Samaysar Kalash Teeka ---01

 Preface

Samaysar Paramagam is an  incomparable creation of Acharya Kunda Kunda (sometime in first century) which has described the nature of soul from aspect of reality. Acharya Amrit Chandra (10^th century) wrote the commentary Atma Khyati in the form of 278 Kalash by which the Samaysar shastra was adorned. These kalash were themselves very meaningful and extremely spiritual in nature. Not only the mystical meaning of the gathas of Samaysar was conveyed, they also immersed the reader into spiritual world wherein he has provided a succinct description of soul.

For this reason Samaysar Kalash became an independent subject of commentaries. One of them written by Pandit Rajmalla sometime in late 16^th century is quite popular. The reason was it was written in Dhundhari language which was the local language at that time. Further he had elaborated the meaning of the kalash quite clearly with a language of question-answers. Pandit Banarasidasji read by means of this and later converted it into Samaysar Natak in verses form which became quite popular.

Pandit Rajmalla ji also has explained the Sanskrit terms in his commentary so that there is no scope for misunderstandings. In addition his style incorporates the Bhavartha at several places to further simplify the explanations.

An attempt has been made here to present it in English form for the benefit ot readers. However a large number of words are retained from Hindi since there are no suitable English words.

1.     Jiva Adhikar

Shloka  1: I pay my respect to  “ Samaya”, which implies the substance called Jiva, the essence of which is “Samaysar”,  which is devoid of Dravya Karma, Bhava Karma and No karma, which is thus the pure soul.

Kalash 1: Firstly the permanent entity form is offered obeisance. How is that entity form? Its nature, its everything is knowledge-consciousness form, to that my obeisance is offered. From this adjective two inputs are derived- one is that out of the substances, some are conscious and some are non conscious; out of them the conscious substance is suitable to be offered obeisance. Secondly- although the quality of substance is inclusive in the substance i.e. the substance and quality are one and the same, even then they are described by differentiation ; without describing qualities the knowledge of substance does not get generated.

And how is that substance? It is denoted by the term “samay” which has several meanings , however here this term implies all the substances Jivas etc. Out of them the one which is essence form i.e. venerable is Jiva substance to who the obeisance is offered. The epitome is that Jiva is venerable while non conscious substances are not.

Here someone may argue that all the substances are stationary within their qualities and paryayas (modes) being independent, no one is subordinate; then why jiva substance is alone is venerable?

It is clarified by means of two adjectives by asking - how else is that substance? The one which is known by own experience. The experience is of the form of perturbation free pure soul manifestation, blissful beyond senses. Secondly who directly knows simultaneously within one samay all the Jiva etc. substances along with their past-present-future paryayas and their infinite qualities, such is the shuddha Jiva substance to whom I offer obeisance. Shuddha jiva is venerable since it is beneficial & blissful while non beneficial is considered as misery. It is so, since Ajiva substances i.e. pudgala, dharma, adharma, akash , kaal and worldly jiva (Mithya Drishti) do not have happiness nor knowledge hence they are not venerable since with their knowledge(vikalpas)  the knower jiva does not get happiness nor knowledge. Shuddha  jiva has happiness, knowledge and the one who knows and experiences them also has bliss and knowledge . Therefore shuddha jiva is venerable.

Shloka 2: The embodiment of knowledge and speech be ever luminescent which incorporates infinite dharmas.

Kalash 2: “Be eternally illuminous.” Thus the salutations are offered.  Whom? “ To the statue of Anekant (pluralism). Anekant implies that the divine sound of the omniscient is of the form of Syadvad ( doctrine of manyfold viewpoints). At this juncture the doubt is raised that someone may think that Anekant implies doubts and doubts are delusion. To him the clarification is provided that Anekant in fact dispels doubts and helps in understanding the reality of substance. Its details- The sovereignty form  substance is of the form of Dravya and Gunas (qualities). The entity which is described in undifferentiated form as Dravya, the same entity is called as Gunas form in differentiated form. This only is Anekant. The form of entity since eternal times is such only. It is not dependent upon anyone. Hence Anekant is Praman (truth).

 Further, how is that voice which has been offered salutations? The voice which experiences the form of Veetrag omniscient, who is the soul devoid of dravya karma-bhava karma and no karmas. The epitome is as follows: Someone may argue that the divine sound is pudgala form,  insentient and offering salutations to insentient is incorrect. For him the clarification is provided as follows-  The divine sound manifests in accordance with the experience  of Omniscient hence it is called as follower of omniscient. The divine sound is independently produced from aspect of Nishchaya while it follows the experience of omniscient from aspect of Vyavahara. Such voice, though is insentient, it forms nimitta for the generation of knowledge of the nature of Jivas etc. substances, therefore the divine sound is venerable.

How is the veetrag Omniscient? The one who is having infinite qualities. The epitome is as follows: Some Mithya Drishti says that Paramatma is without qualities i.e. with destruction of qualities the Paramatma state is attained. Such belief is untrue since with destruction of qualities the dravya also gets destroyed.

Shloka 3:  Shrimad Amritchandacharya wishes that by writing this commentary on Samayasar his manifestation of the soul which had been corrupted by Moha  be further purified in the form of experience of the pure self.

Kalash 3: The author of this shastra is Amritchandra Suri. He now prays that with the commentary on Samaysar shastra he be conferred with supreme purity as a result. With the preachment of “Samaysar” i.e. Shuddha Jiva he may also attain shuddha form. The Bhavartha is as follows- this shastra is reality form and generator of detachment. It is not like Mahabharata or Ramayana which cause increase of raga.

How am I ? I am of the form of blissful experience beyond senses. I am consciousness natured alone free of blemishes of ragas etc. The Bhavartha is as follows- From aspect of Dravyarthika naya the nature of dravya is such only (as described).

And how else am I ? The impure sentience which is of the form of sensory subjects and passions etc. having eternally continuous pedigree, with which I am pervaded i.e. I am having such impure non natural manifestation . The Bhavartha is as follows- From aspect of Paryayarthika naya the Jiva substance has manifested in impure form since beginningless time. With the destruction of such impurity the Jiva substance is knowledge, blissful form.

Further someone enquires that Jiva substance has manifested in impure form since beginningless time, for that some nimitta is present or not? The answer is that there is a nimitta. Who ? That is answered- Out of the eight karmas of pudgala mass form, there is a Moha karma category , its fruition is the cause. The Bhavartha is as follows- The Jiva dravya manifests in ragas etc. impure manifestations form with the nimitta of fruition of pudgala mass form Moha karma in the pervaded-pervasive form. Just as some one gets intoxicated with liquor, the nimitta is the liquor.

How is that Moha named Karma ? It is the cause of the impure manifestation of Jiva. The Bhavartha is – Due to nimitta of the impure manifestation of Jiva the Moha karma gets bonded, later at the time of fruition it functions as nimitta.

Shloka 4 : Although the subjects of Nishchaya and Vyavahara Nayas are opposite to each other , even so that difference is removed by the words of Jinendra Bhagawan recognized by the use of “Syat” term.  Those people who follow them, they practice it with great affinity.

Kalash 4: Those bhavya jivas shortly destined to attain Moksha, directly experience shuddha jiva forms within a short period.

How is that shuddha jiva ? It is grand flame of knowledge form. What more ? Established eternally. And what else? Unhampered by Mithyavad ( doctrines of delusion). Bhavartha is as follows- The followers of false doctrines Bauddha etc. imagine falsely in several ways, even then they only are incorrect. The soul substance is same as what it is.

Further, how do those Bhavya Jivas attain shuddha state ? It is told- “ Those bhavya jivas shortly destined to attain Moksha very carefully engage in  interest-belief-knowledge  of the venerable shuddha jiva substance as described in the divine preachment. The direct experience of shuddha jiva substance only is called as interest-belief-knowledge. The Bhavartha is as follows- The words themselves are pudgala form and interest in them would not cause attainment of own nature. Hence the experience of venerable substance as described by the words result in attainment of result.

How are the words of Jina? Eliminator of the enmity between two opposing nayas. Details – One describes the substance in dravyarthika naya form while other describes the same in paryayarthika naya form; therefore there is opposition between them; which gets eliminated. Bhavartha is as follows- Both nayas are vikalpa form while the experience of nature of shuddha jiva is nirvikalpa, hence with the experience of shuddha jiva substance, vikalpas of both nayas are false.

And how else are words of Jina ? Which is designated with the symbol of Syadvad i.e. Anekant whose form is described earlier. The Bhavartha is as follows- The substance by itself is undivided. The same substance when described with words , it supports that side.

How is the Jiva shortly destined to attain Moksha? Who has easily vomited Mithyatva form delusion. Bhavartha is as follows- Jiva traverses into endless world . Those worldly jivas have two forms Bhavya and Abhavya. The Abhavyas are not eligible for attaining Moksha in all the three periods of time. Out of the Bhavya jivas several are capable of attaining Moksha depending  upon time. This jiva would attain Moksha after spending this much of time such knowledge exists in Keval Gyan. When that jiva transmigrating in the world has remaining duration of ardha pudgala paravartan only, then he is eligible for attaining Samyaktva. This is known as Kaal Labdhi ( attainment of time). Although Jiva substance only manifests into Samyaktva form, even so without kaal Labdhi even crores of efforts would not make jiva attain Samyaktva- such is the rule. Hence it should be known that Samyaktva cannot be attained by efforts alone but is acquired naturally.

Shloka 5 : It is regrettable that Vyavahara naya is said to be usable for support in the primary stage  for those who are attempting to realise the pure self. However for those people who observe the conscious real self devoid of other dravyas and their thoughts are within themselves , they believe in the same and remain stationary in their conduct, for them the vyavahara naya is irrelevant.

Kalash 5: Whatever is spoken is Vyavahara naya. Explanation- Jiva substance is nirvikalpa and it is subject of experience by means of knowledge. Now if that jiva substance is desired to be described then it can only be told as the one having qualities of darshan-gyan-charitra; such is jiva. Even if someone is very intelligent, even then it gets to be described this way only. This description is Vyavahara.

 Here someone may doubt that Jiva being Nirvikalpa substance, it is improper to describe it using vikalpa. Its explanation is as follows- The Vyavahara naya is like support of hand. Just as someone has fallen down, then some other person by giving support of hand helps him to get up, in the same way the divisions of guna and Guni ( quality and its owner) is a means for generation of knowledge.

Explanation- By describing the characteristics of jiva as consciousness, the realisation of differentness with pudgala etc. insentient substances is experienced. Hence so long as the experience is attained, till then the divisions of guna-guni are a means for knowledge.

Who are the ones for whom the Vyavahara naya functions as support of hand?  Those who have kept their foot at the first step of knowledge at the beginning stage, they are such. Bhavartha is as follows- Those are simple agyani and are desirous of the knowledge of dravya-guna-paryaya forms of jivas etc. substances, for them the description of divisions of guna-guni is useful. Although Vyavahara naya is like support of hand, even then after realisation it is untrue only.

How are those Jivas , for whom the Vyavahara naya is a lie? Those who experience the shuddha jiva substance directly to be the  illumination of consciousness only. Bhavartha is as follows- After the thing is experienced then the vyavahara of speech is automatically discarded. How is the substance? Supremely venerable. And how is the substance? It is devoid of dravya karma-nokarma-bhava karma.

Shloka 6 : Observing the soul as different from all other dravyas and believing it to be so is Samyak darshan as a rule.

How is the soul ? It remains within its Guna-Paryaya ( qualities & modes).

And how is it ? From shuddha naya point of view it is stationary within itself.

And how is it ? It is like a dense block of knowledge. The extent of soul is the same as the extent of right belief. Hence Acharya wishes that discarding the practice of nine tattvas, this single soul be attained.

Kalash 6: The author prays that he also becomes one with the shuddha soul form conscious substance. The Bhavartha is as follows- The Jiva substance has characteristics of consciousness naturally. However, deluded on account of Mithyatva form manifestation, he does not realise his own nature hence he is agyani only. Therefore, it has been said that with elimination of Mithyatva manifestation, the same jiva may now experiences own nature. How? By abandoning the eternal relations with jiva-ajiva-asrava-bandh-samvar-nirjara-moksha-punya-pap to be described later. Bhavartha is as follows- In the worldly state the Jiva dravya manifests into nine tattva forms which are vibhava manifestations hence experience of nine tattva form substance is Mithyatva.

The reason due to which the same Jiva dravya directly experiences his own form without all blemishes of karmas, that only is Samyak Darshan definitely. Bhavartha is as follows- Samyakdarshan is quality of jiva . This quality manifests in vibhava form in worldly state. When this quality manifests in natural form then it is Moksha Marga. Explanation- With attainment of Samyaktva Bhava the new influx (asrava) of gyanavarana etc. dravya karma is prevented and earlier bonded karmas get shedded (nirjara). Therefore it is Moksha marga.

Here someone may doubt that Moksha Marga is attained with the combination of Samyak Darshan-Gyan-Charitra all three. The answer is as follows- When shuddha jiva nature is experienced then all three are present. How is the shuddha jiva? Observing from the aspect of Nirvkalpa thing only, its nature is pure. Bhavartha is as follows- The characteristics of Jiva is consciousness. That consciousness is of three kinds- Gyan chetna, karma chetna, karma phal chetna. Out of these the gyan chetna is pure consciousness, remaining are impure consciousness. Of these the taste of impure consciousness form substance has been experienced by all the jivas since beginningless time. That form experience is not samyaktva. The taste of shuddha consciousness form substance alone is samyaktva.

And how is the Jiva substance? It is accompanied with its guna and paryayas – saying so the purity has been emphasized. Someone may doubt that samyaktva quality and jiva substance are different or one? The answer is that they are undivided. This Jiva substance  only is samyaktva quality form.

Shloka 7: Now atma jyoti (bright illuminated soul) appears subservient to the shuddha naya. Although that atma jyoti belongs the nine tattvas but it does not abdicate its own oneness with itself.

Kalash 7: The same shuddha consciousness form substance is now being described in words using logic.

How is that substance ? Shuddha naya ( paryaya) is subordinate to substance (dravya) only (and no one else). Bhavartha is as follows- that  pure nature is described, by experiencing which the Samyaktva is attained- That pure substance does not relinquish its pure nature at any time.

 Here someone may wonder that Jiva substance gets purified only when it leaves the world. The answer is as follows- The Jiva substance when considered from aspect of dravya is pure in all three periods of time. The same is elaborated- Although the dravya is manifested in nine tattvas form of Jiva-ajiva-asrava-bandh-samvar-nirjara-moksha-punya-pap form paryayas even so substance is pure by nature. The Bhavartha is as follows- Just as fire has the characteristics  of burning, it burns all wood, straw, dried cow dung etc. all the burnable objects and while burning it takes the shape of the objects. Therefore if observed from the aspects of the shape of wood, straw or cow dung then it is true to say that it is fire of wood, fire of straw or fire of cow dung. However if observed from aspect of heat of fire then it is hot only. To call them fire of wood, fire of straw or fire of cow dung, all such considerations are untrue only. In the same way the Jiva manifests in nine tattva forms. Out of those manifestations  some are pure form and some are impure form. If observed from aspect of nine manifestations  then all the nine tattvas are true. However if experienced from aspect of consciousness then all the nine considerations are untrue only.

Kalash 8 : Just as pure gold is extracted and revealed by various cycles of heating the impure gold , in the same manner shuddha naya is used to reveal the pure atma jyoti hidden among the nine tattvas eternally. Hence O Bhavya Jivas ! Experience this Atma jyoti as different from other dravyas and with them as nimitta( causal agent) naimittik bhavas( the effected bhavas). This Atma jyoti ( eternal flame of the soul) is illuminated at every step of the jiva i.e. in every paryaya in the form of consciousness.

Kalash 8: Let the Atma Jyoti form Jiva dravya be always experienced in pure knowledge form only. How is that Atma Jyoti? At this moment one Jiva substance is surprisingly observed in the form of several different bhavas at the same samaya similar to that in a drama. For this reason this shastra has been named as Natak Samaysar.

The same is elaborated- If the eternal vibhava form ragas etc. manifestations- paryayas only are considered then the gyan substance is obscured by the earlier mentioned jivas etc. nine tattvas. The Bhavartha is as follows- The Jiva substance is conjoined with karma paryayas eternally like mixture of metal and stone impurity and in that mixed form it is manifesting in pervasive-pervaded form along with ragas etc, vibhava manifestations by itself. If that manifestation is observed and the nature of jiva is not observed then the Jiva substance is nine tattva forms – this is seen. It is so, not absolutely untrue also, since the capability of manifesting in ragas etc. vibhava form  exists in jiva only.

Now the opposite facet is shown – the same jiva substance is dravya form which is existent in its guna-paryaya forms. If the pure dravya form is observed and the paryaya form is not seen then how is it ? Continuously free of vikalpas of nine tattvas and is pure substance only. The Bhavartha is as follows- The experience of pure substance is Samyaktva. And how is that Atma Jyoti? It is described in two ways. In first meaning- just as one gold is described in different forms on account of percentage of impurities, in the same way one Jiva substance is described in different forms on account of dravya-guna-paryaya or generation-destruction-permanence forms. The second meaning- In Guna- paryaya form or generation-destruction-permanence forms  or the variations of purity of gold as described in example – in all of those differences the thing is one only. From aspect of substance the differences of substance are not different from the substance. Bhavartha is as follows- If gold alone is not seen and impurity is seen then impurity exists, such is the nature of gold. If impurity is not seen and only gold-ness is seen then impurity is untrue. In the same way if the pure jiva substance is not seen and only guna-paryaya or generation-destruction-permanence are observed then guna-paryaya exist and generation-destruction-permanence exist- the jiva substance is such also. If the differences of guna-paryaya or generation-destruction-permanence are not seen and substance alone is seen then all the differences are untrue. Such experience is Samyaktva.

And how is the Atma Jyoti? It is known by the consciousness characteristics, hence it can be known by inference also. Now opposite side- Directly can be known by gyan. Bhavartha is as follows- Considering from aspect of differentiation the Jiva substance is known by consciousness characteristics. However considering from aspect of substance even such vikalpa is also untrue and it is pure substance only. Such experience is Samyaktva.

Continued…..

Seventeen Questions…..30

 

Question 17

What are the characteristics of Upachar? If there is Upachar of causal-ness and Naya-ness between Nimitta cause and Vyavahara naya respectively then please apply Upachar Characteristics on them to explain.

17.1. Answer-  (1) The Vyavahara carried out with recourse to others is called Upachar. Just as ‘pot of ghee.’ The pot is not ghee form ( it is mud form only). In the same way the jiva is not colour etc. form , even then jiva having colour etc. is described in Upachar sense. Actually he is Gyan Ghan only.

Upacharita fire is not used in place of fire, otherwise it results in the becoming primary real fire.

In this way in spite of the original substance not being of that form, carrying out Vyavahara in them purposely in relation to others is called Upachar.

In the absence of primary, for describing objective, nimitta  etc., Upachar is used.

(2) Just as Nishchaya predicates are of six types, the Vyavahara predicates are also of six types -  karta, karma, karan, sampradan, apadan, adhikaran ( doer, deed, cause , dative case, means, support ). The rule is that just as Nishchaya predicates have internal permeation with deed , in the same way other one or more than one suitable substances have external permeation with the deed. The one with which the internal permeation exists, that is called as Upadan karta etc. At that time, the other substance with which the external permeation is existent; in that with recourse to nimitta form Vyavahara the one in which karta form Vyavahara is carried out , that is known as Karta nimitta. The one where karma, karan, sampradan, adhikaran, etc. predicate form Vyavahara is carried out, they are called as karma nimitta, karan nimitta etc. In this way how the Upachar with the specific paryaya of other dravya suitable for the deed in the form of Karta Nimitta etc. is carried out , that is learnt rightly.

With external pervasive-pervaded bhava suitable for production of pot, engaged in such ( desire form and activities of hand etc. ) activities  and experiencing satisfaction with usage of water by means of the pot resulting in satisfaction by means of bhavya-bhavak bhava the potter is karta of pot and enjoyer of the same- such is the eternal traditional Vyavahara of people. In the same way with internal pervasive-pervaded bhava the pudgala dravya carries out the karma and pudgala dravya only enjoys the karma with bhavya-bhavak bhava.

Vyavahara naya is a division of knowledge of nayas. Its job is to know the Vyavahara in the same way as it is carried out. Hence it is counted in Samyak Gyan. Here there is no objective of Upachar hence it is Anupacharita only.

Counter Question 2 – You have told the characteristics of Upachar as ‘ carrying out Vyavahara in relation to others’ but the meaning of the term Vyavahara is not clear. The meaning of ‘ in relation to others’ as ‘ with support of others’ has shrunk the meaning of term Upachar. Just as you can call the pot supporting ghee as pot of ghee , in the same way you cannot call jiva as coloured etc. since neither jiva supports colour etc. nor does he support specific pudgala dravyas .

What is the meaning you wish to convey by the terms Vyavahara and objective? In reality ‘ implying one substance or dharma on another substance or dharma ‘ is the most suitable characteristics of Upachar.

Naya Chakra 235 - From aspect of Vyavahara (Upachar) the other substance (nimitta) should be known as the means for bandh and moksha. But from aspect of Nishchaya ( reality) the jiva himself is cause for bandh and jiva himself is cause for moksha.

The meaning you have  provided above in your book Jain Tattva Mimamsa  is incorrect . How you have interpreted the term ‘other’ as nimitta ? In the gatha ‘Jiva’ word is used in place of ‘Upadan’. Hence it is clear that the word ‘other’ should imply the opponents of jiva i.e. ‘karma’ and ‘nokarma’.  Therefore the correct meaning would be as follows-

“ In Bandh and Moksha Jiva is cause from aspect of Nishchaya naya i.e. he is Upadan cause. Other than jiva the karma, nokarma form substances are causes from aspect of Vyavahara naya i.e. they are nimitta causes.

Here Upadan casualness is established in Jiva while nimitta casualness is established in karma, no karma for which the Nishchaya (self based) naya and Vyavahara (others based) naya have been applied.

By interpreting the meaning of Vyavahara as Upachar, you are trying to establish falsehood in nimitta cause which is not proper.

Upadan= The one which accepts/ assimilates specific manifestation of substance  or in which the manifestation takes place.

Nimitta= The one who is friendly towards Upadan or the one assisting upadan in his specific deed form manifestation

In this way, just as in specific deed the Upadan cause is real , in the same way the nimitta cause is also real.

Jain tattva gyan is relative to both the nayas. Somewhere Nishchaya naya is primary and elsewhere Vyavahara naya is primary in description.

17.2. Answer – We had already told that the Vyavahara carried out with relation (dependence) of others is called ‘Upachar’. In this characteristics by interpreting the meaning of ‘dependence’ as support, you have refuted this characteristics by quoting the example that in “coloured jiva’ there is no support-supported bhava , which is not right. This example has been given by Amritchadracharya himself in shloka 40 wherein he himself has provided the meaning of ‘dependence’ as ‘relation’  and not ‘support’.

As mentioned earlier, the Upachar is used In the absence of primary, for describing objective, nimitta  etc. For the word Vyavahara the equivalent terms are implication, attribution, upachar etc.

In the context of Gatha of Naya Chakra you have raised the doubt how the word ‘other’ has been implied as ‘nimitta’. You have interpreted it as ‘karma no karma’ substances and the same are called as ‘nimitta cause’ which is unnecessary differentiation of meaning. Later you have told that nimitta cause is also real. In Agam everywhere nimitta has been accepted as Vyavahara cause and the meaning of Vyavahara is Upachar.

Further it is mentioned that ‘manifestation is both forms’ – this has been written without Praman of Agam. If manifestation were both form then the pot would have shape of potter also.

Counter Question 3 – In the meaning of the Gatha of Naya Chakra, where you have told the casualness with  upachar sense for the term  nimitta in the meaning, there in our meaning we have told the real nimitta casualness in karma-no karma. In this way the meaning is different.

Therefore just as the Upadan-ness is the nature of substance and is real, being dharma of substance ; in the same way the nimitta-ness is dharma of substance and is therefore established to be real.

Self and others, both together are the means for generation and destruction of substances. The reason is that in the absence of even one of them, the generation and destruction of substance cannot occur. Just as the Urad (lentils) kept in the pot, in spite of having capability to become cooked, do not get cooked without the external means of boiling water. On the other hand, Urad not having capability to get cooked do not get cooked in spite of being immersed in boiling water.

Only mass of mud without the support of external reasons of potter etc. can never become the pot. In the same way the bird etc. substances in spite of being ready for motion or stationary form manifestation cannot attain mobile or stationary state without support of suitable different external reasons. Therefore, it establishes the existence of dharma and adharma dravyas for being means to assist them.

All these Pramans clearly declare the real casualness of external substance form nimitta causes. You wish to apply the upachar of casualness in nimitta, but there we have to consider that when the meaning of the word nimitta itself is ‘cause’ then other than casualness present in the nimitta, which other upachar of casualness you wish to apply in nimitta ? In spite of presence of casualness in nimitta, what is the purpose of having casualness in upachar sense in the same?

In every substance both the dharmas of Upadan and nimitta natures which are present together with respect to the deed, are real only. Therefore calling nimitta as cause in Vyavahara (upachar) sense is incorrect only.

It is your stand that just as mud has pervasiveness with the pot, it does have with the potter.

It is not correct to say that mud has real (sadbhoot) casualness pertaining to pot and potter just has imaginary ( asadbhoot) casualness. The real reason is that just as Upadan form mud manifests into pot form being cause for the support, in the same way the nimitta form potter never manifests into pot form being only assistant. Therefore pot has been said to have permeability with mud on the basis of Upadan-Upadeya form cause-effect bhava, whereas on the basis of different  nimitta-naimittik bhava form cause-effect relationship the permeability of pot has not been told to be with potter in internal form but only in  external form. This is the reason that in both the worldly usages described above clear difference is seen i.e. ‘ pot is made from mud’. This relation  belongs to internal permeability and hence gives information of Upadan-Upadeya bhava between pot and mud. Whereas ‘potter made pot with mud’ – this statement belonging to external permeability gives information of nimitta-naimittik bhava between potter and pot. Hence in both usage equal terms of permeability are not applicable.

In this way the deed for which something is nimitta remains as nimitta only and can never become Upadan for the same.

You say that if manifestation is joint form then pot should have shape of potter. Our stand is that in Agam swa-par-pratyaya manifestations have been accepted. Internal and external permeability you also accept. In this way in one manifestation, from aspect of internal permeability Upadeya-ness and from aspect of external permeability naimittik-ness form two  dharmas can be readily accepted.

In this way nimitta cause is real like Upadan cause in its form. In the same way just as Nishchaya is real, in the same way Vyavahara also is real/sadbhoot in its form.

17.3. Answer – The rival group has written-

The Vikalpas of Nishchaya and Vyavahara in spite of being opponents are residing within the substance in collaborative manner. In several pairs like ekatva-anekatva, nityatva-anityatva, tadroopata-atadroopata, sadroopata-asadroopata, abhedroopata- bhedroopata the first vikalpa pertains to Nishchaya and second vikalpa belongs to Vyavahara. Since all these are dharmas of the substance hence they are sadbhoot in their individual forms, not asadbhoot.

With which Praman this clarification is provided by the rival group – this they have not considered necessary to elaborate. This group  appears to be giving prominence to their own thoughts  rather than that of Agam. In pair of two dharmas , one is Nishchaya and other is Vyavahara- this is their own imagination.

Alap Paddhati- Deciding upon the substance in undifferentiated and Anupachar form is Nishchaya while elaborating the substance in upachar form is Vyavahara.

Jiva also is Shuddha conscious form in Nishchaya form undifferentiated naya while from aspect of Vyavahara naya in  differentiated  form he knows hence is Gyan, sees hence is Darshan, conducts hence is Charitra- in this way the three types of divisions are realised.

It is clear that the undifferentiated form, one indivisible substance in all three periods of time is termed as  Nishchaya and the one which assimilates it is Nishchaya naya.

In spite of dharma and dharmi being indistinct by nature, stating by means of differentiation is Vyavahara and the one dealing with that subject is Vyavahara naya. Since dharma and dharmi are sadbhoot in a single substance hence such naya is called as Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya. In this way in the Jinagam, the reality is named as Nishchaya and the Upachar is called Vyavahara.

The rival group believes that the subject of Vyavahara naya is special dharma of substance and in the same way the subject of Nishchaya naya is also special dharma of substance.

The subject of Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya, keeping in mind the designation, purpose and characteristics etc. is to state by means of differentiation in indivisible unhindered substance in all three periods of time.  While subject of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya is merely to attribute the quality dharma of one substance on another substance purposefully.

The question may be raised that when every substance is really existent in all three periods of time in unhindered indivisible form then why the gyan dealing with that subject is called as Nishchaya naya. Why this gyan is not called as Praman Gyan? The explanation is that this gyan does not deal with specific substance from aspects of dharma, kaal etc., hence this gyan is naya gyan only . Since the substance is by nature undifferentiated single form real sovereignty, hence the vikalpa of naya dealing with it  is called as Nishchaya naya.

In the gatha of Naya Chakra the other substance is means for Bandh-Moksha from aspect of Vyavahara ( Upachar) while Jiva substance is cause from aspect of Nishchaya (reality).

One dravya carries out activity of the form of assistance in the deeds of another dravya, this is  merely a  statement. Every dravya carries out his own business on its own but since they occur together as a rule , hence there different from Upadan, the activities of other dravya are treated as nimitta in Vyavahara sense

Every deed is swa-par-pratyaya , this is not negated, but it has to be considered that out of two, which reason is real and which one is Upacharita. In the Paramagam, on consideration of this aspect, the self capable of carrying out his own task is described as real means and the causal-ness of  other is called as Upacharita.

The rival group has tried to describe the Vyavahara means also as real, but this is their imagination only. Since one substance is completely absent in another substance , hence causal dharma of  the deed of one substance is Sadbhoot in another substance- such belief  is not in consonance with Agam. Here in spite of accepting Vyavahara means from aspect of specific deed, it should be treated as subject of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya only.

Upachar is not absolutely imaginary and baseless, but it has some basis. Believing Upachar to be real only is untrue, otherwise it is true in Vyavahara sense, since Vyavahari people carry out local activities by means of such Vyavahara popularly used. We do not eliminate the Vyavahara of assisting in the deeds of one by another, but we oppose move to describe it as real form. The rival  group is bent upon proving it to be real which is contrary to Agam, logic and experience completely.

The production of pots and pans etc. deeds occur in accordance with the activities of their own Upadans. Believing the external materials to be cause for their production only, is an Upachar statement.

The external materials have anvaya-vyatirek (connection-distinction) with the deed of other substance; merely for this reason the external materials cannot be described as real cause. The external connection-distinction is coexistent with internal connection-distinction. Hence due to existence of closeness of kaal, keeping in mind the external pervasiveness, this can also be said that the potter closed down his business hence the pot is not being produced. But such a statement is Upacharita only. The real statement is that at that time the mud being karta stopped its activity of pot making hence the pot is not being made.

The causal-ness of mud in pot is real and the causal-ness of yoga and vikalpa of potter is real but the yoga and vikalpa of potter does not have extraordinary dravya closeness and specific bhava closeness. Hence the causal-ness of potter in pot is Asadbhoot only. If it is accepted to be Sadbhoot then potter and mud would become one. This is the reason that Acharyas have described the potter as Vyavahara(upacharita) cause of pot due to kaal closeness.

Moksha Marga Prakashak- In Jina Marga some places the description is with primacy of Nishchaya naya , that should be known as ‘ it is really so’. And somewhere the  description is with the primacy of Vyavahara naya. That should be known as ‘ It is not so but from aspect of nimitta etc. such Upachar is carried out’. Knowing thus only is the acceptance of both the nayas. Further, believing the descriptions of both nayas as completely real, ‘ this is also there and that is also there.’- it has not been told to get deluded like this.

 

The End

Seventeen Questions…..29

 

(10) Clarification about  Vyavahara dharma

We had mentioned that ‘ Along with Nishchaya dharma , in accordance with the convention of Gunasthana, the Shubha vikalpas of raga paryaya forms of the form of Deva, Guru, Shastra, Ahimsa etc.  Anuvrita, Maha vrita etc. are called as Vyavahara dharma. The rival group treats the ‘Ahimsa etc. AnuVrita’ etc. term to be against the Samayik and Chhedopasthapana Sanyam but this belief of theirs is not right since Ahimsa etc. five MahaVritas are part of Sarag Sanyam which is Sanyam of ragi jiva.  

The one who is engaged in renouncing the reasons for the world but whose kashayas have not been eliminated as yet, he is called as ‘Sarag’. The Sanyam of Ragi Jivas or Sanyam with raga is called as Sarag Sanyam.

In the Vrita where ashubha is discarded, there the engagement in Shubha also occurs. But the form of Samvar is different from these. Samvar has been accepted as the prevention of both Shubha or ashubha manifestation forms. This is the reason that the AnuVrita and Maha Vritas are called as raga form and they are included in Vyavahara dharma.

Here the Vritas are considered as Asrava form hence there is no difficulty in Samayik and Chhedopasthapana also to be of same nature. Whereas in the context of Samvar when they are included, there definitely they are of the Param Veetrag Charitra form.

The Moksha Marga preachment (1/1) in Tattvartha sutra is Nishchaya jewel trio form Atma Dharma. Quoting that to establish sarag Charitra or Sarag Sanyam as Veetrag Charitra or Veetrag Sanyam is not proper. Asrava form Vritas etc. and Samvar form Gupti etc. have huge difference. The rival group is trying to mix them and establish them as same which is incorrect. 

Those who do not practice Vyavahara dharma in accordance with the code of conduct as described in shastras pertaining to charitra, wherein several discrepancies are blatantly observed, even then if they are called as practitioner of Charitra, then we would call  it as a mockery of Moksha Marga only. We know this for sure that if the lax conduct is promoted based upon the presently accepted wrong beliefs then it would be extremely difficult to protect the right Moksha Marga.

The rival group writes that ‘ our kram baddha paryayas are not destined to practice Vritas and paryayas cannot be brought forward or backward then how can we renounce paps?’

The solution is that those who have belief in kram baddha paryaya and those who believe in omniscience, they cannot have something else in their intent and practice externally something else. He is close to the end of the world and very soon adopting Vritas in accordance with Nishchaya dharma he would be candidate for Moksha. He would definitely practice Shubha conduct in accordance with his state.

(11) Consideration of Objective and Means

The rival group says that ‘ If Vritas are considered as raga then they would not be treated as Vyavahara dharma itself since Vyavahara dharma is means for Nishchaya dharma.’

The answer is that Acharyas have declared samvar being of the form of renunciation of Shubha-ashubha . It is proper to consider Vritas to be auspicious raga form Shubha activities.

The objective-means consideration is carried out in three ways- From aspects of Nishchaya naya, Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya and Aasdbhoot Vyavahara naya.

From aspect of Nishchaya naya the soul manifested in Samyak Darshan etc. form only is the means and that only is objective. From aspect of Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya, each of  Nishchaya Samyak Darshan etc. are means and soul is the objective. From aspect of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya, the Vyavahara dharma of the form of Shubha activities is means and soul is objective. Here the Shubha activities of Vrita etc. are called as dharma in Upachar sense only. This establishes that Vrita etc. are not real means of Nishchaya Moksha Marg.

In Panchastikaya 160, Vritas etc. are called as Vyavahara Moksha Marg. They are means for attainment of Nishchaya Moksha Marg. Hence Vyavahara MokshaMarg is called as means and Nishchaya Moksha Marg as objective.

In Gatha 161, from aspect of Nishchaya naya, the soul engrossed in Nishchaya Samyak Darshan-Gyan-Charitra only is called as Nishchaya MokshaMarg. This is the soul based characteristics of Moksha Marg.

Describing each of the three Nishchaya Samyak Darshan-Gyan-Charitra as Moksha Marg is statement of Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya. The belief in Dharma etc. dravyas , knowledge of AngPoorva etc.  and renunciation of ashubha with engagement in  Shubha are called as Moksha Marg in Asadbhoot Vyavahara sense.

Yoga and Kashaya after attainment of Samyaktva and Charitra can bond Tirthankara and Aharak Dwik but not in their absence. Hence from aspect of Upachar,  Samyaktva and Charitra are called as means for bandh . In reality both of these are Udaseen (detached) towards this bandh.

In this way in spite of not being the real means for bandh, the Nishchaya dharma is called as means for bandh in Upachar sense since in its presence a specific type of bandh takes place. In the same way Vyavahara dharma is not real means of Nishchaya jewel trio, even then in the presence of specific Vyavahara dharma, specific type of Nishchaya dharma is attained – seeing this it has been called as means for Nishchaya dharma in upachar sense. Keeping this only in mind Vyavahara Moksha Marg is called as means and Nishchaya Moksha Marg as objective.

The Samyak Drishti accepts Nishchaya as objective and Vyavahara as means; it is not in the sense that by undertaking Vyavahara, Nishchaya would be attained. But he knows that Nishchaya form Moksha is attained by means of attainment of Nishchaya jewel trio  only. Merely by remaining in Vikalpa form with recourse to Vyavahara dharma, it would not be attained.

(12) Consideration of Upayoga

Those who manifest in shubhpayoga with abundance and at some time they contemplate of shuddhopayoga, they are still called shubhopayogi. Those who are Shuddhopayogi and at some times they manifest in shubhopayoga form, even then they are shuddhopayogi only. Within them the plurality is primary like that in mango forest and lemon forest.

The statement of rival group is that ‘ if shubhopayoga is not accepted as Shuddha-ashuddha bhava form then shubhopayoga would not be cause for Moksha .’ Now we have to consider that what is the meaning of Shubhopayoga?

1. The rival group has described Shubhopayoga  as mixed upayoga of Shuddha-ashuddha bhavas which is not correct. Practice of Vrita etc. form bhavas to prevent the ashubha bhavas and bhavas of bhakti, vatsaslya, vinay etc. are shubhopayoga. In Sadhus, internally  the recourse to soul is present in abundance even while externally they are engaged in activities of food taking etc.

In brief the upayoga tainted with Shubha raga with recourse to others is shubhopayoga and manifestation of upayoga engrossed with recourse to soul is Shuddhopayoga.

2. Where Vyavahara dharma has been called as means for Moksha traditionally, there the objective is this much only that with its presence and with recourse to own nature the purity would enhance fractionally. This Vyavahara dharma is not hindrance to  enhancement of purity. Agam does not say that householders carry out destruction of karmas with shubhopayoga and Munis do the same with shuddhopayoga.

Samyak Darshan is swabhava paryaya of belief and raga is vibhava paryaya of charitra quality. Hence they cannot be mixed. Therefore there cannot be mixture of Shuddha-ashuddha bhava out of Shuddha bhava of Samyak darshan and ashuddha bhava of Kashaya form and called as Shubhpayoga.

The meaning of traditional means is this only that when the jiva engrossed in own nature engages in shuddhopayoga, prior to that he manifests in shubhopayoga form and not ashubhopayoga.

The rival group has written 4-12^th gunasthana as shubhopayoga which is incorrect. The paryaya being of Shuddha-ashuddha mixed form is a different matter and Upayoga being of Shubha, ashubha, Shuddha form is different matter. This is because Upayoga is activity form. Upayoga engaged in ashubha activities of sensual subjects is ashubhopayoga while that engaged in Shubha activities with recourse to vritas etc. is shubhopayoga.  The jiva engaged with recourse to gyayak soul is called shuddhopayoga.

Thus with difference of recourse the Upayoga gets divided into three parts. The mixed paryaya of charitra quality is present at time of shubhopayoga as well as that of shuddhopayoga. Therefore the Upayoga should be known as different from mixed paryaya of charitra quality.

The rival group has implied the meaning of shubhopayoga as Vishuddha manifestation activity which is not correct since the manifestations pertaining to bondage of asata are called Sanklesh while those pertaining to bondage of sata are vishuddhi. Thus in shubhopayoga the manifestations can be of both kinds sanklesh or vishuddhi.

(13) The meaning of Samaysar gatha 272

The rival group has written that ‘ for jiva engaged in veetrag nirvikalpa samadhi, the vyavahara naya is to be shunned but for disciples at primary stage it is meaningful.’

The Samyak Drishti even in Savikalpa state also does not consider  Vyavahara naya as worthy of taking shelter.  But for the Mithya Drishti jiva who is at primary stage, who keeps manifesting in agyan etc. form continuously believing  Vyavahara naya as worthy of taking recourse- for him this preachment is given.

It is not the duty of Vyavahara naya to carry from savikalpa state to Nirvikalpa state . This task can be carried out by taking recourse to nirvikalpa gyayak soul only.

Samaysar Gatha 8 Bhavartha- Lok does not know Shuddha naya since its subject is indivisible single substance. They know Ashuddha naya only since its subject is several types in differentiated form. Therefore with Vyavahara they can understand Shuddha naya form real meaning. For this reason, Vyavahara naya is preached knowing it to be describing real meaning. It should not be misconstrued that they direct to take recourse to Vyavahara, instead here the recourse to Vyavahara is renounced for reaching real objective- this should be known.

The Practitioner does not forgo Vyavahara but keeping primary objective in mind of the form of Nishchaya disregards Vyavahara. Considering only subject of Nishchaya as worthy of shelter, he keeps practicing for directing his upayoga in that direction.

We can say only this much that rival group should  themselves consider that whether they have any such hindrance that in spite of adequate external purushartha and accumulating suitable nimittas, their objective is not fulfilled. It is clear that Kaal Labdhi has not been attained.

Continued…..

Seventeen Questions…..28

(2) Clarification of Bandh and Moksha from aspect of Naya

When we consider from aspect of jiva then it is realised that bandh and moksha – both are paryayas of jiva only. From this aspect both paryayas are Sadbhoot- real in Jiva. These only are named as Bhava Sansar and Bhava Moksha. This is statement of Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya.

Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya calls manifestation in gyanavarana etc. form of karamana varganas as bandh and manifestation in non-karma form abandoning the karma paryaya of those gyanavarana etc. karmas as Moksha. Although both of these ( karma paryaya form bandh paryaya of karmana varganas and non-karma form Moksha paryaya of karmas) do not belong to Jiva , these are not produced by Jiva , even then from aspect of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya they are said to be belonging to Jiva. Jiva only is called as their karta.

The rival group said that ‘ the subject of one naya cannot be the subject of another naya,  otherwise there would not be any organisation  without their difference. The statement of Vyavahara naya cannot be made with Nishchaya naya hence setting aside the agam pramans stating that “this statement is from aspect of Vyavahara naya and not Nishchaya naya” is not in consonance with Agam. ‘

We also say that the subject of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya cannot be that of Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya. Without their difference, the divisions into both nayas would be a waste. Hence accepting Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya as Upacharita is meaningful and calling it as Sadbhoot is not in agreement with Agam.

The rival group, without taking the names of secondary divisions of Vyavahara naya and mixing the subjects of Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya into Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya has erected the structure of counter questions. But this is not the procedure of analysis of Tattva.

(3) Insistence of Ekant is not proper

The paryaya of soul which is generated with the target  towards others ( getting engaged with raga bhava in others or in contact with others), that belongs to the target only. This is the reason that in Adhyatma Agam Jina deva has called adhyavasana etc. bhavas as Jiva which should be known as statement of unreal form Vyavahara. The question arises that why Jina deva described such unreal Vyavahara. In reply it is told that informing the Vyavahara to provide the knowledge of nimitta for Teerth practice is a different matter and believing it to be real is different matter. If Vyavahara naya is accepted as real then this jiva would not be able to attain salvation from body and ragas etc. bhavas in all three periods of time. Hence Nishchaya and Vyavahara both are real form- such ekant should not be insisted upon.

(4) Why the jiva is Subordinate ? Its complete deliberation

The rival group has written that ‘ karmas have made jiva subordinate to it and due to that he has been enslaved.’- this sentence is feeder of Ekant. They have called it a quote of Acharya Vidya nandi but they did not produce the original quote.

On the same basis they write that’ It is evident that the anger etc. form manifestation of jiva by itself is subordination and not cause for subordination.’ Further it is also their view that the agyan bhava of jiva is cause for subordination.

From these it can be known that the rival group believes only pudgala karma to be cause for subordination of jiva in ekant sense, while Acharya Vidya Nandi says that ‘ the cause for agyan etc. form flaws is the obscuring karmas and subsequent own manifestation of jiva.’

From this it is clear that Acharya Vidya Nandi has accepted not only Gyanavarana etc. karmas as cause for subordination but he has also accepted the raga, dwesha and moha also to be cause for subordination. These ragas etc. form bhavas are themselves subordination form and also are cause for subordination of jiva . It means that gyanavarana etc. karmas are cause for subordination from aspect of vyavahara but not of the form of subordination itself.

In this way there are two reasons for the subordination of jiva – external and internal. Now which one is the prime cause –

Hari Vansh Purana- For each deed the prime cause is Upadan and the different family form reason is assistant.

From the Pramans of Agam it can be known that if this jiva engages  himself in karma (raga-dwesha) and its fruits  then only gyanavarana etc. karmas are named as causal agents for manifestations of agyan etc. form, otherwise not. From this it establishes that the root cause for own subordination is Jiva himself and not gyanavarana etc. karmas. Gyanavarana etc. karmas have been called as cause for subordination by Acharya since by immersing in them jiva produces subjugation within himself by himself. They do not subjugate the jiva themselves. With the nimitta of Jiva manifestations karma vargana form pudgala attain manifestations and at later time with the jiva immersing himself in them , they function as Vyavahara cause for raga-dwesha form subordination of Jiva.

In reality Jiva due to his own  guilt gets subjugated.

When Agam accepts in clear words that one dravya cannot be real karta of another dravya in all three periods of time, in such a state accepting specific paryaya of one dravya as the deed of a different dravya in Vyavahara sense  only, is in consonance with Agam.

Upto 14^th Gunasthana this jiva has remained subjugated; the internal reason for the same is the incapability of the jiva himself. Acharya VidyaNandi has mentioned karmas everywhere as cause for subordination in the nimitta sense so that someone should not accept dravya karma fruition as the prime karta  for the subordination of jiva. While calling dravya karmas as nimitta for subordination he has given allegory of shackles. The shackles do not make someone as subordinate themselves. When  they are wore on account of crime then they are external nimitta in subordination, otherwise not.

It is clear that the root of subordination of jiva is Mithya Darshan, Mithya Gyan and Mithya Charitra only. The word karma is used for Dravya karma and primarily for Bhava karma. In  reality dravya karma is not own task of jiva and carrying out bhava karma is the own task of jiva. Therefore in reality Mithyatva etc. bhava only are accepted as obscurer for Samyaktva.

Samaysar Gatha 161-3- JinaDeva has called Mithyatva as the obscurer for samyaktva. Due to its fruition Jiva is Mithya Drishti. The agyan has been called as obscurer of Gyan. With its fruition jiva is agyani. Kashaya has been called as the obscurer of Charitra. With its fruition the jiva is non-charitra form.

When this jiva manifests in Mithyatva etc. form on account of spirit of raga or oneness with others , then only gyanavarana etc. karmas are vyavahara cause for subordination, otherwise not.

Pravachansar 45- In  spite of the fruition of dravya moha, if with the spirit of shuddhatma bhavna, the jiva does not manifest in bhava moha form , then the bandh does not accrue at that time.

(5) All the Arhat preachments are Praman

The rival group have tried to give a distorted colour to the veetrag discussion by quoting  our comment that ‘Samaysar is Agam Granth dealing primarily with Adhyatma while other granths have been written with primacy of Vyavahara naya’, which is not praiseworthy.  In Panchastikaya 132, Acharya Amritchandra has clarified that in Samaysar the statements are made primarily from aspect of Nishchaya naya while the Vyavahara naya is stated in secondary manner. In other granths Vyavahara naya is primary and Nishchaya naya is secondary.

The rival group has accused us of calling Vyavahara naya as imaginary. This we cannot understand. If we call pot of mud as pot of ghee due to  some reason then is it called imaginary? Even then Nishchaya naya would call it as pot of mud only.

Irrespective of whether they are authored by householder or Munis, all the agam following Veetrag vani is Praman only.

(6) Vyavahara Tapa, Vrita etc. are not real means for Moksha

The rival group says that in Digamber Jain Agam the attainment of Moksha or the Nishchaya form Shuddhatma has been described only by means of Vyavahara dharma. The Shubha form activities of mind, speech and body are considered as means of salvation in traditional sense.

Now if these activities imply as dravya mind, speech form paryaya of bhasha varganas and audarik etc. body activities, then is it not right since all three are manifestations of pudgala dravya. They are neither Shubha nor Ashubha. If the above terms imply three yogas then also it is not right since due to Shubha manifestations only the three yogas are called  Shubha. Hence this term would imply soul manifested in Shubha form only.

Now the question arises that what is the idea behind calling the Shubha vrita etc. as traditional cause for Moksha in Agam? The answer is that if these Vrita etc. were traditional cause for Moksha i.e. means for partial soul purity and in this way if the jiva could attain Moksha by attaining progressive partial purity, then in Agam (Pravachasar) it would not have been written (187)  that ‘ when this soul manifests in Shubha and ashubha form indulging in raga-dwesha then gyanavaraniya etc. karmas get bonded. It would not have been written (181) that ‘ shubha manifestation directed towards others is punya while ashubha manifestations are pap and  the manifestations which are carried out without targeting others are means for destruction of misery.’

This also would not have been told that (160) ‘I am neither body, nor mind nor speech, I am not their cause or karta. I am not getting them done nor approving the activities of karta.’ This would also not have been told that (samaysar 38) ‘ I am one, Shuddha , gyan darshan form, without shape. Even paramanu also is not mine.’

“If this jiva just continues to do bhakti of Deva etc. and practicing Vrita etc. then with generation of partial purity he would attain Moksha traditionally.”-  Has  rival  group  contemplated anytime  that why Agam has given such preachment? If analysed deeply then he would realise that Shubha manifestations are merely cause for bondage and hence they are despicable in Moksha Marga. They cannot be means for real Salvation, they are not even cause for partial purity. Even if this manifestation belongs to Samyak Drishti, it is still cause for bondage; since the category of this manifestation is different from the partial purity form manifestations resulting in Moksha.

Then how Shubha vrita etc. are  called cause for salvation? The answer is given by Acharya Amritchandra in kalash 149, that Gyani in spite of being immersed in karmas does not get tainted by them. Therefore raga-dwesha form Shubha manifestations do not become a hindrance in the progressive enhancement of the soul purity. Therefore these Vrita etc. form vyvahara is called traditional means for Moksha.

(7) Meaning of term “Gyan” in reality

The extraordinary nature of soul is gyan only and in this treatise with gyan only as primary, the dissertation is carried out. Hence ‘Samyak Darshan- Gyan-Charitra-  in these three forms gyan only manifests ‘  saying thus gyan only has been declared as means for Moksha. Gyan in undifferentiated deposition is soul only- In this there is no contradiction. Therefore Acharya has addressed gyan form soul by the term gyan at several places.

Todarmalji-  “ and from aspect of  renouncing the nimitta of other dravya, the vrita, sheel, Sanyam etc. have been called Moksha Marg, but do not accept them as Moksha Marg itself. If the acceptance- renunciation of other dravya is carried out by soul , then only soul would be karta-harta of other dravya.”

Therefore Vrita etc. have been called Moksha Marg for attaining renunciation of nimitta of other dravyas in Vyavahara sense.

In this way gyan only is the means for Moksha.

(8) Predestined deed is carried out at predestined time only

The rival group giving reference of Pariksha Mukh have written that ‘ Just as there is no defined time for knowing the pot and pan etc. by bringing attention towards them, in the same way by engrossing within self, there is no defined time for knowing self  since there is no defined time for accomplishing all the deeds. Only external-internal capable materials are the regulator of the deed.’

The answer is that in the external-internal materials the predestined time is also included. Hence it establishes that at predestined time only the predestined materials are acquired and with them as nimitta the predestined deed gets carried out. No one waits for anyone. At their own time, the predestined materials are acquired. At the predestined time of other materials (non desired), it cannot be acquired since that is the own time for acquisition of other materials.

Therefore predestined purushartha should be accepted along with predestined internal-external materials at the predestined time for accomplishment of predestined deed.  

(9) Implication  of association-dissociation with specific support in reality

The rival group has written that “ The specialists of Karananuyoga know that in 7^th due to absence of Pratyakhyana Kashaya fruition, compared to the 5^th gunasthana of shravak the Muni of 7^th has infinite times more purity of manifestations . Therefore the highest purity of shravak gets assimilated within the purity of 7^th gunasthana .”

In our sentence the renunciation of support of supremely purified manifestations of shravak has been mentioned. The jiva who attains 7^th from 5^th, he as a rule has Sakar Upayoga ( Upayoga with shape) , therefore abandoning the recourse to purely  manifested soul  of 5^th , he takes recourse to pure manifestations of soul of 7^th gunasthana – this is the implication of the above statement.

The rival group says that the purity is not abandoned but keeps enhancing in every gunasthana. If we take a look at the principle of Utpad-Vyaya ( generation-destruction) then it would be realised that with destruction of previous paryaya only the new paryaya gets generated. The previous paryaya does not get absorbed in the next paryaya.

Continued…..