Question 10
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 93rd 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 ?
No comments:
Post a Comment