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……
No comments:
Post a Comment