Question 17
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
No comments:
Post a Comment