Seventeen Questions…..27

 

16.3. Answer -  The rival group has written- ‘ in one substance by differentiation of objectives two opposing dharmas are existent. Hence out of those two dharmas, the one describing each of the dharma separately is one naya. ‘

From this two questions arise-

1. Is the form of substance such that by differentiation  of implications two opposing dharmas are existent? 

2. Is accepting implication of each dharma one naya?

These are clarified now-

(1) In any substance no dharma is existent on account of differentiation of implication, since each dharma is the nature of substance which is self established. Intentionally giving primacy to one dharma in implication and treating second dharma as secondary, thus establishing the substance to promote Vyavahara is different matter. Example- In one Devadatta  the fatherhood and sonhood etc. nimitta form father, son relations are not contradictory. From aspect of son, father is there and from aspect of father son is there. There is no contradiction. In the same way dravya is nitya from aspect of samanya (general) and anitya from aspect of vishesh ( specific). Hence there is no contradiction.

From this is it clear that sat-asat (present-absent)  etc. form dharmas in a dravya are self established by nature. Only their Vyavahara is carried out with respect to each other and in this way the naya which deals with the mutual aspect is the Vyavahara naya. Hence the statement of rival group is against Agam, experience and logic that ‘ in one substance by differentiation of implication two opposite dharmas are existent.’ Instead , this only should be decided that in every substance what all dharmas are existent, they are by nature self established.

(2) The explanation for second question is that acceptance of a meaning is not called as naya. But in several dharma form substance, the shruta vikalpa for knowing  the substance by a specific dharma purposefully is called naya. The rival group have themselves written that ‘no single naya cannot describe the complete form of substance. Naya just describes substance from aspect of one dharma.’ Therefore the sentence used by rival group that ‘ out of those two dharmas, the one accepting every dharma separately is one naya.’ is not right.

Amritchandra- The   highlighting of two mutually opposite capabilities indicating the vastutva in a vastu (substance) is Anekant. It is clear that any dharma of a substance has complete absence in another substance. Just as if some jiva has bhavyatva shakti then he cannot have presence of Abhavyatva shakti. If both shaktis are accepted in single soul then the vastutva of vastu would be destroyed.

Those who call the presence of mutually opposite several dharmas only in a single soul as Anekant – why this statement is unrealistic , it gets nicely highlighted by the above example. In a single soul mutually opposite dharma pair have been accepted together which represent the vastutva of vastu. Therefore the definition of Anekant form given by rival group is contrary to Agam.

Clarifications in respect of Nishchaya and Vyavahara nayas

The rival group has called dravyarthika naya as Nishchaya naya and Paryayarthika naya as Vyavahara naya. Now this is analysed-

Naya Chakra- Tattva are of two types namely venerable and despicable. The other dravya as a rule has been called as despicable. The own dravya also should be known as despicable and venerable by means of naya.

The Mithyatva and Sarag form soul is despicable as a rule. The people desirous of salvation should know the soul devoid of  them as the objective.

Actually the raga bhava generated due to fruition of pudgala karma is not my nature. I am gyayak bhava like carving in stone. Thus in Adhyatma, what is the subject of Nishchaya naya, gets known clearly.

Naya Chakra- The one which accepts merely the dravya nature devoid of ashuddha, Shuddha and Upachar , such Param Bhava Grahi Dravyarthika naya should be known to people desirous of purity.

From this it is clear that in Adhyatma Nishchaya naya, all the divisions of dravyarthika naya described in Agam are not included. From aspect of Moksha Marga only param bhava grahi dravyarthika naya has been accepted from aspect of gyayak natured  soul. Besides these all the divisions-sub divisions of dravyarthika, paryayarthika and upachar naya have been incorporated in Vyavahara naya. Only where soul has been called as karta for ragas etc. agyan bhavas , there that statement has been made from aspect of soul tainted with agyan bhava only. The soul manifested engrossed in gyan bhava is only karta of just gyan bhava only. Here gyan bhava implies swabhava.

From this it is clear that calling Dravyarthika naya as Nishchaya naya and Paryayarthika naya as Vyavahara naya by rival group is not right. In Panchastikaya the divisions of naya have been carried out as Dravyarthika and Paryayarthika from aspect of substance organisation,  and here the divisions of Nishchaya and Vyavahara naya have been made from aspect of Moksha Marga.

Keeping objective in mind only the Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya also has been incorporated. Here the  meaning of Asadbhoot is clear that jiva does not have colour, jiva is not the creator of the same even then calling them as jiva is statement of asadbhoot vyavahara naya. In this way keeping objective in mind everywhere, the consideration of nayas should be carried out.

Calling the guna dharma of one dravya as own dharma of another dravya is not the objective of nayas. This is the speciality of naya gyan that it highlights upacharita dharma in Upacharita form , Vibhava dharma in vibhava form and swabhava dharma in swabhava form only.

From aspect of dravya karma jiva does not have contact-bondage dharma, since from aspect of vyavahara the form of bondage-contact pudgala has with pudgala , same type of bondage-contact corporeal pudgala cannot have with non-corporeal jiva. Whichever bhavya jiva would know both of them differently by means of differences of characteristics, his attention cannot remain without manifesting engrossed in own nature.

Karmas are bonded with jiva- this vikalpa also is raga form and hence is not pure manifestation of soul. In the same way the jiva does not have bondage-contact with karma – such vikalpa too is raga form and hence is not pure manifestation of conscious soul. Both of these are sides of naya. Knowing the different natures of soul from aspects of naya is a different matter, but renouncing upacharita dharma, paryaya dharma out of them and treating diversion  of buddhi towards vikalpas of dravya’s nature also as despicable, glorifying own real nirvikalpa samaysar natured soul is a different matter.

-        Beyond all vikalpas, manifesting in own nirvikalpa vigyan ghan natural form, the real samaysar is attained.

The revelation of Moksha Marga within soul can be carried out by means of Nishchaya naya. Neither it can be attained by recourse to Praman nor with recourse to Vyavahara. This is the reason that in Moksha marg this only  has been given prominence. Manifesting engrossed with recourse to own nature is the prime activity.

‘Samyak Drishti jiva does not differentiate that this naya is true and this naya is untrue.’- this is right. However this naya deals with the substance by means of upacharita dharma and this dharma deals with the substance by means of its own dharma- such differentiation they do undertake. Otherwise by accepting potter as having the dharma of carrying out deeds of mud, there remains no difference between potter and mud and the arrangement of substances gets destroyed.( for one pot deed one has to accept two doers.)

Real meaning of Samaysar Gatha 143

The rival group instigates to treat the meanings of two nayas as equivalent which is highly adventurous.

Samaysar 143- Jiva experiencing the conscious natured soul, merely knows the statements of both nayas, but he is devoid of the vikalpas of both nayas hence he does not take sides with the nayas.

In their meaning the rival group writes in the end that ‘ therefore any one naya should not be sided with.’

Thus there are two meanings and which one is right. This is analysed –

Padmanandi Pancha Vinshati-  The conscious soul is bonded or free- this is the procedure of contemplation of naya. However the real samaysar is devoid of all sides of naya.

Here the term ‘sides of naya’ implies just ‘vikalpa’ only.

From aspect of Moksha Marga, vikalpa alone is despicable. But it is important that vyavahara naya and subject of vyavahara naya – both of them are totally despicable only , since the person who has spirit of reverence towards these, he is not even eligible for listening to the means for Moksha Marga also. However this much discretion between vikalpa form Nishchaya naya and its subject is there that Nishchaya naya being itself a vikalpa , is despicable but its subject form soul is venerable since experience of its nature only is samaysar.

From this it is clear that rival group has not taken the right implication of Gatha 143.

Clarification of different subjects

(1) What is the implication of calling Vyavahara naya as beneficial or venerable?

Acharya has supported Nishchaya based Vyavahara and not plain Vyavahara. In the Savikalpa state Vandana, mahavrita form vyavahara is surely practiced but internally he considers the nishchaya form manifestation only as venerable. This only is the path to proceed further. Just as Veetrag sadhu does not have intention of punya bandh, in the same way Desh Vrati also does not have such intent. Their goal is to attain own nature. The fraction in which the nature is realised, the karma destruction is also in same proportion. The Desh Vrita of Sarag Sanyam etc. are not means for karma destruction but are means for punya bandh only.

In the descriptions of divisions the rival group has mentioned only Sadbhoot Vyavahara but there is Asadbhoot Vyavahara also whose subject is mere Upachar which they conveniently forget. If they accept that the term ‘Upachar’ implies only Sadbhoot Vyavahara then we ask them to declare that with the activities of live body, dharma cannot be carried out in all three periods of time. They should further declare that manifestation of one dravya cannot carry out even an iota of another dravya’s activity. They should also say that all the Vyavahara is not real means of Moksha in all three periods of time. It merely gives knowledge of Nishchaya, hence it has been given place in Agam.

The paryaya which is generated at a particular samaya is the swa-kaal of paryaya form dravya, hence definitely dravya only produces it himself- if they don’t accept it and say that every paryaya is generated by another dravya then they would have to accept another dravya as karta of paryayas of the dravya. Such belief is not only contrary to Agam but also against logic and inference. Therefore they should accept that every dravya carries out its own predefined deed at its predefined time.

The rival group has declared the gyan, darshan and charitra of jiva as real from aspect of Vyavahara naya which is acceptable to us from aspect of Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya. In the same way all the Shuddha-ashuddha paryayas of jiva-ajiva dravyas are real. From aspect of Dravyarthika naya, these are non-substance since the subject of that naya is samanya (general) and not paryayas. In the same way from aspect of Paryayarthika naya samanya is non-substance since the subject of that naya is vishesh (specific) and not samanya. Here this also should be known that in paryayarthika naya the asadbhoot vyavahara naya also gets included since that naya also deals with paryaya as subject.

Gyeya-Gyayak relationship -  The gyan knowing the pot appears in gyan  form only and the pot appears in pot form differently from it, since the pot gyan generated at that time is paryaya of gyan guna of soul and the pot which has been known is the vyanjan paryaya of mud etc. form pudgala dravya. Gyan is conscious  form and the pot is insentient form. The dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava of both are quite different. Therefore they do not have real relationship, that is quite evident. Even then their relationship is told in Vyavahara sense which is done intentionally.

It is clear that what all description is carried out between two dravyas and their guna dharmas, it is subject of asadbhoot Vyavahara naya only and not that of sadbhoot vyavahara nayaa.

The omniscient has not preached the Vyavahara Samyaktva and Vyavahara Moksha Marga to accept them as Veetrag Samyaktva and Veetrag Moksha Marga, otherwise with both being same, the Shubha bhavas accrued with the nimitta of others shall also be present in Moksha necessarily. But Bhagwan has told-

Dhavala- with Shubha and ashubha manifestations karma bandh definitely accrues and with Shuddha manifestations both get definitely destroyed from roots.

All those with ultimate bodies became Siddha by practicing Shuddha soul manifestation form Moksha marga, but it is not so that with another means also they became siddha. Hence it is definite that there is only one path for Moksha and not another.

Continued…..

Seventeen Questions ….26

 

16.2. Answer- If the person asking question has some special purpose in mind while questioning, then that purpose should also be mentioned.

Deluded belief in Jivas etc. form seven substances only is Mithyatva then how can that belief be called imaginary? In the same way, in the writeup, topics  of non contextual nature and worrisome ideas have been put forth. If the bandh of the soul with dravya form karmas is accepted by the authors of the shastras from aspect of Vyavahar naya and keeping within same boundaries we answer your questions ensuring respect of the shastras then what is wrong there?

Samaysar is Agam granth narrating with primacy of adhyatma while remaining agam granths have been written with primacy of Vyavahara naya ( Dhavala, Tattvarth Vartik, Gommatsar, Moolachar). The shastras in which the different divisions of Jiva sthana, Guna sthana, Margana Sthana etc. have been dealt with, they are written with prominence of Vyavahara naya.

Therefore in those Granths, the narration is with the eminence of nimittas that the jiva is continuing in the world on account of karmas. Such statements are not real  but they are accepted from aspect of Vyavahara naya. Therefore rather that deriving wrong meaning, it should be interpreted that ‘ this worldly jiva due to his own ignorance is continuing to stay in the world.’ There is not even an iota of the fault of corporeal karmas. Ascribing own fault of subjugation on karmas should be accepted as the influence of Vaisheshik- naiyayik darshan who believe that soul is subjugated. But the real cause for the same is ignorance-mithya darshan manifestations of soul and not karmas. If he does not take notice of his own ignorance , then there is no way that can rid him of the subordination. He may practice Vrita, samiti etc. keep silence  etc. but so long as ignorance is prevalent in the jiva, till then even an iota of benefit would not accrue to the soul . The benefits which enhance the continuance of worldly stay cannot be called as real benefits. Just as some thief indulges in stealing and says that due to fruition of ashubha karmas he is forced to undertake thievery. Therefore the prime cause for subjugation of jiva is ignorance bhava of the soul only. The udai-udeerana of darshan mohaniya is merely nimitta only.

Further it has been wrongly written that with the activity form Vyavahara dharma, Nishchaya form shuddhata is attained hence it is essential means for Moksha etc.

Samaysar 153- Following Vrita and Niyams and practicing morality, those who are away from reality ( belief of param gyan natured soul), they cannot attain nirvana.

Gyan only is means for Moksha since in its absence in spite of practicing vrita, niyam, tapa etc. form Shubha karmas, Moksha is not attained. Agyan only is the cause for bandh since in its absence, in spite of absence of the external  Vrita, tapa etc. form Shubha karmas, the  gyanis attain Moksha.

The term Gyan is indicator of Samyak darshan and Agyan term indicates Mithya darshan.

Naya Chakra- That upayoga of soul which is engaged in bhakti of deva, guru, shastra and activities of Guna-Upachar,  engrossed in pooja, daan etc., it is Shubha Upayoga.

It is clear that in Agam Vyavahara dharma implies raga fraction occurring along with the partial purity of jiva. This is purely bandh marg only . Even if it is mentioned as means for Nirjara, then it has been written in Upachar sense since this fractional raga  is carried out along with nishchaya jewel trio form pure manifestation of the soul. Therefore ‘Vyavahara dharma is cause for Moksha’ should be known in Upachar sense and not in reality. The words of Agam should be narrated after knowing their shabdartha,  nayartha, matartha, agamartha and Bhavartha only.  

In 10^th gunasthana the raga bhava is there which is cause for bandh only but from 7^th gunasthana onwards such fractional raga occurs unknowingly hence it does not cause any hindrance in the attainment of shuddhopayoga.

This opinion has been expressed that if Vyavahara dharma is not believed to be practitioner of nishchaya dharma then the activities of shravak-muni become fruitless. But such fear should not be felt. When the soul returns to shubhopayoga from shuddhopayoga then in accordance with that state the external activities also occur. Along with Shuddha manifestation applicable to shravak the primacy is that of shubhopayoga while for Sadhu the shuddhopayoga is prime and shubhopayoga is secondary. It is clear that shubhopayoga results  in increase of duration and intensity of karma bandh while with shuddhopayoga the duration-intensity gets reduced.

The purity in soul occurs by taking recourse to swabhava and not with recourse to vyavahara.

Here Guna-paryaya form substance is not being negated. Here the objective is to tell that by focusing his attention of whom the jiva can become  eligible for Moksha marga. The preachment is that ‘ you are paryaya buddhi since beginningless time . For once abandoning the vikalpas of punya-pap, nimitta and guna-paryaya, make efforts for taking  recourse to own nature’ . Where is Ekant in this preachment?

Samaysar 156- Pandits practice by means of Vyavahara abandoning the subject of nishchaya naya. However the destruction of karmas has been told in Agam only for the Munis who take recourse to reality.

The conclusion is that taking recourse to swabhava only is venerable.

Samaysar 186- Jiva experiencing pure soul attains Shuddha atma only while Jiva experiencing ashuddha atma attains ashuddha atma only.

Counter Question 3- The meaning of word Anekant is several dharmas i.e. two opposing dharmas.  It implies presence of two opposing dharmas  in the same substance. In both dharmas each of them is described by one naya each. One  naya describes one dharma only and not the entire substance, The nature of substance is completely defined by conjoining the statements of both nayas. The two prime nayas are dravyarthika and paryayarthika. The Dravyarthika naya is Nishchaya naya and Paryayarthika naya is Vyavahara naya.

Samaysar 141- Jiva is in bonded with karmas and he is in contact with them – such statement is of Vyavahara naya. The jiva does not bond with karmas nor touches them- such statement is that of Nishchaya naya.

Such conflicting nayas have been described in Samaysar Kalash 70-89- Baddha- Abaddha,  Moodh-Amoodha, ragi-aragi, dweshi-adweshi, karta-akarta, bhokta-abhokta, jiva-non jiva, sookshma-non sookshma, hetu- not hetu, karya- not karya, bhava- abhava, ek-anek, shant-ashant, nitya-anitya, Vachya-avachya, nana-anana, chetya-achetya, Drishya-adrishya, vedya-avedya, bhaat-abhaat.

Out of these two nayas calling some naya as real and other one as non-real is not possible. All nayas are competent in describing their subject and are incompetent for negating other nayas. The knower of Anekant (Samyak Drishti) does not call one naya as true and other naya as untrue.

Samaysar 143 – The person who knows the soul, he merely knows the narration of both nayas. But he does not take sides of the naya since he is devoid of taking sides of nayas. It implies that one should not insist upon a specific naya.

Pancha Dhyayi 127- Although Nishchaya naya negates different vikalpas of the form ‘dravya is’ or ‘guna is’ etc., hence it is called as real  sovereignty, but in soul experience ‘ neither’ – this vikalpa also does not exist. Hence Nishchaya naya is not cause for soul experience- this should be understood.

This establishes that recourse to merely Nishchaya naya alone is not sufficient to attain Moksha Marga.

In your statements you have told several times that this proposition is from aspect of Vyavahara naya and not Nishchaya naya. Sometimes it has been called as Upacharita also. From this it appears that only Nishchaya naya alone is true and real and Vyavahara naya is untrue, unreal. Such belief only is Mithyatva form or NishchayaBhas. The preachment of Bhagwan is  based upon two nayas. Has the omniscient preached Vyavahara Moksha Marga falsely?

Therefore this Siddhant alone is Samyak that from aspect of Nishchaya naya i.e. swabhava  there is no bandh or Moksha while from aspect of Vyavahara naya (paryaya) bandh  exists and Moksha also exists. Both propositions are true and real.

Samaysar 46- If Proposition of Vyavahara naya is not made then in spite of crushing trasa sthavar jivas, there would not be any himsa nor would there be any bandh. If jiva is different from raga dwesha as declared in Paramartha then there would not be any means for Moksha nor would there be Moksha.

Aapt Pariksha 114-115-  Those who subjugate the Jivas are called Karmas which are of two kinds- dravya karma and bhava karma. Dravya karmas are of 148 kinds which are pudgala manifestation form like shackles.

Question- Anger etc. are cause for subordination?

Answer- No, they are manifestations of the Jiva, hence are subjugation form but are not cause for subjugation.

It is clear that anger etc. manifestation of Jiva itself is subjugation, but not cause for subjugation.

In the same way Shri Akalank Deva also considers prime cause for subordination of jiva to be karmas only.

In spite of these Pramans, you believe in Ekant way that jiva by his own agyan bhavas alone is being subjugated – which is not right.

PanchDhyayi (Pt. Phoolchand) – The manifestation of Jiva at every samaya is pudgala nimittak rather than being independent. The manifestation of pudgala also is not independent and is different karma form based upon jiva manifestations. This only is called subjugation. In this way jiva is dependent upon pudgala and pudgala is dependent upon Jiva.

Further- The worldly jiva is bonded with eight types of karmas due to which he has forgotten his own nature and is believing other’s nature to be his own.

If Agyan bhava alone is considered to be cause of subjugation then at the first samaya of 13^th gunasthana jiva should become free. However till the four aghati karmas are not destroyed, the jiva remains subjugated.

According to you Samaysar being Adhyatma Grath is Pramanik while other granths having primacy of Vyavahara naya, are untrue and non-Pramanik. In samaysar also there is narration of Vyavahara hence that should also be unacceptable. This only is Ekant Nishchaya MithyaVad.

Not only this, rather than believing upon the Pramans provided by Acharyas, you believe the prayers written by householders in local language as more Pramanik and using them refute the words of Acharyas. This is a strange situation.

RajVartik – Gyan without kriya is ineffective and the kriya of agyani is also useless. In the forest fire, the blind running without knowing the path gets burnt while lame knowing the path also gets burnt.

Just as there is no predefined time of applying Upayoga towards pots and pans, in the same way there is no predefined time of engrossing within self. The external-internal suitable materials are regulators of the activities. If  kaal alone is accepted to be the cause for all the activities then all other causal materials would be eliminated.

Renunciation of paps only is Vrita and Samayik and Chhedopasthapana Sanyam or Charitra. Charitra is cause for Moksha Marga and Samvar then how can Vritas be called as raga bhava? If Vritas are believed to be raga bhava then Vyavahara dharma would not be possible which is means for Nishchaya.

In 4^th gunasthana Samyak Darshan form Shuddha bhava is present and Kashaya form ashuddha bhava also exists. The mixed Upayoga of both these Shuddha ashuddha bhavas is called as Shubhopayoga. In the same way it should be known in 5^th and 6^th gunasthana. If Shubhopayoga is  not accepted as Shuddha Ashuddha bhava then shubhopayoga would not be means for Moksha.

Bhava Pahud 159- By means of bhakti towards Jinendra the Mohaniya karma gets destroyed.

Gommatsar 224- Other than 3 Ayu, the bondage of maximum duration of all other Prakritis occurs on account of highest Sanklesh manifestations and minimum sthiti bandh occurs due to opposite i.e. Vishuddha  (shubhopayoga) manifestations . The highest sthiti bandh of 3 Ayu occur with Vishuddha manifestations and least sthiti bandh occurs with Sanklesh Manifestations.

In 12^th Gatha of Samaysar also it has been told that those who have attained total darshan-gyan-charitra, for them Shuddha Nishchaya Naya is meaningful and till the totality of darshan-gyan-charitra is not attained, till  then Vyavahara naya is meaningful. Hence up to 12^th Gunasthana, Vyavahara naya is venerable.

Continued…..

Seventeen Questions…..25

 

Question 16

What is the form of Nishchaya and Vyavahara ? Is the subject of Vyavahara naya untrue or what? If it is untrue then is it absence form or false form?

16.1. Answer – There is absolute absence of one substance within another substance, even then jiva due to eternal ignorance has been having spirit of oneness with the substances. This only is the deluded belief. To make him attain Samyak Gyan of his own soul, singular form different from others and renunciate wisdom dependent upon others, the narration of Nishchaya Naya and Vyavahara naya has been made in Adhyatma.

Samaysar 4 – Oneness with self, different from others I shall show you based upon my own riches (Agam, Guru Preachment and logic).

Samaysar 56- Nishchaya naya, being dependent upon dravya, operates  taking recourse to the natural bhava of jiva only, does not call the bhava of one to be that of another even in the least.

Nayachakra- The one which accepts ashuddha, Shuddha and upachar free nature of dravya alone, such param bhava grahi dravyarthika naya should be known by the purush desirous of salvation.

It is clear that the one which accepts only param bhava form gyayak bhava alone and negates all others different from the same, that is called as Nishchaya naya. (Shuddha naya as per samaysar gatha  14)

In samaysar gatha 6, three other bhavas have been negated in gyayak bhava. These are (1) Pramatta bhava (2) Apramatta bhava and (3) Gyayak bhava with respect to others. Further with 7^th gatha the (4) vikalpa of divisions has been negated in indivisible soul.

Here in one soul alone, other than gyayak bhava, all other bhavas which are feasible have been considered which are of four kinds.

There can be a doubt that other than  soul there can be infinite bhavas which are other bhavas – why they have not been included? The answer is that other bhavas are absolutely absence form in the soul by nature itself. Hence their negation is automatic. Here only those other bhavas are under consideration which are different from gyayak bhava which are in the soul. Knowing those dharmas of a substance only which are  belonging to self as own  – this is Samyak Naya.

After description of param bhava grahi Nishchaya naya now Vyavahara naya and its divisions are considered.

It is clear that upon considering own guna-paryaya form soul, those which are called as other bhavas, all those dharmas are not absolutely absent in the soul. There are several guest dharmas which are seen in worldly state of the soul and are not available later. Since they are not present in all states of the soul, therefore they are called as Asadbhoot. However so long as they are available in the soul, till then such vyavahara that this soul is pramadi and this soul is not pramadi- does take place. Since they are different from Gyayak Bhava, they are included in Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya. Both types of bhavas Pramatta and Apramatta could occur knowingly and without knowledge . Hence those bhavas which occur without knowledge and do not have recourse to any thing are called as Anupacharita. Those Pramatta and Apramatta bhavas which occur knowingly and have recourse to others are called as Upachrita. In this way Asadbhoot vyavahara naya has two divisions – Anupacharita and Upacharita. These have been described here from aspect of Adhyatma.

Upon observing the whole soul in gyan form, it is gyan; upon observing in darshan form, it is darshan and upon observing in charitra form it is charitra. Therefore in spite of their presence in the soul, they are not existent in divided form – this gets established. In this way with their presence in the soul , considering  them to be Sadbhoot, by means of them the soul is described in different ways hence they are subjects of Vyavahara. In this way soul has gyan, darshan, charitra- knowing this is Sadbhoot Vyavahara which does not depend upon others. Therefore considering soul from these aspects is Anupacharita Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya.

If the soul is described as Gyayak with respect to others then the nature of Gyayak Bhava soul does not get established and it results in absolute absence of gyayak form soul. Calling soul as Gyayak is Sadbhoot Vyavahara and calling it gyayak with respect to Gyeya- this is Upacharita. When soul is called as Gyayak with respect to gyeya then it is subject of Upachrita Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya. Calling soul Gyayak is Anupacharita Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya. In Panch Dhyayi the four divisions of Vyavahara have been described in  these forms.

In Samaysar, in another way also the Nishchaya and Vyavahara naya have been described. In Karta-Karma Adhikar, to eliminate the spirit of sameness  between two dravyas and their paryayas, the nishchaya and Vyavahara naya have been used.

Nishchaya naya is of two types – Savikalpa and Nirvikalpa Nishchaya naya.

So long as some type of vikalpa keeps happening with the nimitta of self or others, till then it cannot be described as Nirvikalpa. In the state of self experience the soul is Nirvikalpa since at that time being free of all the Vyavahara form Vikalpas he takes recourse to gyayak bhava subject of Savikalpa Nishchaya naya. In the end , getting free of the gyayak bhava related vikalpas also, he becomes Nirvikalpa form Samaysar.

Samaysar 142- Karmas are bonded or non bonded in the jiva, such types of vikalpas should be knows as two sides of naya. However those who are free of both types of vikalpas , they are Samaysar i..e. Nirvikalpa Shuddha soul substance.

However jiva cannot attain such kind of experience either by taking recourse to Praman gyan or Vyavahara form naya gyan. It can be attained by taking recourse to gyayak bhava which is subject of Nishchaya naya. For this reason only in Moksha Marg, only Nishchaya naya has been declared as venerable. The reason for calling soul experience as Shuddha naya form is also the same.

Samaysar Kalash 13- In this way, the previously described Shuddha naya form experience of soul only is the experience of gyan in reality. Knowing this and establishing soul within soul in stationary form, one should experience that I am always , one gyan-ghan soul only.

Counter Question 2 – You are describing the subordination of soul as only imaginary and are telling the conjunction with other substances as ekatva buddhi form deluded belief. You have not even touched our questions. You are believing the eternal ignorance of soul to be due to own capability of the soul.

But that ignorance is karma generated bhava Vyanjan paryaya of soul subordinate to karmas. Why that ignorance exists in worldly jivas and not in Siddhas ? What is the special reason for it?

In all Agams it has been written that the subordination of soul is due to fruition of body, gyanavarana, darshanavarana, mohaniya etc. dravya karmas which are real from aspect of paryaya Drishti. If it were imaginary then it should have always remained there since it is without reason. Just as dharma , adharma or Akash.

But the distortion of jiva-pudgala is with reason and due to this the jiva remains subordinate. When dravya karmas are separated then soul gets separated from these corrupted bhavas generated by others and becomes param Shuddha. At that time the Vaibhavik shakti of soul gets converted to swabhava form. Without nimitta reason, only Upadan is incapable of doing anything.

In Digamber Jain Agam the attainment of Nishchaya form Shuddha soul or Moksha has been told to be possible based upon Vyavahara dharma only. Without Vyavahara dharma the Nishchaya dharma cannot be attained in all three periods of time. Calling Muni dharma as despicable or deluded is not right. The intent of Acharyas in calling Vyavahara as Asadbhoot has been that it is true and means for Moksha but it is not Nishchaya  form completely pure form of  soul. It is mixed paryaya and not just Shuddha paryaya. But it is Shuddha-ashuddha and not permanent.

This soul is Pramadi and this soul is Apramadi – such Vyavahara is common. They are different from eternally Gyayak natured soul hence they are included in Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya .  But they are not untrue and are shuddha-ashuddha paryayas. They are fraction  form of param Shuddha kshayik bhava.

Without accepting MahaVrita etc. Vyavahara charitra, can the subordinate and raga-dwesha tainted soul destroy the karmas? These are all means for soul purification.

It is tradition to accept the Vyavahara dharma only. Yes! The Vyavahara dharma of Samyak Drishti gets abandoned by itself after enabling attainment of Nishchaya. The activity form Vyavahara dharma of 6^th gets separated by itself in 7^th .

Just as Nishchaya naya in Praman is venerable, in the same way Vyavahara naya in Praman is also  venerable. Praman gyan accepts both nayas together.

Due to ekant beliefs the Vyavahara dharma is believed to be despicable and Nishchaya dharma is considered venerable. As a result various shastras pertaining to Muni Bhakti, Jina Bhakti, Daan, Vandana etc. which provide the benefit of Moksha, are being modified and these are being declared Kushastra.

The fault of agyan etc. is different from pudgala form gyanavarana karma and the cause for agyan bhava is pudgala gyanavarana karma and the previous paryaya of jiva. In this way the agyan bhava of jiva is self and other’s dependent. From this praman of Ashta Sahasri , your argument is refuted that the ignorance occurs due to own capability of the soul.

Dhavala 6/427 – With the darshan of image of Jina, the Nidhatti and Nikachit etc. form karmas of Mithyatva get destroyed and the darshan of Jina image is cause for generation of Pratham Samyaktva.

In spite of several Pramans being put forth, you are not understanding the Vyavahara dharma. Instead, describing it as punya, you are treating it as cause for worldly transmigration.

With such arguments, the Muni dharma, Shravak Dharma etc. activities also do not remain dharma. Active charitra does not count as anything. If it is not believed to be dharma then why would Tirthankara Bhagwan have accepted it?  Secondly, if the raga-bhava occurring in Vyavahara dharma is considered to be world enhancing then sookshma Samparayik raga bhava occurring due to fruition of sookshma greed in 10^th gunasthana would also have to be treated as world enhancer and in the presence of raga, shuddhopayoga would not be possible. But in Kshapak Shreni , the Muniraj of 10^th gunasthana in the presence of raga also, by attaining infinite times nirjara of karmas, attain Keval Gyan. In such state the auspicious raga does not prove to be world enhancer, instead it is cause for Shuddha dhyan and last means for attainment of keval gyan. But you are not calling that auspicious raga as dharma and by calling it punya, you denounce it as world enhancer. Please provide answer with Praman of Agam.

To summarise,  the Shuddha nature is described using Nishchaya naya while Shuddha-ashuddha dravya or paryayaa is described by Vyavahara naya. Nishchaya naya is true in its own place and Vyavahara naya is meaningful in its own place. Both are divisions of Praman. With proper perspective both nayas are true and without perspective both are false.

Vyavahara dharma with right perspective of Nishchaya dharma is means for soul purification. The Syadvad Siddhant which conjoins both is prime pillar of Jain dharma.

Continued…..

Seventeen Questions….24

 

Question 14

Punya, after reaching its pinnacle or after soul manifesting in Shuddha swabhava form, is given up by itself or whether for abandoning the same any Upadesha or effort is required?

14.1 Answer  – At the time of pure swabhava manifestation of soul, the state is Nirvikalpa. At such time there cannot be situation of the soul to be given external preachment etc. In such a state, for him to give up punya, neither there is a necessity of any preachment nor is the requirement of any independent efforts. The order in which the soul purification keeps enhancing, in the same order accordingly punya as well as pap gets renounced on its own. From aspect of Nishchaya naya , it is declared as becoming Vigyan-Ghan swabhava.

Counter Question 2 – From the Agam Pramans it is established that the himsa etc. form paps are renounced knowingly but punya gets abandoned at the time of manifestation of soul in pure nature form. Hence from aspect of renunciation, calling punya and pap to be the equal is not right. Those who have gone to Moksha, all those have relinquished all paps knowingly and gone.

14.2. Answer- The solution is that whether it be punya or pap bhava, the process for renunciation of both is the same. The householder who accepts Muni Dharma, he renounces the AnuVrita etc. form punya bhava and embraces Mahavrita etc. form punya bhava in Vyavahara sense. Hence saying that pap has to be relinquished is not appropriate. With the conjunction of punya bhava the pap bhava gets abandoned on its own and in conjunction with purity the punya bhava gets abandoned on its own. When one bhava is attained then the previous bhava itself gets abandoned.

Counter Question 3 – From aspect of Nishchaya naya soul is neither Pramatta nor Apramatta. Raga and Dwesha are also not present hence the question of relinquishing punya, pap does not arise. Hence the statement for their relinquishment also shall be from aspect of Vyavahara naya. For the householder  in 5^th gunasthana the violence towards trasa is relinquished while the Muni relinquishes the violence towards sthavar jivas in 6^th gunasthana. Thus both relinquished pap only and not punya. In this way pap has to be abandoned while with the attainment of pure nature of soul, the punya after attaining its pinnacle automatically gets abandoned.

14.3. Answer – ‘ Pap gets abandoned on its own’ – this statement is not acceptable to rival group. In Jinagam when a subject is explained from aspect of certain naya, then it should be understood from aspect of the same naya, otherwise it is disrespect towards Jinagam.

Punya, Pap, Shuddha Bhava – all three are special manifestations of the soul. The soul is engrossed in one of those bhavas only at a time.

The destruction of punya and attainment of pure nature of soul do not have a difference of time, both are attained with the same means, hence the causes are also not different. Therefore just as with the attainment of pure nature, the relinquishment of punya bhava on its own has been accepted, in the same way with the attainment of punya bhava the automatic abandonment of pap bhava should also be acceptable. With the generation of one bhava, the other bhava gets destroyed automatically as a rule. Hence saying that ‘ pap bhava has to be given up’ is not appropriate.

Question 15

When abhava (absence) is chatushtaya (foursome) substance form then why they cannot be considered as cause and effect form? Accordingly why the destruction of Ghati karmas does not produce Keval Gyan?

15.1. Answer – There is no doubt that in Jina Agam all four types of abhavas(absences) have been accepted as bhavantar ( another bhava) swabhava  form. However in reality, implying the meaning of destruction of four Ghati karmas as bhavantar swabhava would result in destruction of karma form non-karma paryaya to be nimitta for the generation of Keval Gyan, which is not accepted in Agam. Hence it establishes that earlier the gyanavaraniya form karma paryaya which was nimitta for the generation of agyan bhava , with the absence of that nimitta i.e. its manifestation in non-karma form, the nimitta for agyan bhava also became absent and with its absence the naimittika agyan paryaya also became absent. Therefore Keval gyan appeared naturally.

Counter Question 2 – Since the presence of Ghatia Karma was hindrance towards revelation of Keval Gyan, therefore with its destruction ( being akarma form) it is nimitta for the revelation of Keval Gyan. Even then you write that ‘ implying the meaning of destruction of four Ghati karmas as bhavantar swabhava would result in destruction of karma form non-karma paryaya to be nimitta for the generation of keval gyan.’ So why do you avoid ‘nimitta’. What do you want to establish breaking the tradition of well established cause-effect relationship? Taking sides with Upadan alone why do you want to give up nimitta? This ekant only is the root cause of all the arguments.

Tattvartha Sutra-  With the destruction of Moha, with destruction of remaining gyanavarana, darshanavarana and Antaraya, the Keval Gyan is generated.

When you are accepting Gyanavarana as nimitta for the generation of agyan bhava , then why do you not wish to consider the destruction of gyanavaraniya karma paryaya which is non-karma paryaya form, as the nimitta for the absence of agyan bhava form resulting in generation in Keval Gyan?

‘Keval Gyan appeared naturally’ - it means that keval gyan did not come from outside. From aspect of Upadan cause, the Upadan cause for Keval Gyan is Gyan Guna and soul, but from aspect of nimitta cause it is destruction of Gyanavarana etc. karmas.

Keval Gyan is called as Kshayik bhava which has characteristics of being produced with the destruction of karmas only.

15.2. Answer – Those who consider their good or bad depending upon the power of nimitta only, they only have the situation of being scared.

The question is whether  non-karma paryaya has been accepted as nimitta for the generation of Keval Gyan or whether the objective of Acharyas has been to show that prior to generation of swabhav paryaya, the nimittas of previous vibhava paryaya are now absent.

In the context of generation of Keval Gyan,  the destruction of  Mohaniya karma has been  mentioned as the cause which has been destroyed in 10^th gunasthana. Does it mean that non-karma form pudgala varganas of Mohaniya are nimitta for generation of Keval Gyan ? Such meaning is not right.

Counter Question 3 – You are saying that ‘ destruction of karmas generates Keval Gyan ‘ – such directive is not seen in Agam.

It appears to us that you do not wish to consider ‘Abhava’ (absence) as a cause but abhava is nothing but swabhava of bhavantar (different bhava).

After destruction of Mohaniya, remaining as Ksheen Kashaya for Antar Muhurta, subsequently with destruction of three Ghatia Karmas together, the Keval Gyan is generated. Here destruction of karmas has been called as cause. Therefore the destruction of Mohaniya is not direct cause for generation of Keval Gyan.

The essence is that with the presence of assisting causes, if the hindering causes are absent then the deed would be accomplished, otherwise not.

Keval Gyan from aspect of Dravyarthika naya is present in every soul in form of capability which gets revealed by destruction of Gyanavarana etc. karma form hindering causes. Our being culprit is also dependent upon fruition of Mohaniya karma. So long as Mohaniya does not get destroyed , till then the crime surely remains, since without absence of nimitta, the naimittik bhava also cannot be absent.

15.3. Answer – Believing the non-karma paryaya of ghatia karmas to be nimitta cause for generation of Keval Gyan is not in accordance with Agam. With the absence of nimitta of agyan bhava, the agyan bhava became absent and keval gyan got revealed , this meaning is appropriate.

The meaning of destruction is that the four Ghatia Karmas which were nimitta for agyan etc. , their destruction form meaning is applicable here. Since different from generation, expenditure has this characteristics.

They have made the mistake of accepting the passing away  of previous paryaya and generation of next paryaya to be absolutely same. They have accepted in ekant sense the destruction and generation to be absolutely one and therefore the destruction form non-karma paryaya of four ghatia karmas to be generator of keval gyan.

The rival group believes that nimittas destroy the capability of another dravya in reality or generate super power within them. This type of statement has been made in Jinagam from aspect of Vyavahara naya. Writing or stating in this manner is terminology of Vyavahara naya.

The worldly jiva has been going on having spirit of oneness with others and raga-dwesha with them, for this reason he is dependent. He is manifesting in dependent form independently. If the jiva using his Upayoga nature engaging in his own nature abandons the interest in others , then the eternal nimitta-naimittik vyavahara relationship present with others also would end. This only is attainment of nature or salvation.

Continued…..