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…..