2. Pramanikata of Divya Dhwani
The rival
group has based it upon the Pramanikata of speaker and in this way declared our
calling Divya Dhwani to be self dependent Praman as contrary to Agam. In this
way their statements are as follows-
(a) The
words are dependent upon the activity of the person hence words convey the
meaning of substances artificially. Words do not tell their meaning and the speaker
only convey their meaning.
(b) The
illumination of substances by means of words is dependent upon the activity of
speaker hence they cannot have self
dependent Pramanikata.
(c ) The
pramanata of divya Dhwani is by means of Pramanata of Keval Gyan.
(d) The
capability of worldly or Agam words to illuminate the substances should be considered
to be dependent upon the indications of speakers.
These points
are examined sequentially as follows-
(a) Out of
23 types of Varganas, Bhasha Vargana is independent. The Bhasha Vargana which
manifests in word form being Upadan by itself, in that the activity of palate
etc. of speaker is nimitta only. Hence
their conveyance of meaning of substances could be dependent upon the
activities of the speaker – this is not possible in all three periods of time. The person who violates the
Nishchaya side and supports only Ekant of Vyavahara side, he only can insist
that ‘ the meaning conveyance of words and substances is artificial hence it is
dependent upon the activity of speaker ‘ – not any other person.
In the Agam
it has been clearly told that the speech which manifests in true, untrue, both
and neither forms , its that type of manifestation can neither be generated by
the activity of palate etc. of speaker, nor due to the desire or knowledge etc.
of the speaker. The time
at which the truth etc. form speech is generated, at that time, that truth etc.
form speech varganas manifest in accordance with their own Upadan. At the time of generation the activities of
palate etc. of speaker and fruition of punya of bhavya jivas etc. are surely
nimitta. These continue to have such nimitta-naimittik relationship since
eternal times. Therefore the meaning conveyance of substances by words is
dependent upon their natural capability and rest is all nimitta only.
(b) The rival group believes that
the explanation of the substances by means of the words is dependent upon the
activity of the speaker, hence they cannot have self dependent Pramanikata.
From this is
gets construed that Upadan does not have
capability of manifesting in deed form and only by means of nimittas the
activities are carried out. Hence Upadan would cease to exist.
Although in
Agam it has been accepted that the Pramanata of words is based upon the
Pramanata of the speaker, but there it implies that the if the speaker is of
the ragi-dweshi form then he cannot be nimitta for the right pramanik speech in all three periods of time.
(c-d) The
natural capability of worldly and Agam words is not dependent upon the
indication of the speakers but is in accordance with their own Upadan. On this
basis only in the Lok as well as Agam, every word, is accepted to be
illuminator of the substances.
It is clear that the words have Pramanata based
upon themselves only in respect of their Upadan and from aspect of nimitta they
are accepted as others dependent Praman in Agam in Vyavahara sense.
3. Clarification of Agam Pramans
The rival
group has not accepted the Pramanata of words to be self dependent and they
have quoted references of Agam Pramans. In what context these Agam references
are used is clarified below-
(a) The
Mimamsak believes every letter to be permanent and even though their issuance
is by means of activities of palate etc., he does not accept it to be
transitory in deed form. Prameya Kamal Martand says that ‘ The words do not say
that this is our meaning or not but people only derive their meaning’. Using
this quote believing the words to have meaning based upon the derivations of
the people in ekant sense is not right. Otherwise the meaning of Divya Dhwani
of Kevali Jina would be understood by each listener in accordance with his own derivations
and all would not have the same meaning. For example ‘Jiva is ‘ would be
understood to be ‘jiva is not there’ or ‘ Pudgala is there’. In this way the
Pramanata of Agam would not be established. Hence it is better to accept that
words have eternal tradition of Vachya-vachak (narrated-narrator) relation with
meaning.
(b) Keeping in mind the Vedas, it has been told
in Dhavala that ‘ Pramanata of words is derived from the Pramanata of speaker’
This is told to believer of
non-omniscient but it is not right to accept it in Ekant form. Hence with this
Praman also the self dependent Pramanta of Divya Dhwani cannot be said to be
contrary to Agam.
(c ) The point under consideration is
that in accordance with tradition of cause-effect, in the issuance of Divya
Dhwani of Tirthankara the nimitta should be considered to be Prayogic or
Visrasa ?
Bandh has
two divisions – Prayogic and Vaisrasik. Where the activity of person is not
required that is Vaisrasik bandh, just as dry-wet paramanu , clouds, fire etc. Where the activity of person is
nimitta , that is Prayogic. The Jiva bandh with karma and nokarma is Prayogic
bandh related to jiva-ajiva.
The activities for which the yoga of purush and
vikalpa both are accepted as nimitta, they are called Prayogic deeds. Just as in production of pot, both
vikalpa and yoga are nimitta. Nimitta different then these would be called
Visrasa Nimitta.
With complete absence of raga in Tirthankara, it
would not be fair to call it Prayogic nimitta. His speech activity is not generated by usage of mind (bhava mind) since that is absent.
Hence he cannot be called as hetu Karta. Only yoga kriya is hetu in the
issuance of divya Dhwani. From this aspect Tirthankara is called as Artha Karta
everywhere in Agam. From this aspect only Divya Dhwani is called as deed of
Keval Gyan in Agam.
From which
aspect Munis and Acharyas are called as author of Granth, gets clarified by the
knowledge of meaning of Prayogic word. Here it has to be considered from two
aspects – one is gyan bhava and other is raga bhava. From aspect of gyan bhava
when jiva manifests in swabhava form then there is not even an iota of other
dravyas activity. Hence he cannot be called as author of granth. This is from
aspect of Nishchaya naya. From aspect of Vyavahara naya, in the vikalpa state
the contemplation of preachment and desire for granth creation occurs. This
raga they consider as despicable and not venerable. From this aspect only he is
called as author of granth. With this intent only Kunda Kunda and Amrit Chandra
use the term ‘Vocchaami’ . In reality it is the result of the manifestation of
words in that form. Kunda Kunda and Amrit Chandra are merely nimitta from
aspect of yoga and raga.
Contemplation
of Five Siddhantas-
(1) Soul is not karta of paryayas of
other dravya in view of the consideration of engrossment from pervasive-pervaded
sense.
Here the
soul is considered in Upadan form. From aspect of Vyavahara to provide the knowledge of nimitta, one
dravya is called as karta of paryaya of another dravya in upachar sense.
(2) Any dravya subject of
Dravyarthika naya is not Vyavahara hetu in the generation of paryaya of other
dravya.
Since, if
Jiva is believed to be karta in Nimitta-Naimittik sense for the paryayas of
other dravya then it always would need to remain karta in nimitta form since it
is always in the same form . From this the Siddhant is derived that ‘ Samanya
soul is not karta in nimitta-naimittik sense for the peryayas of other
dravya’ Otherwise it results in
situation of Nitya Nimitta Kartritva.
(3) Gyani does not have ownership of
ragas etc. therefore he does not become nimitta karta of paryayas of other
dravyas. Therefore – The Yoga and Upayoga (vikalpa) of Agyani are
nimitta karta of the paryayas of other dravya from aspect of Vyavahara.
(4) Agyan bhava has opposition to Gyan Bhava hence –
Soul is karta of Yoga and Upayoga in Agyan bhava even then it is not karta of
paryayas of other dravya at all.
(5) Gyan Bhava or Swabhava paryaya
are the same, hence – soul is not nimitta karta of the paryayas of other dravya
from aspect of gyan bhava.
9.1. Answer- The worldly jiva from aspect of
Sadbhoot Vyavahara form Ashuddha Nishchaya naya is bonded with his agyan form
raga, dwesha and moha etc. ashuddha bhavas.
The soul
being upayoga form is of the nature of savikalpa and nirvikalpa intelligence
form. Identifying various shaped substances apparent within the self he
indulges in moha, raga, dwesha with them and being of the form of corrupted
soul nature, he himself is bondage form alone.
From aspect of asadbhoot vyavahara naya he is
bonded with gyanavarana etc. eight dravya karmas and audarik bodily nokarma .
From aspect of Shuddha nishchaya naya, the param
paarinamika bhava form Shuddha jiva has absence of dravya karma, bhava karma
and nokarma, hence he is devoid of all the flaws.
Therefore
the worldly soul, at the time of making efforts for getting rid of dravya-bhava
form both bondages, has necessity of taking recourse to both
nishchaya-vyavahara form dharma.
When this
soul taking recourse to his own supremely
stationary Paramatma form gyayak bhava engages in Samyak purushartha
then within him Nishchaya Jewel trio form purity keeps getting explicit and in
the same proportion, externally the dravya karmas keep getting eliminated along
with attainment of Vyavahara dharma.
Counter Question 2- You have believed the worldly soul to be dependent but upon whom? This
answer was not provided.
Raga,
Dwesha, Moha form manifestations are corrupted paryayas of jiva which have
pervasive-pervaded relationship with the jiva. Jiva cannot have bonder-bonded
relationship with the ragas etc. form paryaya. Therefore telling that moha,
raga, dwesha paryaya are bonded with the jiva is improper. Moha, rga, dwesha
form manifestations are cause for bondage and in formal sense the effect is
treated as the cause and hence they are called as bhava bandh in Agam.
Dravya karma
leads to bhava karma and bhava karma leads to dravya karma. In this way the
tradition of dravya karma and bhava karma continues for the worldly jiva.
Panchastikaya
129-130- The worldly jiva since eternal times, is tainted with mohaniya karma
in ragas etc. form which leads to pudgala manifestation form dravya karma. With
the fruition of dravya karma, narak etc. form gati, body and senses are
acquired which cause engagement in sensory subjects and raga-dwesha. The
raga-dwesha results in tainting of soul manifestations which lead to pudgala karma bondage.
In this way
the jiva manifests in raga dwesha etc. form with the nimitta of pudgala karma
in the world and with the manifestations of raga dwesha form of jiva the
pudgala karma manifests.
Mohaniya
etc. dravya karma are the instigating nimitta cause for the raga dwesha etc.
corrupted bhavas of the soul and the raga dwesha etc. corrupted bhavas of the
soul are instigating nimitta cause for the bandh of dravya karma.
When the soul with his strong purushartha destroys
the dravya karmas- mohaniya etc., then with the elimination of nimitta cause
for corruption the raga-dwesha and naimittik corruption bhavas of the soul get
eliminated . In that condition the dependence of the soul also gets eliminated.
Your sequence of elimination of bondage is not
right.
In SamaySar (161-163)
the dravya karma has been declared as hindering reason for darshan, gyan,
charitra due to nimitta of which the soul becomes Mithya Drishti, Agyani, and
Asanyami.
Hence with
the rule of cause-effect relationship when the hindering nimitta causes are
eliminated then the samyaktva, gyan, charitra qualities of soul get revealed.
Whereas your statement is that firstly agyan etc.
get destroyed and later gyanavarana etc. dravya karmas get destroyed
automatically.
Amrit
Chandra Suri (Commentary of Gatha 151 Panchastikaya) - With the destruction of
Ghati karmas, the keval gyan having capability of knowing all the substances
get revealed.
Therefore your statement is reverse of the
sequence described in Siddhant that firstly bhava karma i.e. moha raga dwesha
are destroyed and later mohaniya etc. dravya karmas get destroyed.
Your
statement is “ if the worldly soul does not indulge in internal purushartha for
elimination of raga dweshqa moha form agyan bhavas which are existent in his
paryaya in bondage form and merely engages in vyavahara dharma which are
described in agam, then the nirjara of dravya karmas attained would be next to
nothing.”
Whereas
according to Agam the progress of Vyavahara dharma only provides attainment of nishchaya
dharma. The other dravyas only are cause for generation of the raga dwesha
bhava in the soul. If it is not so then the soul would become non-karta of raga
etc. bhavas. So long as soul does not engage in pratikraman-pratyakhyan of
other substances which are nimitta for raga-dwesha etc. bhavas, till then he
cannot carry out pratikraman-pratyakhyan of naimittik form raga-dwesha etc.
bhavas. Till then he is karta only of the raga etc. bhavas. In this way-
(1) For
being free of raga dwesha etc. form corrupted manifestations, it is very
essential to carry out vyavahara dharma of pratikraman, pratyakhyan etc.form.
(2) For
attainment of bhava Shuddhi, firstly the renunciation of other substances is
very essential.
The
differentiating knowledge which has not renounced asravas ( cause of karma asrava), that is not
differentiating knowledge itself. Hence the success of gyan is not only to know
the tattvas, but being free of pap activities and sensory enjoyments which are
cause for asravas and engaging in vyavahara dharma practice. The sutras
establish that vyavahara charitra is cause for samvar of karma and nirjara of
karma. The success of gyan is not merely tattva gyan but is in differentiating
knowledge and the success of differentiating knowledge is with success of
charitra.
For
attainment of salvation the internal reason is bhavyatva, samyaktva form upadan
reason and external nimitta reason is shravak dharma and muni dharma form
vyavahara charitra.
Without Muni
charitra one cannot have dharma dhyan and Shukla dhyan. This Siddhant
establishes the necessity of vyavahara charitra.
Aapt
Pariksha- Bhava bandh (rag, dwesha, agyan) do not happen without dravya bandh
(gyanavarana etc. karmas) since without dravya bandh if bhava bandh takes place
then even liberated jivas would have raga dwesha form bhava bandh . Hence the
reason for non-independence of soul is dravya form dravya karma only primarily.
Continued…..
No comments:
Post a Comment