Seventeen Questions…..23

 

Question 12

Similar to having faith in KuDeva, KuGuru, KuShastra, having faith in SuDeva, SuGuru, SuShastra is also Mithyatva – Is believing or telling  so, in accordance with shastras?

1. Answer- Having faith in KuDeva, KuGuru, Kushastra is graheet (appropriated) Mithyatva and faith in SuDeva, SuGuru, Sushastra is Vyavahara Samyak darshan.

Niyamsar 5- Faith in Aapt, Agam and Tattvas cause Samyaktva. This is the statement of the form of Vyavahara Samyaktva.

Samyak Drishti has such faith for sure and he treats such declaration as authored in  shastra.

Question 13

When the fruition of punya has been told to be the attainment of the state of Arihant due to which this soul becomes owner of the three loks, which has been called as extremely magnificent punya; then is it in accordance with shastras to  call that punya as poor and renounceable and believing thus ?

13.1 Answer – Punya-pap are counted within the asrava-bandh substances and both are cause of the world. Hence in spite of their being different from aspects of reason, swabhava (nature), experience and support; from aspect of dravyarthika naya there is no difference in them, hence they are described as means for the world.

Samaysar 147- Therefore do not do raga with both these kusheels (immoral) and don’t have their companionship either since it leads to loss of independence . It is clear that considering the intent for which a preachment is made, from that aspect only it should be accepted to be in accordance with shastra.

Counter Question 2- It is surprising that ‘ In this lowly fifth kaal which is unsuitable with bodily and mental capability for attainment of salvation, the preachment of traditional  punya bhava which results in Moksha is described as renounceable.’  If others are preached for abandoning punya practice then would it be called appropriate? Is the suitability of listeners of the present times better than that of 4^th kaal also?

Pravachansar 260- Shuddhopayogi or Shubhopayogi Munis devoid of Ashubha Upayoga enable people to cross the worldly ocean.

Pravachansar 254- The excellent practices of Munis and householders are commendable by means of which they attain Moksha Sukh.

From these Pramans it is established that Shubhopayoga, Punya or Vyavahara Charitra are Paryaya words carrying the same meaning. They are called as Sarag Charitra or Sarag Dharma also. This is the cause of bandh of punya karma and due to detachment from Pap activities, it is also cause for Samvar and Nirjara.  This detachment only with practice manifests into Shuddha manifestation form. From this aspect shubhopayoga or punya bhava is cause for shuddhopayoga. The Punya bhava of 7^th gunasthana converts into shuddhopayoga of 8^th gunasthana. In the same way the shubhopayoga of 5^th and 6^th gunasthana is cause for shuddhopayoga.

Dhavala 2/247- With the darshan of idol of Jinendra Bhagwan Nidhatti, Nikachit form Mithyatva etc. karma groups get destroyed.

Dhavala 13/76 – What is the result of dharma dhyan? Answer- Non Kshapak jivas get Deva paryaya and Nirjara of karmas within guna shreni are the benefits. For the Kshapak Jivas the nirjara of karma Pradesh occurs in innumerable guna shreni form and the intensity of Shubha karmas is supreme.

Bhava Sangrah 610 - The  6 Avashyak karmas of Samyak Drishti namely, VaiyyaVritya, donation, pooja etc. acts are cause for nirjara of karmas.

In this way with various proofs it is established that punya bhava i.e. the Shubha manifestations or Vyavahara charitra of 4,5,6,7 gunasthanas are means for samvar and nirjara. In them depending upon the fraction of ragas the Shubha asrava bandh takes place and with the fraction of renunciation Nirjara takes place. The punya bhava of the last samaya of Satishya Apramatta Guna sthana becomes shuddhopayoga form in the next samaya. In this way the punya bhava and Shuddha bhava have Upadan- Upadeya relationship. Hence the punya bhava of Samyak Drishti is not renounceable. Therefore Punya bhava should never be considered as despicable.

13.2 Answer-  The question is that ‘the thing which was acceptable in fourth kaal has now  become unacceptable in 5^th kaal ?’ The answer is that the path of Moksha Marga does not change with the change of kaal. Punya and Pap both are divisions of karma and with their destruction only Moksha is attained. The fruition of punya is Arihant and with the extremely supreme punya one gets to be owner of three loks. These are the Praman sentences of shastras. But it should be seen that in which aspect  they have been described.

Is it Nishchaya statement or merely because of the respect of the people of three loks, the ownership of the three loks  has been conferred in Upachar sense? Being assistant of Nishchaya dharma the Vyavahara dharma form punya practices are preached in Agam but they are not cause for Moksha. The means of Moksha is detachment only.

In Samaysar 145 it is told that how can that be called as Susheel which makes jiva to traverse the world ? From aspect of bandh the punya-pap are the same.

In Counter question 2 also it is written in conclusion that the fraction of detachment results in samvar nirjara and the fraction of ragas cause Shubha asrava bandh. Then the question does not remain question any more since Shubha raga fraction is accepted as cause for bandh.

Counter Question 3- Our question was from the aspect of punya bhava but your answer is from aspect of punya form dravya karma.

Only raga fraction of Samyak Drishti is not Shubha bhava. His mixed indivisible paryaya is named as Shubha bhava. From this the fraction of raga causes bandh and pure fraction results in samvar-nirjara. In Shubha bhava also the goal form detachment and Shuddha state i.e. attainment of Moksha only is there. Jiva by worshipping Arihant-Siddha Bhagwan different from self  becomes one like him, just as wick with the  worship of lamp becomes one like it.

Samaysar 12- So long as soul does not get purified, till then Vyavahara is meaningful.

From this it is clear that Vyavahara dharma practiced by Mithya Drishti also is means for attainment of Samyaktva. It means that without Vyavahara dharma the Shuddha soul cannot be attained.

Padma Purana 39 - O Bharat! With the devotion towards Jinendra Deva the karmas get destroyed and supreme state is attained with incomparable bliss.

There are several Granths which are proofs wherein the householder has been advised to undertake Pooja, charity etc. and the stavan, Vandana, pratikraman etc. form vyavahara dharma of Munis have been told to be six essential acts. If these are means for bandh then have the great Munis preached to accrue bondage and sink in the world?

With fruition of punya prakritis such dravya, kshetra, kaal and bhava are attained which help in Moksha Marg.

13.3. Answer- In Pravachansar 43,44 it is written that Kriya and fruition of Kriya are obtained  on account of indulging in accordance with the  fruition of Moha and not on account of gyan i.e. it does not occur by indulging in gyan nature. Upon this the question arises that Kriya of Arihant is seen but its fruition is not seen. So why? In reply the Gatha 45 says that fruition of punya is Arihant state. Here it is clear that the punya state implies punya form fruition of dravya karma only.

In Panchastikaya 135 Gatha, the definition of Shubha Parinaam is auspicious raga, compassionate manifestation and purity of mind. Those who have such three Shubha manifestations, such Jivas have asrava of bhava punya which are nimitta of asrava of dravya punya.

In this way the Shubha parinaam is of three kinds only-

1. Auspicious raga pertaining to Arihant

2. Compassionate Parinaam i.e. Anu-Maha Vrita etc.

3. The absence of anger etc. form passions in the mind.

The auspicious raga are devotion to Arihant, practice of dharma etc. That auspicious raga is carried out by Agyani along with desires of future enjoyments resulting in Nidan bandh. But Gyani jiva in the absence of Nirvikalpa Samadhi carries out for destruction of ashubha raga which are of the form of desires and passions.

With these Pramans it is clear that rival group wishes to imagine mixed indivisible paryaya of passion, along with the Samyak Darshan and Samyak Charitra form purity, to call it as Shubha bhava or shubhopayoga, which is not right. This is his own imagination and not the intent of Agam.

When this jiva is engrossed in subjects of five senses pertaining to the worldly activities, then it is Ashubhopayoga. When he is engaged in Bhakti-stuti, vrita etc. then it is shubhopayoga. When he is engaged in own soul of the form of Vigyan-ghan, then it is shuddhopayoga.

Samyak darshan is swabhava paryaya of belief quality which is different from paryaya of charitra guna, therefore both cannot have mixed indivisible paryaya. The paryaya of charitra guna is definitely sanyamasanyam and Sanyam form mixed paryaya since in them the Shuddha and ashuddha fractions are present together. In it the Shuddha fraction being of Samvar Nirjara form is cause for Samvar Nirjara. The Ashuddha fraction is asrava-bandh form.

Samyak Drishti considers soul nature which is real means for Moksha only as venerable therefore other than it, he considers all others as despicable.

The rival group should know that raga/vikalpa have anvaya-vyatirek (connection- distinction) with others while Veetragata (detachment) has with soul nature. Vyavahara dharma is not duty of soul himself. It is result of lack of purushartha. Doubt could be there that if paryaya can be vibhava, swabhava and mixed form? The answer is that in the mixed paryaya of Charitra, the fraction which is Shuddha, that is state of swa-pratyaya jiva. The Ashuddha fraction is state of swa-par-pratyaya jiva. Hence paryaya can be of two kinds only swabhava and vibhava only.

Manifestations are of two kinds- Par-dravya engaged and swa-dravya engaged. These are special manifestations which are engaged in other dravya or non-special manifestations which are not engaged in others. The special manifestations are of two kinds Shubha and Ashubha while non-special would be Shuddha which can be of one kind only. That only is of the form of karma pudgala destruction form Moksha.

An important question is raised in commentary of Pravachansar  gatha 181 that in respect of naya, all gunasthanas from 1-12 have ashuddha nishchaya naya only, i.e. the jiva is laden with ashuddha paryaya then how can he attain shuddhopayoga?

Answer- The characteristics of Upayoga is taking recourse to Shubha, ashubha and Shuddha dravya. In spite of soul being in ashuddha nishchaya form, due to recourse to Shuddha soul,  having Shuddha goal and being practitioner of Shuddha soul, there also shuddhopayoga form manifestation is attained. From this it is clear that in Agam everywhere auspicious raga manifestation only tainted with dependence upon others has been called as Shubhopayoga only.

One Jiva dravya only manifests within self as causal form as well as effect form. For this reason, for attainment of Moksha there is no support of any other dravya. Hence only shuddha soul should be experienced.

Vyavahara is useful – this is not negated. Negation is of the belief that with recourse to Vyavahara one attains supreme self. When thee Vyavahara dharma of Samyak Drishti is not real means for Nishchaya dharma then how can the Vyavahara of Mithya Drishti be means for attainment of Nishchaya dharma?

Answers to some Questions

1. Rival group has mentioned that in 12^th Gunasthana Vyavahara dharma is practiced.

In reality Vyavahara dharma having characteristics of other’s dependence is practiced up to 6^th Gunasthana only. Beyond that up to 9^th gunasthana differentiation form chhedopasthapana Sanyam has been described. Hence imagining punya bhava in 12^th gunasthana and telling generation of Keval Gyan from the same is not proper. From 7^th to 12^th there is recourse to only gyayak swabhava  and with manifestation in that form the Shuddha naya form shuddhopayoga is practiced. Hence Nishchaya jewel trio manifested form soul only generates Keval Gyan in the last samaya of 12^th gunasthana and not bandh form Vyavahara dharma.

From Agam Praman it is clear that in 7^th only Shuddhopayoga is experienced and not Shubhopayoga. Apramatta Gunasthana has two divisions- swa-sthan apramatta and satishaya apramatta. In swasthana apramatta, dharma dhyan is experienced while satishaya apramatta occurs in shreni where  Shukla dhyan is experienced.

Panchastikaya 136- Dharma dhyan devoid of ragas etc. vikalpas is attained by Swasthan Apramatta sanyat.

From this it is clear that in 7^th the dharma dhyan of swa sthan apramatta is shuddhopayoga form only. Further in 4^th etc. also sometimes Shuddhopayoga state is attained.

2. Rival Group has tried to establish with quotes of Dhavala that 5 MahaVrita,  5 Samiti, 3 Gupti etc. form Vyavahara Charitra occurs in 12^th gunasthana also. With that punya bhava with destruction of karmas Keval Gyan is generated.

The answer is that in Dhavala 14, the term  ‘Apramad’ has been defined as lack of 5 Mahavrita, 5 Samilti, 3 Gupti and residual Kashaya.

3. The Nishchaya cause for attainment of Samyaktva is recourse to gyayak natured soul which is subject of Shuddha naya and not external vikalpa form punya bhava. Soul engaged in  own nature is the most effective  means and Nishchaya karta .

Continued…..

Seventeen Questions …..22

 

Question 11

The manifestation has two divisions namely swa-pratyaya and swa-par-pratyaya; what is their real difference?

11.1. Answer – All swabhava paryayas of all dravyas are swa-pratyaya only. The vibhava paryayas of jiva and pudgala are swa-par-pratyaya. Here the swa-partyaya term represents the Upadan capability of that dravya. In Swa-par-pratyaya, along with the Upadan shakti of specific dravya, the nimittas, which are of the form of karta and means ,for those paryayas are also included.

By means of their own Agurulaghuguna, the six order haani-vriddhi form experience of differentness is swabhava paryaya which manifests at every samaya in all dravyas. The differentness observed in swabhava on account of swa-par of colour etc. or knowledge etc. in the previous and next states is vibhava paryaya.

Counter Question 2 – Although the swa-pratyaya paryayas of substance are swabhava form only but all swabhava paryayas are not swa-pratyaya. Just as you have accepted the six order haani-vriddhi form paryayas manifesting at every samaya due to agurulaghuguna of all dravyas to be  swa-pratyaya paryayas. That may be right, but those of akash dravya with the nimitta of other dravya pertaining to accommodation quality, dharma dravya pertaining to gati guna with the nimitta of jivas and pudgala manifesting in movement form , adharma dravya pertaining to sthiti guna with the nimitta of jivas and pudgala manifesting in sthiti form, kaal dravya pertaining to manifesting guna with the nimitta of all manifesting dravyas, the paryayas of gyan guna of the liberated jivas in the upayoga form with the nimitta of gyeya form other substances, the kshayik and aupashamik paryayas  generated due to karma destruction and karma upasham of the worldly jivas bonded with karma and no karma; all these paryayas in spite of being natural paryayas are swa-par-pratyaya only and not swa-pratyaya.

In the same way the nar-narak etc. paryayas and karma and body form paryayas of pudgala and jivas, being vibhava form are swa-par-pratyaya. Several natural paryayas of each substance are also counted in swa-par-pratyaya only.

In this way the different paryayas of all the dravyas of the world should be categorised in swa-pratyaya, natural swa-par-pratyaya and vaibhavik (non natural) swa-par-pratyaya manifestations.

Th difference between swa-pratyaya and swa-par-pratyaya is this. In swa-pratyaya manifestations karta, karan form nimittas are not counted as reasons while in swa-par-pratyaya they are essential.

11.2. Answer- The manifestation in dharma etc. dravyas is swa-pratyaya only (ignoring kaal as Udaseen nimitta) which is real, even then manushya, animals, birds etc. jivas have differences from aspects of gati etc. at every moment hence they are treated as par-pratyaya manifestations in vyavahara sense.

In the same way the swabhava paryaya of jiva is swa-pratyaya and the paryayas generated  with the nimitta of pudgala dravya form karma-nokarma are called as vibhava paryaya which are swa-par-pratyaya. In the same way the pudgala paramanu has swabhav paryaya which is swa-pratyaya and skandh form vibhava paryaya is swa-par-pratyaya.

In the swa-par-pratyaya form paryaya, the meaning of nimitta-ness of other does not mean that like upadan, nimitta also generates that paryaya. This arrangement is not there in Agam. The reason is that the ownership of paryaya is in dravya, the other substance is merely nimitta only. In such cases within the limitations of  other nimitta,  it is not supporting nimitta, but special nimitta. This only is the Agam tradition.

Counter Question 3 – The knowing form manifestations of the knowledge quality of jiva, in the shape of Upayoga, for knowing the external substances and the gati etc. gunas of dharma etc. dravyas, resulting in gati of jiva and pudgala etc. should be called as natural swa-par-pratyaya manifestations only. These manifestations are not vibhava form corrupted manifestations hence they cannot be called vaibhavik swa-par-pratyaya manifestations. These cannot be called swa-pratyaya either since it is dependent upon others. Secondly in Agam wherever description of swa-pratyaya manifestations is seen, there everywhere the six order haani-vriddhi form manifestations due to agurulaghuguna only of dravya are called as swa-pratyaya manifestations.

Just as Upayoga shape manifestations of gyan pertaining to gyeya substances are not imaginary, in the same way the manifestations of dharma etc. dravya pertaining to other substances are not imaginary (asadbhoot).

The term equal does not mean that like Upadan, Nimitta also manifests in deed form . But it is with this intent that for generation of the swa-par-pratyaya manifestation form deed, the assisting cause form nimitta is equally required as much as the Upadan for the deed. It means that Upadan (supporting cause) and Nimitta (assisting cause) – by ignoring any one of them, the deed (swa-par-pratyaya form manifestation) cannot be carried out. Nimitta is required to lesser extent- such thinking is erroneous.

Nimitta like Upadan is real , useful and not imaginary. It is not Upacharit or attributed.

11.3. Answer- We had mentioned in our reply that  just as in the generation of swa-par-pratyaya paryayas, the specific paryayas of kaal etc. dravyas suitably function as supporting nimitta, in the same way for the generation of swa-pratyaya paryayas the specific paryayas of kaal dravya suitably function as supporting nimitta. They are ordinary  nimitta hence in both places there is no difference in statement. Here the implication is that in ‘Swa-pratyaya’ the word  ‘swa’  represents own upadan while in ‘swa-par-pratyaya’ the word ‘swa’ represents own upadan and ‘par’ word represents own ‘extraordinary’ nimittas.

Even  then in the counter question 3, three types of paryayas have been established and by means of infinite agurulaghu guna the six order haani-vriddhi form paryaya manifesting at every samaya of dravyas has been accepted as ‘swa-pratyaya’. In this way in Ekant manner only Nishchaya (Upadan) side has been accepted while Vyavahara (upachar) side has been abandoned. Whereas the intent of agam is that compatible Vyavahara of every Nishchaya  occurs in definite way. Whether it be swabhav deed or vibhava deed, in both of them the completeness of external and internal  effects is then only possible when for generation of deed the Upadan and Vyavahara both are accepted to be equally pervasive.

In the Agam everywhere the swabhav paryayas have been accepted as swa-pratyaya form. Even then in counter question 2, other than six order haani-vriddhi form paryayas wnich are manifesting in infinite agurulaghu guna form, all other swabhava paryayas have been attempted to be established as swa-par-pratyaya. Swabhav paryayas have been divided into two parts which is not seen in Agam. The mention of six order haani vriddhi form  swa-pratyaya paryayas has been made in Agam in the form of general characteristics only.

We had written that ‘ those which are ordinnary nimitta, they do not have specific mention in both places hence are not counted.’ This has been wrongly interpreted.

Swabhava paryayas have been accepted as swa-pratyaya since for their generation  there is absolute absence of external nimitta which are cause for vibhava although the supporting nimittas have not been negated. Its meaning they have taken that ‘swabhava paryaya are also swa-par-pratyaya like vibhava paryayas.

Based upon the above we consider their issues raised in Counter question3-

(1) Paryayas are of two types only

The rival group wishes to say that in every manifestation, the expectation of ‘swa’ is surely there but it is carried out  by ‘par’ (other) only. This has been declared as the specialty of Jain Sanskriti.

The divisions of paryayas into three types cannot be carried out in the case of general nimittas. For this the following proofs are provided-

Pravachanasar 13- The pleasure of souls engaged in shuddhopayoga is, extraordinary, self generated, beyond words, incomparable, infinite and unlimited.

Here generated by self i.e. ‘swa-pratyaya’ only is mentioned and not ‘swa-par-pratyaya’. It is clear that swabhav paryaya of every dravya has been called as swa-pratyaya only in agam. In this way when there is no dependence upon support of others for generation of paryaya , and if it is produced by own support , that is swabhav paryaya being swa-pratyaya. In Agam the swabhav paryaya has not been named any other way.

And those paryayas which at the time of their birth, are generated with the nimitta of paryayas of other dravya in karta or karan form , they are vibhava paryayas. That only is swa-par-pratyaya.

Here the reason for mentioning karta, karan, prerak nimitta does not mean that they forcibly generate paryayas of other dravya. Otherwise it would lead to unity of two dravyas. Therefore the mention of karta etc, in the paryaya of other dravya should be known as Upacharita Vyavahara only.

(2) Clarification of two types of paryayas

It has to be considered whether there are paryayas of dravya wherein even kaal has not been accepted as nimitta form? Since rival group says that ‘ the six order haan-vriddhi form manifestations caused by agurulaghu guna in the dravya only are swa-pratyaya manifestations’.

(i) According to Agam, prayayas are of two types only- swa-pratyaya and swa-par-pratyaya. All the vibhava paryayas of worldly jivas and pudgala skandhs are swa-par-pratyaya. All the remaining paryayas are swa-pratyaya but in all of them kaal dravya is supporting cause. For all the paryayas of every dravya the general external cause is kaal.

From this it is clear that in Agam where six order haani-vriddhi form paryayas due to nimitta of agurulaghu guna are metioned, there internal means only has been told. It does not mean that there the external means form Nishchaya kaal is also not there.

Where nimitta form external materials  for vibhava are not existent , there kaal is definitely present in external means form . But in swabhava paryayas they are not mentioned in agam.   

(ii) The general quality of Akash dravya is providing accommodation. Now it has to be considered that how it supports utpad-vyaya?

By ignoring the Dravyarthika naya and with the primacy of paryayarthika naya, with the consideration of division of swa-pratyaya agurulaghu guna haani-vriddhi  and consideration of jiva-pudgala par-pratyaya accommodation division, the utpad of akash is accomplished. – Tattvartha Vartik 5/18.

This is the proof that there not a single event where joint nimitta has not been applied.

Here  the Utpad of akash is being told by the division of accommodation which in spite of  being swa-pratyaya with nimitta of agurulaghu guna, how does it manifest in par-pratyaya form – this has been established.

(iii) In the same way in Dharmastikaya etc. also by means of swa-pratyaya infinite agurulaghuguna haani-vriddhi form variations and by means of the par-pratyaya gati-karanatva-vishesh etc. amoortatva, achetanatva, asamkhya pradeshatva, gati karan swabhav and Astitva etc. non-opposing and mutually opposing dharmas should be known.

(iv) Which are described  by rival group as six order haani-vriddhi form swa-pratyaya manifestation due to agurulaghu guna , they also are produced in the presence of external and internal Upadhi (effects). This should be understood.

(v) The vibhava paryayas are also six order haani-vriddhi form .

This establishes that all manifestations occur in the presence of external and internal Upadhi (effects). Therefore the statement of rival group that six order haani-vriddhi form manifestations due to agurulaghu guna is exception to it , is contrary to Agam.

The manifestation of soul is of two types- (1) natural ( 2) guest form

In them being own nature form the infinite knowledge etc. are natural manifestation while with karma fruition nimitta the flaws of agyan etc. are guest manifestation.

In this way the paryayas are of two kinds only and not three types.

(3) Clarification in the context of Upadhi (imposition/appellation)

The flag in conjunction of the wind flutters and stone in the absence of same remains stationary. In both manifestations the kaal dravya is nimitta form. In Avagahan (accommodation) akash dravya is nimitta, in fluttering dharma dravya is nimitta , for stone to remain stationary adhrma dravya in nimitta form is present.

Even so with the presence of these dravyas along with kaal dravyas,  with their nimitta, their imposition-ness is not noticed. It is clear that with these ordinary  nimitta not attaining special Upadhi name, from their aspect the swabhava paryaya cannot be called as having Upadhi (imposition). Hence paryayas are of two kinds only and not three.

(4) Modification of meaning of the Gathas

Samaysar 118- If Jiva manifests pudgala dravya in karma form , then without being manifested into karma form himself, how can conscious jiva manifest them?

Rival Group- If jiva manifests pudgala dravya into karma bhava, then in the absence of capability of manifesting himself in pudgala dravya form, how can jiva manifest it into karma form?

In Gatha it has been told that in Jiva and Pudgala the manifestations that occur, they themselves cause them independently being karta. But rival group implies that Jiva and pudgala have merely capability of manifestation. But own manifestation is not their own deed but that of Upadhi.

Continued……

Seventeen Questions…..21

                                                                         Question 10

The bondage of Jiva and pudgalas and those of two-anu etc. skandhs is real or non-real? If it is non-real then Kevali Bhagwan is aware of it or not?

10.1  Answer – Pravachansar 177- With the nimitta of mutual manifestation of jiva and karma pudgala, the special mutual accommodation which occurs is the joint bandh. In the same  way the bandh having characteristics of special mutual accommodation  between two or more than two paramanus by mutual nimitta alone is called skandh.

Here taking recourse to Vyavahara naya, the special accommodation between two dravyas by mutual nimitta alone is accepted as bandh form. Since those dravyas keep their own sovereignty  from aspects of dravya, kshetra, kaal and bhava forms , therefore from aspect of Nishchaya naya there is no bandh.

Niyamsar- From aspect of Nishchaya, Paramanu is called as pudgala dravya. From aspect of Vyavahara, skandh is called as pudgala dravya.

In this way from aspect of Vyavahara only the bandh of pudgala with pudgala and jiva with pudgala have been described in Agam. From this it can be concluded that the state of specific dravya in specific kaal is known to Kevali in the same way as it is and the way he knows it is described in Agam.

Counter Question 2 – (1) You have accepted two dravyas to be mutually nimitta for each other. What is the meaning of nimitta for you?

(2) What is the meaning of special mutual accommodation?

(3) What is the meaning of Vyavahara naya and its dependence in bandh?

(4) In this context , this is also a question that between separate two or more Paramanus and skandh form two or more paramanus, what difference do you accept? Do you accept that difference to be real or not?

(5) From your statement it appears that the bandh of jiva and pudgala and that of different paramanus, you wish to accept as non-real only. Then our question is that whether omniscient is aware of this non-real mass form world or not?

10.2  Answer -  The answers to  your five doubts are as follows-

(1) The agyan form moha, raga, dwesha manifestations and yoga of jiva are nimitta for the bondage of dravya karma and fruition of gyanavarana etc. karmas are nimitta for the agyan form jiva bhavas. The quantum of two more  gunas in dry or wet gunas in two pudgala paramanus is nimitta for mutual bondage. In the same way the nimitta of bandh in pudgala skandh should also be known. This only is the nimitta-ness of bondage of two dravyas here.

(2) Although from aspect of Vyavahara naya all six dravyas are available in same kshetra but in them special mutual accommodation is not existent from aspect of nimitta-naimittik bhava for all of them. Where the special accommodation is existent from aspect of nimitta-naimittik bhava, there only bandh vyavahara is carried out. This is the implication.

(3) Vyavahara naya is paryaya of gyan. The meaning of ‘Recourse to Vyavahara’ is ‘from aspect of Vyavahara naya’. From this aspect there is mutual accommodation between two dravyas which is accepted as bandh form.

(4) Two or more different paramanus can have swabhava paryaya or non-natural also. The skandh form two or more paramanus can have vibhava paryaya. Within skandhs both types of manifestations of similar or different  natures can be existent.

(5) From aspect of own sovereignty each paramanu is free; two or more than two paramanus have not become absolutely same. However due to bondage the single mass formation is Upacharita sat (sovereignty). Kevali is aware of both Swaroop sat and Upacharita Sat.

Counter Question 3 -  (1) You have written that fruition of gyanavarana etc. karmas is nimitta for manifesting in agyan form bhavas of jiva. This is not right. The reason is that the fraction in which the fruition of gyanavarana karma is present in the jiva, that results in lack of gyan form agyan only. Which has not been accepted as cause for dravya bandh by Agam or yourselves.

Raga, dwesha and moha form bhavas have been accepted purport of agyan word and they only are called as asravas ( cause for bandh). If it is said that moha, raga, dwesha are corruptions of  upayoga (gyan ) only and that upayoga is generated by the kshayopasham of gyanavarana karma only, therefore it is alright to call fruition of gyanavarana karma as nimitta for agyan, then the  answer is that the corruption of upayoga which has been called as raga, dwesha, moha, that is gyan bhava only produced by the kshayopasham of gyanavarana karma. It is not agyan bhava which is lack of gyan form generated with the fruition of gyanavarana karma.

Upayoga implies gyan only and not lack of gyan.

It appears that in Moksha Marga the knowledge of nature of things only is being given prominence while charitra would happen on its own. Hence you have  written that ‘the fruition of gyanavarana etc.  karmas only is  nimitta for agyan form bhavas of jiva’.

Samaysar has clearly told that by knowing the nature of substance alone, one cannot become Samay Drishti -

Samayasar 72- The differentiating knowledge would then only be meaningful when it stops own  activities caused by the asravas and then only it would be appropriate to say that ‘ gyan results in stoppage of bandh’. The implication is that engaging in activities without gyan is meaningless  and on the other hand the gyan without kriya is also meaningless.

(2) When it is said that vyavahara of bandh is carried out in special mutual accommodation only, then it is also said that it is based upon the nimitta-naimittik bhavas only. In that case in your view, it would be imaginary only since you consider it as Upacharita Asadbhoot. In such a case between mutual contact and special mutual accommodation of six dravyas what would be the difference? This you only can tell.

(3) In your view the nimitta-naimittik bhava and vyavahara both are Upacharit, attributed and asadbhoot only then the bandh on account of these would also have unreal nature. The unreal subject which does not have sovereignty, it is like flower of the sky hence whether it be Vyavahara naya or Nishchaya naya or even keval gyan , it cannot be subject of anything. 

(4) According to you ‘ with mutual bandh, the paryaya of two or more paramanus would be vibhava paryaya’ – how can this be acceptable (to you)? When you consider bandh itself as non real. In our side the vibhava paryaya of bandh of two dravyas is acceptable since our side accepts bandh, vyavahara, nimitta-naimittik bhava etc. as real only in their own individual forms.

(5) So far we understand this only  that you accept bandh, vyavahara, nimitta-naimittik bhava as asadbhoot i.e. without existence.

Upacharit sovereignty would be without existence only, then  what is the use of such differentiation? Even mass without sovereignty is not a subject of keval gyan also. Hence it is not right to say that ‘ kevali Bhagwan knows Upacharita sovereignty in the same way as he knows real sovereignty.’

The 93^rd Gatha of Pravachansar has declared the bandh paryaya of jiva and pudgala as well as two anu etc. form skandh as real.  

Pravachansar 74- Skandh, divisions of Skandh, divisions of divisions and paramanu- in this way the pudgala dravya should be known to have four forms.

All these proofs establish the reality of skandhs generated by the bondage of separately found  paramanus.

Sarvartha Siddhi (5/24)- Unity is from aspect of bandh. With bandh the previous state is renounced and a different third state is generated and hence unity is formed.

In the light of these proofs, the same family paryayas of skandh etc. pudgala dravyas and deva, manushya paryayas formed by the mixture of jiva and pudgala can be produced only if the swa-kaal and swa-bhava of original dravya’s  transitory segment  undergo manifestation.

10.3. Answer -  (1) Lot of surprise has been expressed over our statement that  ‘the fruition of gyanavarana etc. karmas is nimitta for the jiva bhavas of agyan form’.

These bhavas do not belong to the conscious nature of jiva hence they are all called as agyan form. We don’t know why the rival group has interpreted it as agyan form raga, dwesha, moha and yoga. If ragas etc. bhavas can be accepted as agyan form then what would be the objection in accepting agyan, adarshan etc. bhavas to be of agyan form?

Agyan bhavas have implied the audayik bhavas of jiva namely agyan and adarshan etc. Hence their objection is not right that we told the agyan bhava occurring due to fruition of gyanavarana etc. karmas as means for karma bandh. What we had told was that fruition of gyanavarana etc. karmas is nimitta for generation of which form of bhavas. Also it has to be noted that the term ‘etc.’ is included along with gyanavarana.

Can rival group tell that if attainment of swaroop engrossment form charitra occur without tattva gyan? If they accept that the practice of Tattva Gyan is essential for the same then we welcome them. We should join together and create the path which assists in attainment of charitra with Tattva Gyan.

(2) The second objection is that what is the difference remaining between the mutual contact of six dravyas and their mutual special accommodation?

The solution is that you have probably accepted that the mutual  contact between 6 dravyas is Upacharit, imaginary and Asadbhoot only. However you are  hesitant to  accept special mutual accommodation to be Upacharit sat.  Because then the arrangement of nimitta-naimittik relationship would become haywire. However it is not so.

In the Lok, in spite of the Vyavahar of pot of ghee, the pot does not become that of ghee. Merely for identifying a specific pot different from other pots such a Vyavahara is carried out.  In the same way the specific paryaya of a dravya is called as nimitta in vyavahara sense, it does not imply that it carries out specific deed, but in its presence the Upadan has carried out its task, such a knowledge is gained. Observing such external pervasiveness, the specific paryaya of other dravya is called as nimitta and the deed accomplished in its presence is called as Naimittik. Therefore, by accepting Nimitta-Naimittik Vyavahara as Upacharit or Asadbhoot in the tradition of cause-effect relationship, it does not cause any anomaly in Lok or the Agam. If, according to the belief of rival group the Nimitta Vyavahara form external material is accepted as the producer of the deed then in Agam it would not have been described as Vyavahara cause but real cause. But in Agam everywhere it is declared to be Vyavahara cause. In such situation it is appropriate to accept the nimitta Vyavahara as Upacharit for providing the knowledge of the Nishchaya in other dravya’s paryaya.

Therefore by accepting nimitta-naimittik relationship to be upacharit between specific paryayas of two dravyas, it does not cause any hindrance in the Lok Vyavahara.

There is a definite objective in the separation of mutual contact between six dravyas and specific mutual accommodation. In the first informing the presence of six dravyas in specific area of Akash is the prime objective and in the second informing the nimitta-naimittik relationship is main objective.

In this way the bandh described between jiva and karmas, is told from aspect of Anupacharit Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya only. It is clear from the Agam pramans described above.

In the context of bandh, the oneness form manifestation described between two pudgala dravyas merely means that both pudgala without relinquishing their own nature manifest in similar manifestation form possible. But they do not abandon their own natures.

From this, it can be known that in skandh state also any paramanu does not relinquish its own swa-chatushtaya (own-foursome). Just as every paramanu remains existent within its own dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava, in the same way in every paryaya form of every samaya also they remain existent.

The closeness in space and bhava of pudgalas only is called as Ekatva (unification) manifestation. This only is described as pudgala bandh.  Believing it to be anything else is damaging the sovereignty of two dravyas.

Now rival group should decide that the bandh vyavahara between two dravyas is imaginary or meaningful.

(3) Here it was enquired that what is the meaning of “ taking recourse to Vyavahara naya the bandh accrues.” The answer is that taking recourse is same as aspect. Therefore from aspect of Vyavahara naya the bandh accrues.

(4) Every paramanu manifesting in vibhava form attains closeness of space- this only is known as bandh. In Jinagam bandh of such form only has been accepted between two or more paramanus. The same has been described as subject of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya and is Upacharit. If the rival groups also accepts it then they should not derive the meaning of Upachar as imaginary.

(5) Jinadeva only has told that Nishchaya is real while Vyavahara is unreal. The closeness of space or bhava of numerable, innumerable and infinite paramanus only has been described by Sanghat or Skandh etc. names in Jinagam. The closeness is not negated. What is not accepted is the relinquishment of natural sovereignty of the paramanus. In this form, the knowledge of skandh is definitely there with Kevali. The way a thing exists, in that form, in that kaal, he definitely knows it.

In the conjoined state the paryaya of jiva manifests in jiva and that of pudgala in pudgala. The gyan darshan manifestations occur in jiva only and not pudgala. Therefore in bandh the paryayas of several dravyas should not be called in reality as one. From aspect of Vyavahara naya only they have been called as one.

The rival group has stated the generation of Manushya paryaya and skandhs by means of mixture, but they have not clarified what is meant by mixture. Further they have called swa-kaal and swa-bhava of dravya as transitory divisions. But the swa-bhava is persistent then how can it be transitory ?

Continued……

Seventeen Questions…..20

 

9.2. Answer- The answer to this question is given earlier itself from aspects of Vyavahara and Nishchaya naya. From aspect of Nishchaya naya soul is bonded with his faults but from aspect of asadbhoot vyavahara naya it is said that he is bonded with gyanavarana etc. karmas.

The rival group considers the karmas to be the cause for bondage of jiva. According to them, the nimitta which forcibly causes deed in other dravya to be produced earlier or later abandoning its own swa-kaal, that is known as Prerak (instigator) nimitta. If it is so then the soul would never get opportunity to carry out strong purushartha ever. Since the karma fruition -udeerana and the manifestation of raga-dwesha keep happening at every samaya hence karmas would keep the soul to be forcibly dependent and the raga dwesha manifestation would forcibly cause karma bondage. Then all the jivas would always remain worldly only.

Lots of people derive the meaning of the term ‘ cause manifestation’ that the with the power of prerak nimitta the specific work of another dravya can be carried out  earlier or later dispensing with its swa-kaal. But this is not right. Since soul generates pudgala dravya or bonds it  or make it manifest or receive it- these are statements of Vyavahara naya. The support-supported bhava of Lokakash and Dharma etc. dravyas should be known from aspect of Vyavahara naya. From aspect of Nishchaya naya, they stay within their own nature.

Dhavala 11/36- The internal reason is primary. With it being supreme, in spite of the external reason being weak , severe anubhag (intensity) ghat (loss) is seen while with internal reason being weak , even with strong external reason, large anubhag ghat is not attained.

Without knowing the cause for his crime, purushartha in own nature cannot be practiced losing interest in agyan, moha, raga, dwesha  hence every worldly jiva should take interest in own nature being free of vikalpas of nimitta.

The rival group believes the vyavahara charitra to be successful in all conditions. But Mithya Drishti, Abhavya and Door Bhavya also, with Munihood practice (Vyavahara dharma) can attain Ahamindra state, even then it is called as Mithya Charitra.

In Jina Agam every where bhava charitra or Nishchaya Charitra has been given primacy since it is direct cause for Moksha.

Counter Question 3- Your statement is contrary to Agam that as the purity of the form of Nishchaya jewel trio keeps enhancing, in the same proportion externally dravya karma keeps getting reduced and Vyavahara dharma keeps getting attained.

Firstly with absence of dravya karma fruition, the internal purity gets revealed since the cause of filthiness is fruition of karmas and with the absence of cause the deed also gets eliminated. You state the cause-effect relationship in reverse contrary to the Agam which is the cause for disagreement. Your statement  that from aspect of Nishchaya the jiva himself is bonded due to his own fault- this is contrary to Agam. Acharya Amrit Chandra has told that from aspect of Nishchaya naya, the soul is not bonded. The karmas are bonded with the jiva, this is the stand of Vyavahara. The reason is that the relation between two dravyas or paryayas of two dravyas is not subject of Nishchaya naya.

The fruition of karmas are cause for raga, dwesha, moha. With destruction of karmas the effect form raga, dwesha etc also get eliminated.

Where the deed is carried out in consonance with the nimitta, it is called as Prerak Nimitta.

The meaning of swa-kaal is manifestation since every dravya by its own nature keeps manifesting at every moment . This characteristics gets applied in all dravyas therefore it is their swa-kaal. With this characteristics of swa-kaal the question of before or later does not arise. Kaal of corrupted paryayas is not absolutely fixed. The time at which the both ( internal-external) nimitta dependent deed is carried out, that only is its swa-kaal. The manifestation at every samaya is nature of dravya but impure dravya shall have such paryaya at such samaya – this is not absolutely predestined.

When the weak intensity comes into fruition and weak Kashaya form manifestations occur, at that time with the kshayopasham of gyan and Veerya, the soul has higher capability. At that time, if preachment etc. external nimittas are attained and if the jiva engages in purushartha then samyaktva can be attained. Hence it cannot happen that karmas keep soul forcibly dependent.

In this way with Agam Praman it is established that by accepting karma as Prerak nimitta cause, there is no difficulty in carrying out Moksha form Purushartha.

Those who accept Moksha merely based upon the soul manifestation, for them it is to be considered that the strength of dravya karmas also is to be accounted.  By non Kashaya form manifestations only, the destruction of karmas is not possible.

Dhavala 12/453- How does one manifestation carry out different deeds?

Answer- With the difference of assisting reasons, different results can be attained.

Q Dhavala- With a single sanklesh parinaam, how can intensity bondage of innumerable lok praman bondage of six orders occur?

Answer- This is no issue since with the divisions of assisting cause of intensity bondage adhyavasans having innumerable lok praman six orders , with a single sanklesh there is no contradiction in the bondage of intensity sthans equal to the divisions of assisting reasons.

In this way with the divisions of external assisting reasons with single manifestation different types of anubhag bondage is attained.

In the same way Dhavala- only Sanyam is not cause for generation of Manah Paryaya gyan but others are also there. Dravya, kshetra, kaal etc. of special category are reasons without which the sanyats cannot attain Manah Paryaya gyan.

 Therefore merely Upadan reason produces the deed and the external reasons are irrelevant- this faith is demolished.

Firstly the other dravya which is cause for faults has to be renounced and later only the fault can be removed.

According to you very distant Bhavya also can attain Ahamindra state by means of his Muni practices (Vayavahara charitra) but this is not right. They remain in Nitya Nigod and they never get the nimitta cause for coming out.

9.3. Answer – We had told earlier itself that worldly jiva is bonded with ragas etc. from aspect of ashuddha nishchaya naya while from aspect of Shuddha nishchaya naya he is idol of consciousness. From aspect of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya he is bonded with gyanavarana etc. karmas.

The rival group says that when with strong purushartha of the soul the mohaniya etc. dravya karmas get destroyed, then with the elimination of nimitta of flaws, the raga-dwesha form naimittik flaws get removed and then the dependence of soul also gets eliminated.

They say that ragas etc. form corrupted bhavas have pervasive-pervaded relationship with jiva in certain aspect since the flaw is paryaya but with own paryaya the bonder-bonded relationship can never be there.

The explanation is that with the nimitta of  fruition of dravya karmas the ragas etc, corrupted bhavas which are generated within the soul, from aspect of ashuddha nishchaya naya, they belong to jiva only. From aspect of Shuddha nishchaya the ashuddha nishchaya naya is also vyavahara only. In reality the jiva is manifesting in oneness form with them hence in agam they are declared as bhava bandh since really they are bonded with jiva. These are bhavas of jiva and jiva is bonded with them hence they are called as bhava bandh.

They say that with own paryaya there can never be bonded-bonder relationship. The explanation is that in Agam bandh has three divisions- pudgala bandh, Jiva bandh and tadubhaya (together) bandh. Out of them the pudgala bandh and tadubhaya bandh are told from aspect of asadbhoot vyavahara naya while the jiva bandh is subject of ashuddha nishchaya naya.

The way karta-karma bhava and bhogya-bhokta ( enjoyed-enjoyer) bhava are subjects of asadbhoot vyavahara naya, in the same way the bonded-bonder bhava between the two is also subject of asadbhoot vyavahara naya. In spite of extreme difference between the two dravyas, they are treated as one formally and such a narration is carried out.

Panchastikaya 147- Sticky  with moha, raga, dwesha, the Shubha and ashubha form manifestations are bhava bandh of jiva.

Pravachansar 177- The manifestation of oneness of jiva with the aupadhik moha, raga, dwesha form paryayas only is jiva bandh.

Manifested in agyan bhava form this soul only is definitely its bonder. In this way between jiva and the ragas etc. bhavas the bonder-bonded relationship gets properly established.

Soul only produces them with recourse to others , even then not accepting the soul manifested in agyan bhava form as their bonder is not logical.

The statement of rival group is not right that ‘ with own paryaya there cannot be bonder-bonded bhava at all’. Since by accepting it, the production of all deeds have to be accepted only from others and then even Siddhas would have presence of ragas etc. bhavas.

We had already written that ‘ from aspect of ashuddha nishchaya naya, the worldly soul being bonded with his agyan bhavas is really dependent and from aspect of asadbhoot vyavahara naya in upacharita form the dependence with respect to karma and no karma also gets established’. But the rival group wishes to prove that ‘ soul is being dependent on account of pudgala dravya karmas hence the bhavas of soul are themselves dependent. They are not nimitta for the dependence of the soul.’

The explanation is that the above statement of Aapt Pariksha is that of Vyavahara naya. On  the basis of this it is not right to accept pudgala karmas as cause for dependence.

The lotus does not make bumble bee as its dependent, but its prime cause is its passions- the lust pertaining to lotus flower only. In the same way this jiva becomes subjugated to karmas on account of his own Kashaya. Therefore definitely the root cause of dependence is Kashaya of the jiva.

In Vyavahara, the generation of dependence form deed is said to be caused by others , there in reality it should be treated as caused by self.

It is clear it is right to accept that the prime cause of dependence of soul to be the manifestations in Kashaya form of the jiva since then only the vyavahara causation of dependence on others has been accepted. Otherwise not.

Clarifications pertaining to Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya-

Aalap Paddhati has described two characteristics-

1) Applying elsewhere famous dharma upon others is asadbhoot vyavahara.

2) Treating different substance as subject is asadbhoot vyavahara.

In the first the eternally traditional Lok Vyavahara has been told and in the second the vyavahara of differentiating in Moksha Marga has been told.

Example- From aspect of asadbhoot vyavahara naya the soul has been bonded with gyanavarana etc. eight dravya karmas and audarik body etc. nokarma. Observing the nimitta naimittik relationship, the jiva is bonded with them -such Vyavahara is carried out. This relationship is due to closeness of kaal of the two.

The second example is that of bhasha vargana which has capability of manifesting in the form of speech as Upadan cause. Attributing it to Tirthanakara is from aspect of Asadbhoot Vyavahara only. Here also the prime reason is kaal closeness.

In Aalap Paddhati also from the same aspect both nayas and their divisions have been described. There ‘ different substance’ term does not imply other substance but divisions of quality and that of paryaya only primarily. Under such conditions from philosophical aspect with whom the jiva is bonded? Upon questioning this the answer  would be that from aspect of Upacharita Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya the jiva is bonded with his ragas etc. bhavas. Since jiva is bonded with karmas, this is not accepted by the philosophical view point at all. ( Only from Agam view point jiva is bonded with karmas.)

The rival group has asked most of the questions primarily with respect to nimitta naimittik vyavahara between two dravyas hence we had to answer from Agam view point.

Means for being rid of karma bondage

We had  written –

1) According to Agam if Jiva without carrying out internal purushartha for eliminating the ragas etc. agyan bhavas, remains busy in Vyavahara dharma only then there is no possibility of attaining dravya nirjara.

2) Therefore for making efforts for getting rid of both dravya-bhava form bondages, taking recourse to both Nishchaya-Vyavahara form dharma is necessity. The rule is that when the soul, taking recourse to his param nishchaya Paramatma form gyayak bhava, engages in Samyak Purushartha then as the internal purity of Nishchay jewel trio form keeps appearing , in the same proportion the external dravya karma keeps getting  eliminated and Vyavahara dharma also keeps getting enhanced.

The rival group is not satisfied with this answer. But it was important to tell that the purushartha of soul is carried out by facing inner natural self. They believe Vyavahara dharma as means for attainment of Nishchaya dharma and its opposition they treat as opposition towards Vyavahara dharma itself.

Whether he is Naraki or Mithya Drishti practicing 28 primary qualities , Samyaktva shall be attained only by means of 3 karan Parinaam. There is no other means.

The meaning of Samaysar gatha 8 is that Vyavahara dharma is means for Nishchaya dharma in Vyavahara sense but not that the Vyavahara dharma produces Nishchaya dharma. In this way means-objective bhava are there between  Vyavahara dharma-Nishchaya dharma. Whenever Nishhchaya dharma is attained , then being free of Shubha as well as Ashubha vikalpas, facing inner self, manifestation in that form only results in it.

Samayasar 74- As the soul keeps becoming Vigyan ghan swabhava , he keeps getting free of asravas.

From aspect of Nishchaya the Jiva is bonded with ragas etc.

– Endorsement of this fact

From aspect of Nishchaya naya which is dependent upon soul, the Shubha-ashubha manifestations of jiva are Bhava bandh and he is bonded with them. This is not against the Agam. Rival group treats it as other way.

Samayasar 139-140- If it is believed that jiva with karmas only manifest into ragas etc. form i.e. both join together resulting in ragas etc. form manifestations – then jiva as well as karmas both should attain ragas etc. bhavas. But ragas etc. manifestations are attained by jiva alone . Hence with the nimitta of fruition of karmas, it is different type of manifestation of jiva.

Even rival group would say that Upadan form is jiva himself and karma is merely nimitta in the same.

Utility  of Upachar and Aarop(alleged) terms

The rival group should concede that the bondage observed in the soul, with his corrupted guna and parayayas, are attributed to gyanavarana etc. karmas and it is said that the soul is bonded with gyanavarana etc.  karmas. By conceding this, the arrangement  of the subject of asadbhoot vyavahara naya occurs which is different from sadbhoot vyavahara naya and nishchaya naya. Without these words of Upachar and Aarop (attruibution) the clarification of the subject of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya cannot be made.

In this way the ragas etc. form bandh paryaya is true from aspect of Vyavahara naya and is Sadbhoot. However from Shuddha Drishti it is untrue since in Shuddha naya the divisive Vyavahara is ignored.

The statement of rival group that ‘as the fruition of ghatia karmas occurs with whatever intensity, necessarily the soul manifests accordingly,’ is not right.

In Panchastikaya 57 it is written- experiencing the karmas, the way jiva reacts with bhavas, he becomes the karta of those bhavas. From this it is clear that soul is independent to carry out own bhava and it does not have dependence of karmas.

Commentary of Acharya Jaysen on the same- Experiencing the karmas i.e. devoid of the spirit of the soul, manifesting in the karma kand form business with characteristics of mind, speech, body, the way the jiva manifests being karta himself and carries out bhavas, that jiva is the karta with those causal form karma bhavas.

Here jiva has been declared to be independent for carrying out own bhavas. Only speciality is that whether jiva engages or not  in these bhavas which are generated with others as nimitta, this is his own choice. This is the key to Moksha Marga. 

The argument put forth by rival group is that the varganas of dravya karma have different intensities. When the weak intensity is under fruition and if the kshayopasham of gyan is favourable, then with the external nimitta of preachment etc. by engaging in purushartha, samyaktva can be attained. This logic is not right since in this also with weak -strong bhavas the mutual dependence continues and therefore neither soul can undertake purushartha opposite to fruition of karmas, nor can gyan fructify and nor can the external nimitta of preachment etc. be available since the karma fruition is contrary to Moksha. Hence with the acceptance of the Siddhant that ‘ karma fruition forcibly generate raga-dwesha’ the purushartha of moksha marga can never be practiced.

Hence all these statements should be considered to be that of Vyavahara naya only.

Ishtopadesha 31- So long as Jiva manifests subjugated by the fruition  of karmas, till then the karmas are said to be stronger. Karmas did not subjugate him but he himself become subjugated to them. When Jiva engages in his own nature without being engrossed in fruition of karmas, then soul is said to be stronger.

Samaysar gatha 107 – Due to the lack of pervasive-pervaded relationship of  souls with pudgala karmas, ‘souls  receive-modify-create karmas’ – all such vikalpas are Upachar only.

On observing a person subjugated to women etc. subjects, the woman is not preached that why you have subjugated him ; but the person is reminded of his duty. Hence it is clear that this jiva himself becomes subjugated to sensory subjects by imagination of false enjoyments. Subjects do not subjugate him. For subjugation of jiva the sensory subjects are external nimitta but not karta.

If the deed is accepted as dependent upon nimittas as per the opinion of rival group, then with the nature of substance becoming subjugated, the situation of substance  itself being subjugated arises which is contrary to experience, logic and Agam all three. Hence it is clear that no deed is ever dependent upon nimitta.

The rival group has stated ‘ Those who believe only soul manifestation to lead to Moksha, they should contemplate that the strength of dravya karma is also to be accounted ; merely with non-kashaya manifestations the karmas cannot be destroyed.’

The explanation is that the destruction of karmas occurs due to result of their own manifestation. The non-kashaya manifestation is merely nimitta for the same. In the same way the Moksha of soul is the deed of the soul, the nirjara of dravya karma is merely nimitta for the same. This is the arrangement of Nishchaya-Vyavahara. One does not carry out deed of another. Only because of being called as reason, it is termed as Vyavahara cause. The Nishchaya cause of the deed is that dravya himself.

The rival group says that ‘ firstly the other dravya which is cause for the faults should be renounced and then only the faults can be removed.’

The explanation is that the renunciation of external substance and the renunciation of raga pertaining to external substance are not two things, they are two statements. Therefore where the raga pertaining to external substance has been renounced, there only the Vyavahara of  renunciation of  external substance  is considered meaningful. Otherwise it is an empty renouncement.

The Digamber faith accepts applicable Vyavahara  to be meaningful along with the attainment of applicable Nishchaya. Whereas the rival faiths believe only Vyavahara as real without attainment of Nishchaya.

Samayasar 265- The adhyavasan of the jiva occurs by taking recourse to the substance. Even then substance does not cause bondage, the bandh occurs with adhyavasan.

Q : Then why the external substance is renounced?

A: For renunciation of Adhyavasan.

Continued…..