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…..