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….