefore we had written that from aspect of yoga, there is no harm in  considering  kevali or Keval Gyan to be nimitta. The issuance of Divya Dhwani occurs with the nimitta of the vachan yoga kriya of Kevali and the vachan yoga is dependent upon the speech varganas. Even then in the absence of vikalpas, it is not right to call  the vachan yoga as hetu karta, because the Divya Dhwani should emanate whenever vachan yoga is there. From these it is clear that the fruition of punya of bhavya jivas , the fruition of Tirthankara Prakriti also are nimitta for Divya Dhwani.

(b) Kevali Jina has Satya Vachan yoga and Anubhaya Vachan yoga only. Divya Dhwani is also said to be of two kinds namely satya and Anubhaya. From these it can be derived that the prime nimitta for Divya Dhwani is Yoga only.  If Keval Gyan were the prime nimitta which is accepted to be only satya form then divya Dhwani also would have been only one kind but it is not so. From this it can be known that Vachan Yoga of Kevali only is the prime nimitta for the issuance of Divya Dhwani.

Continued……

Seventeen question…..17

 

7.0 Question - The Omniscience of Kevali Bhagwan is from aspect of Nishchaya or Vyavahara? If it is from aspect of Vyavahara then whether it is Real or Unreal?

7.1 Answer- Niyamsar 159 – From aspect of Vyavahara naya, Kevali Bhagwan knows and sees all. From aspect of Nishchaya naya, Keval Gyani knows and sees the soul.

In such a situation the omniscience of Kevali Jina appears to be Asadbhoot. The question is whether the Omniscience of Kevali Jina is self dependent or dependent upon others ?

The rule is that the dharma which is found in the Lok, that only can be attributed upon one dravya with support of another  dravya. The dharma which is absent, that cannot be even attributed upon anyone. Therefore the dharma named omniscience should exist and then only it is valid to attribute it upon someone. Now when we consider the subject of existence of this dharma then it appears that in Niyamsar what has been described as Atmagyata (immersion within the soul), in that only the dharma named omniscience is immersed.

Kevali Jina is omniscient by nature, there is no doubt about it. Even then when statement is made from aspect of all subjects of knowledge then it gets applied from aspect of Vyavahara – this is the implication of the gatha of Niyamsar.

Acharya Amritchandra has described the 47 shaktis in which Omniscience is also one of them. This is defined as capability manifested in the form of knowing all the specific bhavas of the entire world-  knowledge of soul form Omniscience.

From the above it is clear that just as omniscience is accepted with respect to others, it is also applicable with respect to self since it is capability of soul.

Paramatma Prakash- The way Kevali jina knows his own soul being engrossed within  it, in the same way he does not know other dravya being engrossed within the same. Therefore it is called Vyavahara, but it is not called Vyavahara because of the lack of complete knowledge.

If he knows other substance by being immersed in them then he would experience their pains, ragas etc. also which is a great flaw. From that sense it is Vyavahara only. From aspect of capability it is Nishchaya only.

Counter Question 2: You believe the omniscience of Kevali Bhagawan from aspect of Atmagyata to be real and attributed the same omniscience with respect to subjects of knowledge also. Two questions arise-

(i) What is the form of omniscience from aspect of atmagyata?

(ii) How does the omniscience get attributed  to kevali Bhagwan from aspect of all the subjects of knowledge ?

7.2 Answer : The answer to these two questions is as follows-

(i) Substances have three forms- word form, Artha (meaning) form, knowledge form.

For example, the word ‘pot’ is ‘pot’ word form substance. ‘pot’ Artha form substance is the one which is capable to store water. Knowledge manifested in ‘the shape of the pot’ is the knowledge form pot substance.

From aspect of Nishchaya naya when kevali knows his own soul as subject of knowledge, then equipped with the nature of manifesting in the shape of subject of knowledge like that of mirror and thus manifested, he also knows  own gyan paryaya indistinct from own self. For this reason that Kevali jina along with being atmagya, he is also sarvagya (omniscient) by nature. This is the self dependent omniscience. From this it is clear that what is Atmagyata is same as Sarvagyata (omniscience). From aspect of Nishcya naya both mean the same.

You have derived meaning of Asadbhoot as attributed. We have ourselves written that if it is merely dependent upon others then it would need to be called Asadbhoot. When we have established the omniscience to be self dependent then in such a case omniscience is Sadbhoot only.

(ii) When he is called as Omniscient from aspect of all the subjects of knowledge pertaining to all the three loks and all the three periods of time , then that omniscience is attributed from aspect of others hence it is called omniscience from aspect of Upacharita Sadbhoot Vyavahara. Just as lamp is by nature illuminator having the dharma of illumination and not because of illuminating pots etc. substances, in the same way the Kevali Jina is by nature omniscient and not due to knowing other substances, this is the implication of the above.

We were surprised to see the reference to two different beliefs in Agam pertaining to Niyamsar and Acharya Amritchandra which is incorrect. Actually in agam the example of mirror is quoted everywhere by which it is told that just as mirror has natural capability of reflection, in the same way gyan has capability of manifesting in shape of subject of knowledge. However when it is said that image in mirror is due to others then it is called Vyavahara. In the same way when it is said that the manifestation in gyan is due to subjects of knowledge then it is called Vyavahara. It is  not right  to present the Praman form Agam in the guise of belief.

Counter Question 3: Why are you trying to declare omniscience from aspect of Nishchaya? Why is it not desirable for you to accept it as true from aspect of Vyavahara naya? Even that (Vyavahara) has been accepted by Shri Amrit Chandra suri as real  in his commentary.

In Paramatma Prakash also the omniscience has not been treated as subject of Nishchaya naya. With other substances, gyan does not have pervasive relationship but gyeya-gyayak (subject-knower) relationship which is subject of Vyavahara naya being relation between two dravyas. In this way the omniscience does not get proven to be subject of Nishchaya naya but it is that of Vyavahara naya only.

You say that like mirror, the gyan also manifests in the shape of gyeya which is incorrect since mirror is corporeal while soul is non corporeal. How can soul manifest in the shape of corporeal substances? Gyan does not manifest in the shape of gyeya. Just as no substance gets reflected in the Akash since it is non-corporeal by nature , in the same way the soul is also non-corporeal hence it does not manifest into the form of images of the other substances - Prameya Kamal Martanda.  

Although  Gyan is declared as having shape but there (Prameya Kamal Martand) the meaning of shape is not image but ArthaVikalpa.

If it is accepted that only by means of manifestation of images of the gyeya in the gyan, the gyan knows the gyeyas, then gyan would not know the taste, smell, touch etc. and non corporeal substances since they do not get imaged, nor can gyan manifest in taste etc. form. Image is paryaya of pudgala dravya  and not that of gyan. Hence it does not establish that Kevali jina is omniscient from aspect of Nishchaya naya.

You have talked about three types of substances- Shabda (word), Artha and gyan form. Of these the Shabda form substance ‘pot’ word and gyan form substance like knowing the pot i.e. knowledge of pot, both of these are dependent upon others hence are subjects of Vyavahara. Just as pot can hold water, in the same way the pot word or pot gyan cannot hold water. Hence pot Shabda and gyan are described from aspect of Vyavahara.

Alap Paddhati- Attribution  of swabhava elsewhere is Upacharita Swabhava. This Upacharita swabhava has two divisions namely karma generated and natural. Just as jiva has corporeal and insentient natures which are karma generated hence Upacharita, while knowing others (omniscience) by the Siddhas and observing others (sarva Darshita) are natural Upacharita.

In this way the omniscience has been described from aspect of Upachrita naya only.

Pravachansar 32- From aspect of Vyavahara naya Bhagwan knows and sees all by their dravya, kshetra, kaal and bhavas.

Naya Chakra Sangrah – Gyayak bhava by means of Mati-shruta-avadhi-manah paryaya-keval gyan, from aspect of nishchaya naya knows the soul and knows other dravyas by means of Vyavahara naya.

From these it establishes that in Kevali Jina the omniscience is from aspect of Vyavahara and not Nishchaya naya. From aspect of Nishchaya naya he knows the self where the other is completely absent. The self does not manifest in the form of others.

Gyan does not manifest in the shape of gyeya. Knowing of gyeyas only has been called as gyeyakar manifestation of gyan. The Pradesh of soul or the Avibhag Praticcheda of Gyan do not manifest in the shape of gyeyas.

In this way the Vyavahara naya is real since every naya is true in generating knowledge of its subject. All nayas are good in describing their own  subjects. It is not right to say that Naya Ekant is Mithya Drishti . When the nayas start refuting their opponent naya then they become Mithya. Anekantagya person does not divide that one naya is true and other naya is untrue. But the subject   of one naya along with the subject of its opponent naya only is true- he decides thus.

7.3  Answer -     The rival group wishes to describe Nishchaya naya and Vyavahara naya mutually dependent upon each other hence they have modified the form of our statement.    

Since the Keval Gyani knows and sees own form  directly hence he himself knows and sees the self-other form all the Prameya ( subjects of knowledge). This is the implication of the statement of Nishchaya naya. All the Prameya of all the three Loks and all the three periods of time, for  knowing and seeing them, the Keval Gyan and Keval darshan manifest themselves. This implication is the substance of Nishchaya naya.

Now we consider the statement of Vyavahara naya. The form of every substance is self established. If the form of every substance is also believed to be existent relative to others then both would not exist hence both would be eliminated. In this way with the forms of Praman and Prameya being self established only their Vyavahara is mutually relative. Since with Nishchaya of Praman the Prameya gets defined  and with the Nishchaya of Prameya the Praman gets confirmed. Therefore  keeping in mind the Vyavahara relative to others when statement is made then it is said that from aspect of Vyavahara Kevali Jina knows and sees all.

The objective of both nayas is the same . The difference is that the subject which is stated by Nishchaya naya from aspect of its own nature , Vyavahara naya tells the same thing from aspect of others. Hence the statement of Nishchaya naya is real while that of Vyavahara naya is Upacharita since the nature of substance is not dependent upon others. But from aspect of others only it has been established.

Hence the assertion of rival group  is not in accordance with the  Agam that ‘ from aspect of own illuminator it is Atmagya (self immersed) and from aspect of other’s illuminator it is omniscient.’ Telling that ‘ the omniscient word represents dependence upon others and it does not denote independence  with respect to others’ is also not in accordance with the Agam

The rival group says that “In kshayik gyan from aspect of Nishchaya naya, there is dharma named Atma and from aspect of Vyavahara naya there is dharma named Sarvagya. The sarvagya named dharma is from aspect of others just as knowledge of pots and pans.”

Before examining the above, it is better to understand the two divisions of Vyavahara naya- one is Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya and other is Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya. Imposition of elsewhere famous dharma upon something else is Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya and differentiating the guna-guni, paryaya-paryayi etc. is Sadbhoot Vyavahara.

Knowing self and others is the nature of gyan. Here elsewhere famous dharma is not being imposed on someone else hence it is not subject of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya. Here the nature is being described and even the differentiation of guna-guni is not being discussed. Hence it is not even subject of Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya. In such condition which is this third Vyavahara naya from whose aspect the rival group accepts dharma named sarvagya in Kshayik gyan? Further in spite of existence of this dharma in Sarvagya he calls it dependent upon others? It is strange imagination to call the nature of dharma of a substance to be dependent upon others.

The rival group gives example of knowledge of pots and pans. However at the time of  knowledge of the pot, the manifestation of the form of knowing self and others is nature of gyan only and it is self established. It happens in absence or presence of the pot also, otherwise the arrangement of keval gyan and memory etc. gyans would not exist.

Only this is for sure that in pots and pans and their knowledge, the Vyavahara of subject of knowledge and knower is established only with respect to each other. This is the reason what we have called soul as Gyayak (knower) from aspect of differentiation, therefore subject of Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya. Calling it Gyayak from aspect of gyeya is Upacharita.

The rival group writes that “ Sarvagyatva dharma in soul, in spite of being from aspect of Vyavahara naya, it is true and not false imagination or imposed attribute”. We would like to state that sarvagyata is nature of keval gyan. The rival group calls it dharma of keval gyan from aspect of Vyavahara naya which is their own imagination only. They believe omniscience to be true in imagination and not in reality. Therefore they should not write that the sarvagyatva dharma is there in soul in reality.

They have written that ‘the nature of Sarvagyata shakti itself is to know others hence it would necessarily be relative to others. Knowing others only is Pargyata.’

The answer is that the Sarvagyatva shakti belongs to soul and is not attributed. The capability of that shakti is not just knowing others but that of knowing all. If JinaDeva knows only others then that shakti may be called as Paragyata. But he knows all hence it is established to be of the form of Sarvagyata only.

They say that our question is regarding sarvagyata form manifestation which can exist only in context of other substances only. Hence it becomes subject of Vyavahara naya being dependent upon others (subjects of knowledge).

The answer is that the manifestation of Sarvagyatva shakti prevalent in Nigod etc. all jivas only is known as sarvagyata. This manifestation is not swa-para pratyaya form but is swa-pratyaya form. It is capable of knowing all the substances of all the three periods of time belonging to all the three loks simultaneously within one samaya on account of its manifestation nature. Therefore accepting it to be dependent upon other substances is against the Agam only. Believing any manifestation of knowledge being dependent upon gyeya is against the Agam only.

Pariksha Mukh – ‘ substance and illumination are not cause for generation of knowledge since they are subjects of knowledge only like darkness.’ Hence the real expression would be ‘ By calling soul as Gyayak it indicates the presence of gyeya hence it appears to be from aspect of gyeya. This only is Upachar’ which is true.

Further it should be understood that the subject of Sarvagyata is not just other substance but self-others gyeya form entire dravya family. This is described as Atmagya from aspect of Nishchaya ( being immersed in own self)  and the same is called sarvagya in context of others; thus the meaning of Niyamsar gatha would be clearly understood.

In Samaysar the subject of Paryayarthika naya has been trivialized  since there the main objective is to realise the soul different from the ragas etc. form bhavas. Hence in gatha 56 the ragas etc. Bhavas are called as belonging to jiva from aspect of vyavahara naya only. However manifesting in ragas etc. form is fault of jiva only and not that of karma. For imparting this knowledge, in karta-karma adhikar, the jiva has been called as their karta from aspect of Nishchaya (Gatha 102). Hence everywhere the perspective should be considered.

The rival group believes two dharmas namely Atmagyata and Sarvagyata. But between then it is difference of perspective only. Both mean the same.

In any substance, no dharma is dependent upon others. Yes, the vyavahara of dharma-dharmi etc. is surely with respect to each other.

The rival group has told ‘Akaryakaranatva and Akartatva shakti’ to be dependent upon others and in the same way they have told ‘Sarvagyatva and Sarvadarshitva shakti’ also to be other’s dependent. But it is not so. The way a shakti manifests , it has been informed accordingly. For establishing something the imposition of dependence is different thing but nothing has nature of being dependent upon others.

Soul from aspect of Nishchaya is Gyayak (knower). It manifests in the form of knowing Lok-Alok which is by nature and not due to dependence upon others. At every samaya the soul manifests in the form of knowing and seeing all the gyeyas without dependence upon all the gyeyas by nature only. This is statement of Nishchaya naya. Even then keeping in mind the information-informant vyavahara, the statement is made with respect to others. Hence from aspect of Vyavahara naya, sarvagyata exists – instead of applying such Ekant; Atmagyata and Sarvagyata , these are two sides to the same statement.

In order to establish the subject of Vyavahara naya as reality, the rival group wishes to make sarvagyata itself as subject of Vyavahara naya in Ekant form. However any dharma of any substance is never dependent upon others.

We do not accept that gyan manifests in gyeyakar - pot shaped  forms. Even then for explaining the manifestation of gyan, the gyan is described as having shape. No wise person believes that while knowing the pot the knowledge becomes pot shaped. They wish to establish the generation of knowledge from gyeya only.

The rival group has believed ‘pot’ word and ‘pot knowledge’ as dependent upon others which is incorrect. The pot word is Shabda varganas manifested in pot form and not due to pot substance. Similarly pot gyan form manifestation is self established, not due to pot substance. They say that water cannot be stored in pot word or pot knowledge hence the word and knowledge are called substances from aspect of vyavahara. The answer is whether the pot word and pot knowledge have independent existence or not? If it is not there then they would have to be accepted as non existent like flower in the sky. Therefore there should be no objection to accepting them as real thing like pot substance. They may not function like pot substance but they do have their own task. Hence what all substances are present in the Lok, each of them is real thing.

When omniscience is described from aspect of gyeyas then that statement becomes Vyavahara. Omniscience itself is not Vyavahara. Gyeya-Gyayak relationship is described as Vyavahara. In reality there is no relationship. The rival group wishes to describe omniscience itself from aspect of Vyavahara naya, whereas the omniscience is the real form of Kevali Jina.

Atmagyata and Paragyata are not two dharmas, these are two statements from two aspects. From aspect of self it is called Atmagyata and the same is called as Paragyata from aspect of others. If the rival group accepts it then it establishes the right relationship between Nishaya Vyavahara naya and with refutation of Ekant the omniscience of Kevali Jina gets established to be real.

The quotes provided by rival group are all establishing the statements made from certain aspect to be subjects of Vyavahara naya and not that the omniscience is from aspect of Vyavahara naya.

The rival group wishes to prove Vyavahara naya as the real thing. That’s why they have accepted Atmagya and Sarvagya named two dharmas of Kshayik Gyan and calling the sarvagya dharma to be  other’s dependent, they have called sarvagyata as subject of vyavahara naya. For this they have not provided with Praman of agams also .

We have not said that the Vyavahara naya is pure imagination without any subject.

Finally it should be understood that each soul has sarvagyatva named shakti and from that aspect kevali has sarvagyata which is self dependent and same is called Atmagyata. In this way Kevali Jina is Atmagya from aspect of Nishchaya naya. When the same is described from aspect of others then it is said that ‘Kevali Jina knows and sees  all from aspect of vyavahara naya.’

Continued……

Seventeen Questions…..16

 

(3) Refutation of presence of Vyavahara form meaning in Nishchaya naya

In spite of every substance being different dharma form which are opposing each other, the naya which accepts only one dharma form substance without expectations of other dharma, that naya has been called as Mithya (false) naya. The naya which accepts substance as one dharma form  having contradictory dharma at the same time, is accepted as Samyak Naya.

In every substance the karta etc. predicate form several dharmas are there which are indifferent from aspect of Dravyarthika naya, since the existence of Dravya is same as that of those dharmas.

Therefore Nishchaya naya accepts substance in undifferentiated form while Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya accepts substance as having different dharmas from aspects of name, objective, characteristics etc. Both are Samyak Naya.

The subject of Asadbhoot Vyavahara is merely Upachar which is dependent upon others. Hence both nayas described above cannot have relationship with it  in any condition.

Therefore one Dravya makes another Dravya manifest is merely a statement which is made making  use of  the language of Vyavahara naya.

In this way the statement of rival group that ‘ gyan knowing the nishchaya form meaning from aspect of vyavahara form meaning is Nishchaya naya’  is not real. The gyan which knows the bhava of one Dravya  only as belonging to it only and negates the Upachar form meaning is Nishchaya naya’. If every substance does not have quality enabling such arrangement then the Vastutva of that substance itself cannot exist.

-        Upadan of own nature and renunciation of other’s form  only is the Vastutva of Vastu.

The Vyavahara which enables knowledge of Nishchaya, that Vyavahara only is accepted in Agam. Hence Vyavahara being means for accepting Upacharita meaning and highlighting the Anupacharita meaning is meaningful. Otherwise it would be Mithya (false) naya only.

In reality the characteristics of Nishchaya and Vyavahara nayas as described by rival group are own imagination based.

(4). Negation of causation of Dravya closeness

According to the rival group – ‘ In the context of cause-effect bhava, two types of causation are described in Agam Ganths.’-

‘One is Dravya closeness form and the other time closeness form. Out of them the substance which manifests in deed form by itself i.e. which is Upadan cause towards the deed, that has Dravya closeness form causation towards the deed, since there cause form dharma and effect form dharma both dharmas are dependent upon the same Dravya. ‘

The rival group has created entire tower of counter questions based upon this belief of Dravya Closeness only, hence we examine  this itself.

In Jain Darshan every substance is accepted as Samanya-Visheshatmak (general-specific form). Only samanyatmak or Vishesh form substance cannot have arth-kriya. Hence Acharyas have not accepted only Dravya closeness as Upadan cause from aspect of Praman but Dravya equipped with immediately previous paryaya  is accepted as Upadan cause.

Only Dravya closeness does not have Upadan causation but Paryaya closeness also has. The meaning of Pratyasatti (closeness) itself is ‘very close’ then the meaning of paryaya closeness would be immediate previous paryaya pertaining to specific deed and not any other.

Ashta Sahasri- Extraordinary Dravya closeness and immediate previous specific bhava closeness only, being cause for Upadan-ness is assured towards  its Upadeya manifestation.

Acharya Vidyanand- The Dravya which forgoing and without forgoing  its own form in all the three periods of time is manifesting in previous form and non-previous form- that is Upadan cause.

In this way samanya-visheshatmak Dravya only is Upadan and not just samanya part or vishesh part of the Dravya.

Acharya Vidyanand- The one which always forgoes its form is paryaya and the one which absolutely does not forgo its form that (samanya), both are not upadan of the deed (arth). Just as momentary and permanent.

In this way the Dravya-paryaya closeness only is accepted as Upadan cause by Acharyas and not just Dravya closeness or just Paryaya closeness.  

Four indisputable rules of cause-effect bhava-

(i) Dravya equipped with immediate previous paryaya as a rule is decider of its deed and the deed generated by it as a rule is indicator of the same.

This is the arrangement of Nishchaya Upadan-Upadeya.

(ii) Prior to that, it is called Vyavahara Upadan of that deed. This is not decider of the specific deed  since it is told from aspect of vyavahara naya. Just as calling mud as Upadan of pot is statement of vyavahara naya. However the mud which is called as Upadan of the pot, would be made into pot only- this is not assured. This is told considering the Dravya capability and without considering the immediate previous paryaya form Dravya of the pot.

(iii) With Nishchaya Upadan in readiness for its deed, the closeness of kaal of the favourable external materials as Visrasa(naturally) or by means of Prayog (with effort) is surely attained.

(iv) Vyavahara Upadan is not Nishchaya Upadan of any specific deed. Hence at every samaya for whichever deed it becomes Nishchaya Upadan, it keeps performing them and at those samaya the external materials are also available favourable to the same. In this way sequentially reaching the state of Nishchaya Upadan for that specific deed it generates the specific deed as a rule. At that time the external favourable materials are also available for that deed by Prayog or Visrasa at the same time.

From this it is clear that Upadan cause cannot be accepted as Dravya closeness alone. The extraordinary Dravya closeness and immediate previous paryaya form specific Bhava closeness , they together only are accepted as Upadan cause. This is the form of Nishchaya Upadan and not any other one.

(5-6) External Materials are not the real reason for the deed of others.

The rival group writes- ‘ When a substance without manifesting in deed form by itself is assistant i.e.  nimitta cause for the deed form manifestation of another substance, then it does not have Dravya closeness form causal nature towards that deed, since the cause form dharma is existing in one substance and effect form dharma is present in the other substance.  In such a case the cause form and effect form both substances would have cause-effect bhava on the basis of kaal closeness only and not on the basis of dravya closeness.‘

In this the point to be examined is that the causal dharma of the deed of one dravya is present in the assisting material.

In the Agam wherever another Dravya is called as Nimitta, Hetu, Support, Pratyaya, Udaseen cause, Prerak Cause, all these are on the basis of Vyavahara naya i.e. asadbhoot vyavahara naya or Upacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya only. Hence the causal dharma for the deed of one Dravya to exist in another Dravya in reality is not feasible at all. Acharya Vidyanand has accepted assisting causes to have kaal closeness with the deed, it implies only this that the external material which is treated as causal Vyavahara from specific objective, that has to be present with the deed in the same kaal. Just as Jiva manifests in anger form then at that times the anger form Dravya karma is under fruition as a rule which should be known as kaal closeness at that time.

If the external material has causal-ness for the deed of another Dravya then both would need to have same existence as a rule.

Samaysar 99- If the soul carries out deeds of other dravyas, then definitely it would be pervasive with other Dravya. Since it is not pervasive then he is not karta either.

The rival group can say that even if one Dravya is not Upadan karta of the deed of another Dravya, it can still be nimitta karta. The question arises that where do the kriya takes place? By leaving own existence any Dravya can enter into the existence of another Dravya and carry out its deed - such a statement would not be acceptable to even the rival group. Hence this only can be derived as the Siddhant that keeping kaal closeness only in view the external materials have been treated as causal . Therefore the nimitta causal -ness in external material is Upacharita only.

(7) Clarification of the term Upachar

The rival group derives the meaning of Upachar term as Nimitta-Naimittik bhava. But this is not right. Where the guna dharma of one substance is imposed upon another substance, there the Upachar term is used.

The Upacharita fire cannot be used for cooking otherwise it would be described as the primary fire.

In Agam the Asadbhoot Vyavahara and Upachar both terms mean the same. Vyavahara naya calls the bhavas of one to be those of others.

(8) Bandh Moksha Arrangement

In the Agam bandh, samvar, nirjara and Moksha each have been described to be of two kinds each with divisions of dravya and bhava. Of these the bhava bandh, bhava samvar, bhava nirjara and bhava moksha are jiva himself being states of jiva- such belief is real only. With the nimitta of raga, dwesha  etc. bhavas of jiva, the manifestation of karmana varganas into karma form is called as Dravya bandh in Agam. In the same way the forms of dravya samvar-nirjara-moksha should also be known.

However, instead of this if some Shrut Gyani jiva, without believing the engrossment in raga-dwesha manifestations of the jiva to be real bandh, believes the gyanavarana etc. karma manifestations due to the nimitta of raga-dwesha etc. manifestations of karamana varganas to be real bandh, then he cannot be called as true shrut gyani.

If nimitta-naimittik relationship is believed to be real then surely the bandh-moksha arrangement would be disturbed, since in such a situation the conjunction of two or more than two dravyas would be proved to be real and hence all those dravyas would join and become one. Hence without having arrangement of differences, who will have bandh and who would have Moksha?

In the Agam what has been accepted as the form of substance, accepting it the same way only is true Samyak Gyan, accepting in any other way is Mithya Gyan.

The karma named Darshan Moha is the destroyer of the qualities of the soul. Therefore with the nimitta of some soul manifestation only, being in a highly weakened state, it is called with the name Samyaktva. Hence it is not the prime cause for the manifestation of soul. Soul only by its own power  manifests in darshan paryaya form hence that only is the cause for Moksha.

In this way every dravya with its own capability, being Upadan generates its own new paryaya at every moment and destroys the previous paryaya.

It is clear that the external materials have been accepted as Vyavahara cause only  in any deed of other dravya being means for realisation of Nishchaya. This alone is the gist of Jinagam. By this the arrangement of bandh-moksha gets clarified.

(9-12) Every manifestation of the universe is sequentially proportionate

The rival group organises the deed to be performed being decided  by the power of nimittas with every Upadan having various capabilities i.e. depending upon the nimitta the deed gets done. Upadan does not have any role towards it. The deed carried out should be understood to be manifestation of nimitta. If the rival group says that the nimitta of every deed is predestined due to which predestined deed only gets done at every samaya then this too is not right. Since this leads to situation of accepting Ekant Niyati ( based upon nimittas).

Since eternal times all the substances are manifesting in predefined sequence. Hence at every samaya for every deed along with predefined nimitta-naimittik arrangement, the  Upadan-Upadeya arrangement is also  predefined.

Ashta Sahasri- In the paryaya progeny of mud dravya, at the own time of production of pot, the pot gets produced at that time only and not at any other time. If some potter while making the pot stops in between then that stoppage is not sudden but should be understood to be sequentially proportionate only  in its paryaya progeny. At that time the mud manifests in another form other than form favourable for making of the pot. This too should be understood to be sequentially proportionate only in its paryaya progeny. If rival group based upon own imagination carries out different vikalpas then that too would be interference with the arrangement of substance.

Hence there is no issue of the Upadan capabilities lying dormant or waiting for other’s assistance. If the mud does not become pot form then the time of making of pot has not yet materialised.

The devas of Sarvartha Siddhi have capability for activity and the fruition of karmas is also in accordance. Even then they do not go upto 7^th narak. Why?  Since the manifestation of the capability of activity in that form does not exist in all the three periods of time.

It is the statement of Agam that every dravya does not manifest into the form of other dravya’s foursome renouncing its own foursome. In such a situation,  one dravya being cause, karta or support for the deed of another dravya would be an Upacharita statement only. How can it be called real?

In the heart of Sadhu travelling, there is no intent of killing of jiva, hence he cannot be accepted to be killer of jiva . It establishes that with the vikalpa of intent only the potter has been declared as karta of pot. In reality one dravya is not karta of another dravya.

Amrit Chandra 144- The one engaged in vikalpa only is karta and vikalpa only is karma. (There are no other karta-karma). The jiva who is engaged in  vikalpas, his karta-karma form never gets eliminated.

(13-14) Clarification of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya

It is the stand of rival group that naya can be that only whose subject is sadbhoot. There cannot be a naya which accepts asadbhoot meaning. Otherwise flower in the sky of horns of donkey would also be accepted. For its proof the example has been forwarded that from aspect of dravyarthika naya dravya is nitya in some aspect while from aspect of paryayarthika naya the dravya is Anitya in some  aspect. However they forget that whereas the Nitya and Anitya dharma are Sadbhoot residing in every dravya , there the Nimitta and Naimittika dharmas are not sadbhoot which are accepted with some objective between  two dravyas otherwise the two dravyas would become one. In the Agam it is stated that dharma famous elsewhere being employed elsewhere is asadbhoot vyavahara. Upachara is also its other name.

The rival group states that ‘ Jiva creates the bodies of gyanavarana etc. karmas and audarik etc. bodies non-different from own self while pots and pans are created in different form other than the self.’

How this illogical, for this see Samaysar Kalash 194- Just as enjoyment of other dravyas is not the nature of soul, in the same way creating other substances is also not the nature of soul. He is karta out of agyan only, and with absence of agyan he is non-karta.

If it is said that so long as jiva is agyani,  till then he should be accepted to be karta of nokarma and pots etc. substances. Then the solution is that even out of agyan the jiva cannot create dravya karma etc. substances. Here where he is called as karta is really karta of own vikalpas and not that of dravya karma, nokarma and pot etc. substances.

Samaysar Kalash 95- The jiva engaged in vikalpas only is karta and vikalpas only are the karma (deed). The jiva who is accompanied with vikalpas , his karta-karma nature never gets destroyed.

If rival group says that soul is not Nishchaya karta of pots and pan etc. but he can be Nimitta karta? It can be asked  that from aspect of which naya, the soul has been called as nimitta karta out of agyan? The answer would be that  from aspect of Asadbhoot vyavahara naya only he is called as karta. This only is Upachar.

Continued….

Seventeen Questions…15

 

Question 6

In the deed form manifestation of Upadan, does the nimitta reason assist or not?

6.1  Answer - In reality the meaning of the terms Nimitta reason and assistant imply the same. However it should be clearly understood that it has  been accepted from aspect of Vyavahara naya only and not from aspect of Nishchaya naya ( Paryayarthika Nishchaya naya).

Tattvartha Shloka Vartik- The arrangement of Utpad-Vyaya-Dhrovya (generation-destruction-permanence) of all dravyas in any form is Visrasa ( unassisted) from aspect of Nishchaya naya, from aspect of Vyavahara naya it appears to be assisted.

Counter Question 2 – The question is whether the deed is carried out by only Upadan or Upadan along with Nimitta reasons. Some place they have been described as internal and external reasons. The internal implies the Dravya shakti (capability) and external implies assistant in carrying out the deed. Whenever shakti appears in manifested form, it does so with the assistance of nimitta only. For example when Labdhi form consciousness manifests in Upayoga form then it is accomplished by means of eyes senses only. The formation of image in the eyes is physical manifestation and later its realisation and knowing the mental (internal) manifestation. If physical manifestation is not there then even in all three periods of time the internal manifestation i.e. consciousness would not proceed from Labdhi towards Upayoga. This only means Nimitta in carrying out the deed.

The substance has capability for carrying out the deed but the deed shall be carried out only when external reasons are present. Without it the capability does not appear in manifested form. This external substance only without remaining as gyeya (subject of knowledge) alone becomes desire and generates the Kashaya in the soul.

Samaysar 80- Pudgala manifest in karma form with the nimitta of Jiva’s manifestation and Jivas also manifest with the nimitta of pudgala karma. `

Mithyatva, Ignorance and Kashaya all the three are pudgala only. If they are not accepted as pudgala form only, then cause-effect relationship would not exist. Acharya Amritchandra also has accepted this.

Acharya Amritchandra (278-279)- The sapphire jewel in spite of being pure is turned red by reddish dravyas. In the same way in spite of Gyani i.e. soul being pure, does not manifest in ragas etc. form on his own but becomes raga form on account of other raga etc. form flaws.

1. If you say that deed is carried out by Upadan alone and nimitta remains present only, then the question arises that how it became nimitta? How other substances which   are present are not nimitta? Proof should be submitted for the reason.

2.  The second thing is that by accepting Upadan and Nimitta to be uncorrelated, the arrangement of Bandh etc. tattvas also would not be accomplished.

3. With the body manifestation of  small-big size only of the innumerable Pradesh jiva, the shape has been called as small-big. If jiva is accepted as devoid of effects of body then this too could not be said and it would be contradictory to the Agam.

4. In this way the arrangement of fruits of karmas would also get eliminated. If karma bandh due to vibhava and vibhava due to fruition of karmas is not accepted then the arrangement of karma fruition would not exist. Then how can it be said that this is effect of fruition of that karma?

5. There is contradiction between the nimitta reasons merely remaining present and nimitta reasons performing the deed. One is based upon presence and other  is Prerak ( instigator) or doer. There is difference between the two. In the Lok Prerak Nimitta reasons also exist which are different from  Dharmas etc. dravyas.

In brief the conclusion is as follows-

(i) The deed is carried out by Upadan reason alone - this  it is delusion, since there is lack of proofs in favour of it.

(ii) During the deed, just by its presence, some thing can be nimitta reason-  this is false since there is lack of proofs in favour of it.

(iii) The generation of deed is by means of Upadan and Nimitta reasons only- This is proper which is favoured by shastras.

6.2. Answer -  Here without paying attention to the praman of Tattvartha Shloka Vartik,  it has been tried to establish that the generation of deed is by means of Nimitta. The Nishchaya reason of Upadan has been ignored.

In the Agam, from aspect of Praman, the generation of deed has been described everywhere by means of both. There is not a single Praman wherein in the absence of Upadan (Nishchaya) reason, only by means of Nimitta the deed gets performed.

The question is whether without reaching its specific Upadan state, only by means of Nimitta some wheat seed germinates into sapling form or, when the seed reaches its specific Upadan state then only it manifests into the wheat sapling form?

Acharyas have told in very clear terms that  when any Dravya is ready to perform a specific task then the paryayas of other favourable dravyas are only Nimitta in the generation of the deed.

RajVaratik- With the readiness of the mud to be manifested into pot form by itself, then the paryayas of other favourable dravyas function as Nimitta alone in its generation.

This is clarification of Prerak (instigator)  Nimitta . The mud which would manifest into pot paryaya form in the immediate next moment, that mud alone is the Upadan of the Pot paryaya. At the same time, wheel, stick, efforts of potter etc.  are nimitta, not at any other time. Dravya shakti equipped with specific paryaya shakti favourable to assisting causes only is considered as capable. Only Dravya shakti alone with the assistance of prerak or udaseen nimittas cannot generate the deed in the Dravya. If Dravya shakti alone  is believed then from grams wheat could be produced. If without specific paryaya, the Dravya samanya (general) be considered as cause for generation of wheat saplings paryaya etc. by the power of nimittas, then the pudgala grams also would start producing wheat form paryaya being pudgala.

Actually by not paying Samyak attention to the correct meaning of Upadan this argument has been created.

Vrihad Dravya Sangrah (Gatha 8)- This Jiva from  aspect of Anupacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya, is karta of Gyanavarana etc. Dravya karmas, the ‘etc.’ term implying Audayik, Vaikriyik and Aharak form three bodies and pudgala mass form nine karmas suitable for  ahar etc. six paryaptis and from aspect of Upacharita Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya, is karta of external subjects pot-cloth etc.

In the statement that jiva having innumerable Pradesh has to manifest in accordance with the body - here also Samyak arrangement is made by accepting the cause-effect relationships of Upadan-nimitta . Since Upadan form jiva has capability to manifest himself;  hence with the body as nimitta, jiva himself manifests in contraction-expansion form.

Akalank Deva-  In accordance with the destiny the intellect changes accordingly and purushartha also materialises in the same way and the assisting causes (nimitta causes) also are available accordingly.

Counter Question 3: Your interpretation of the word Vyavahara as ‘imaginary’ based upon the statement of Tattvartha Shloka Vartik is baseless with which we are not agreeable. Further we examine this-

Vyavahara and Nishchaya nayas are of both kinds, word form and knowledge form. Out of them the expositor words of Vyavahara form meaning conveying  Nishchaya form meaning are Vyavahara naya. The expositor words of Nishchaya form meaning conveying  Vyavahara form meaning are Nishchaya naya. In the same way the informant  words of Vyavahara form meaning conveying Nishchaya form meaning are Vyavahara naya and informant words of Nishchaya form conveying Vyavahara form meaning are Nishchaya naya. First two should be known as divisions of speech form naya while other two should be known as divisions of gyan naya.

In reality since the subject is that of cause-effect bhava, the meaning of Nishchaya words should be sensed as Upadana-Upadeya bhava while that of Vyavahara words should be sensed as Nimitta-Naimittik bhava. Thus the meaning of shloka of Tattvartha Shloka Vartik would be as follows-

‘The arrangement of Utpad-vyaya-dhrovya of all dravyas from aspect of Nishchaya naya i.e. Upadan-Upadeya bhava is Visrasa (natural). From aspect of Vyavahara naya i.e. Nimitta-Naimittik bhava only, these Utpad etc. appear to be having a cause. ‘

You have attempted to prove the meaning of Vyavahara as Upachar thereby establishing nimitta-naimittik bhava  as imaginary in spite of lack of Praman, while the meaning of term Vyavahara by us is Praman verified nimitta-naimittik bhava which is real only. In view of Acharya Vidyanand, the nimitta-naimittik bhava is not imaginary but real.

In the substance, by nature, different predefined Upadan capabilities are present simultaneously. However when the nimitta of assisting material favourable to the Upadan capability is available then based upon the support of Nimitta material only, the substance would manifest in accordance with the Upadan capability present within itself.

In the mud the Upadan capabilities of making various pots, pans etc. are present. The potter based upon his desire and efforts capabilities with the nimitta of wheel, stick etc. manufactures the pot or the pan.

We ask you that if you have faith in your Siddhant regarding the generation of deed then being detached of the sankalpa, vikalpa and purushartha pertaining to deed and its source  materials, are you willing to sit quietly with inactivity ?

It is clear that just as Upadan-Upadeya bhava is real , in the same way nimitta-naimittik bhava is also real. It is not Upacharita or imaginary.

Ashta Sahasri- The means of pot destruction – hammer converts the existing substance to non-existent form  hence how can it be called as irrelevant ?

With this statement the irrelevancy of nimitta cause gets refuted.

5.3. Answer – The rival group says that substance has capability to perform deed and it would remain existent, but the substance would carry out the deed only when external causes are favourable. In the previous answer we had told the meaning of vyavahara as asadbhoot vyavahara appliable to the gatha of Vrihad Dravya Sangrah but they reject it saying that we call it imaginary.  

(1) Vyavahara naya and its subject

The rival group has not given any Agam praman for verification of the characteristics of Vyavahara naya and Nishchaya naya as defined by them. We now view it from the viewpoint of Acharyas-

Alaap Paddhati- Implying dharma famous elsewhere  upon another situation is Asadbhoot Vyavahara. The meaning of Asadbhoot Vyavahara itself is Upachar. After Upachar also if Upachar is carried out then it is called as Upacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara. The differentiation of Guna-Guni, Paryaya-Paryayi, Swabhava and Swabhavavan, Karak -Karakvan is Sadbhoot Vyavahara. Upachar of Dravya in Dravya, Upachar of paryaya in paryaya, Upachar of Guna in guna, Upachar of paryaya in Guna, Upachar of Dravya in paryaya, Upachar of guna in paryaya, Upachar of Dravya in paryaya, upachar of guna in paryaya, in this way nine types of meanings of asadbhoot vyavahara should be known.

The pot of ghee is example of Asadbhoot Vyavahara.

The one which establishes the Nishchaya, that only is named as Vyavahara. In spite of being Upacharita it is accepted in Agam.

Here the substance in which the nimitta vyavahara is carried out, that is not the real cause  for the specific deed carried out by  other Dravya. Even so, it surely has external pervasiveness in the form of time closeness with the Upadan cause of the deed. For this reason, the causal dharma residing in Upadan gets established by the same and in this external substance also nimitta i.e. causal dharma is implied in Upachar sense. This is the meaning of Upacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara.

It should be noted that Jiva and karmas have nimitta-naimittik relationship form synthetic relationship since long. Hence in the karma bondage accrued with the nimitta of raga-dwesha manifestations of the jiva, there the upachar of carrying out  karta dharma of the form of performing the karmas due to  the manifestations of the jiva is primary. Hence jiva carried out karmas, such a statement would be Anupacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara.

The conclusion is that where synthetic relationship is not existing, there the attribution of karta etc. dharma of one substance upon the second substance is named as Upachrita Asadbhoot Vyavahara. Where synthetic relationship is with nimitta-naimittik bhava , there the allegation of karta etc. dharma of one substance upon another substance is Anupacharita asadbhoot vyavahara.

Vrihad Dravya Sangrah- Devoid of spirit of Shuddha Atma Tattva which is free of activities of mind, speech, body, this jiva from aspect of anupacharita asadbhoot vyavahara is karta of gyanavarana etc. Dravya karmas wherein the ‘etc.’ term implies three bodies of Audarik, Vaikriyik and Aharak and pudgala mass form nokarmas suitable for ahar etc. six paryaptis while from aspect of upacharita asadbhoot vyavahara naya he is karta of external subjects pots and pans etc.

(2) Samyak Nishchaya Naya and its subject

The way every substance is permanent by nature, in the same way it has nature of utpad-Vyaya also. The entity from aspect of general nature is neither generated nor destroyed from aspect of continuity dharma. Here the generation-destruction should be known from aspect of paryaya only. Hence sovereignty of any substance is Utpad etc. three forms.

Now the point to be considered is whether that generation-destruction is self created or others created or created by both? Creation by others is not possible since both do not have common existence. In spite of having different existence, by carrying out deed of the form of manifestation in another substance, it results in contradiction- By accepting deed in other’s existence different from own, the two cannot have different existences. Therefore Acharyas have not accepted one Dravya or its guna dharma as real karta of another Dravya or its guna dharma. Under such conditions the utpad-vyaya of another Dravya cannot be created by both also. Therefore in reality every deed is self created only. This should be the Nishchaya. By this the real reason and karta etc. dharmas from aspect of each individual deeds also get established.

Sarvartha Siiddhi 1/1- The one who sees, the means by which seen or viewing alone is Darshan. The one who knows, the means by which known or knowing alone is Gyan. The one who conducts, the means by which conduct is practiced or conducting alone is Charitra.

In this way same is karta and the same is the means. This is statement from aspect of differentiation of the own manifestation and the one who manifests, just as fire burns the fuel by means of burning manifestation.

PravachanSar (Gatha 16)- In this way this soul attaining own nature is Omniscient, being himself   worshipped by all the kings of all the Loks is therefore Swayambhoo- thus has been told by Jinendra.

Here himself term denotes all the six predicates in Nishchaya form. Therefore soul does not have predicate form relationship with others definitely, due to which searching for the materials for attainment of Shuddha soul nature, the restless jivas become dependent.

In this way manifesting by himself in undifferentiated six predicates form  this soul,  in the proposal for generation of keval gyan with  Paramatma nature, does not expect presence of different predicates hence is Swayambhoo.

This also establishes that where this jiva has expectation of others in  vikalpa form, there the generation of ragas etc. form vibhava paryaya takes place.

Continued…..