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…..