GRANTHRAJ SHRI PANCH DHYAYI …08

 

Doubt 293-298

293. Shloka- The questioner says that if in absence of Vyatirek, the Anvaya does not survive then let Vyatirek be there. But this should be conceded that Anvaya and Vyatirek both are independent like jiva and ajiva.

294. Shloka- If perhaps your Siddhant is that anvaya does not stay within vyatirek then also it does not negate our argument. Since just as Anvaya does not stay in Vyatirek, in the same way Vyatirek does not stay in Anvaya.

295. Shloka- Hence this is well established that just as only Anvaya is there, the same way the Vyatirek is there. Since there is no difference. In Samanya Drishti both are same, independent. Just as Anvaya is told, same way Vyatirek is told.

296. Shloka- For example take pots and pans. Just as pot remains in its own form separately in the same way the pan also stays in own form separately. Pot does not stay in pan and vice versa. Both are independent and separate.

297. Shloka- Just as absence of pot is not pan nor in the absence of pan the pot is produced. In the same way absence of pan is not pot and with absence of pot, pan is produced.

298. Shloka- In such conditions your saying that in the absence of Vyatirek even Anvaya does not occur, is not right. Since like pots and pans we can say that anvaya is different by its nature and Vyatirek is different by nature. In such a case without Vytirek also Anvaya can occur?

Bhavartha- The questioner  believes the anvaya to be independent and vyatirek also to be independent. He does not accept the substance to have joint relative dharma form.

Bhavartha- The questioner has made the mistake of nor realising  that Maha satta and Avantar satta need to be applied on samanya-Vishesh of same dravya and not two different dravyas. Whereas he has applied Asti-Nasti upon two dravyas, pot and pan or sentient-insentient.

Answer 299-308

299. Shloka- This is not  right since existence in spite of being dwait form, is Adwait form in certain respect. Hence upon consideration of Vidhi the existence is Vidhi alone and same existence upon consideration of Nishedh is just Nishedh form.

Bhavartha- The substance is Samanya- Vishesh form or Vidhi-Nishedh form. The bhava which is under consideration at given moment, at that moment  that substance is that bhava form only.

300. Shloka- It is not so that some part of dravya be samanya form and other part be Vishesh form since such existence cannot be established by any means and there no dwait can be imagined since dravya is not just vishesh form.

Bhavartha – Like fruit, leaves of a tree , in same existence some part be samanya form and some part be vishesh form, it is not so. Since Samanya and vishesh cannot be established as independent, in reality samanya-vishesh do not have dwait bhava , only appear to be so in presentation. 

301-302. Shloka- It is not so either that like other dravyas ( pots&pans, sentient& insentient) the samanya and vishesh are totally different. The term absolute is also unacceptable since by telling the substance to be absolutely samanya form, it becomes only samanya form and Vishesh  characteristics become absent.  In the same way by describing it as absolutely Vishesh only the Samanya becomes absent. Thus with complete independence of the two the Vastutva nature of dravya gets lost. Only if the substance is accepted to be dual form then it gets established.

303. Shloka- When it has been established that substance is samanya-vishesh form then sometimes it is described as samanya form and sometimes Vishesh form. Since being mutually dependent, one gets intermingled with other.

Bhavartha- In this way with the substance getting to be established as Anvaya-Vyatirek form, when the substance is described as Samanya form at that time the negation form Vishesh dharma gets hidden in same Samanya. Further when the same substance is described as Vishesh form at that time the Samanya also gets hidden in the same Vishesh. Since asti-nasti are not absolutely different but mutually relative. Hence in the primacy of described the undescribed is present in secondary way.

304-305. Shloka- For example when cloth is seen from aspects of thread then it does not appear to be cloth but threads only. When the same cloth is seen from aspect of cloth then it does not appear to be thread form but cloth form only. Collecting both the implications by means of Praman, the cloth is joint samanya-vishesh form of cloth-ness and thread-ness, thus it is so viewed by the experts.

306. Shloka- Similar to the cloth there are other examples also which support our stand. All examples support the dual nature and none of them negate the Jain darshan.

307. Shloka- The essence of the above is that samanya only itself becomes Vishesh form under influence of logic and the Vishesh also becomes Samanya form with logic.

Bhavartha- When the substance is described in samanya form at that time the entire substance appears to be samanya. It is not so that some part of substance appears in Vishesh form also. In the same way under description of Vishesh the entire substance appears to be Vishesh form . Those philosophers who believe samanya and vishesh to be separate divisions of the substance, their stand gets refuted by this affirmation since the substance can not get described in two forms at the same time. When it is described in a particular form then at that time it appears to be that form only. All the forms of Syadvad are dependent upon description. Hence those who do not understand Naya viewpoint , they cannot realise Syadvad.

Conclusion

308. Shloka- As per the description above, the one knower of tattva is only Jain and is real Syadvadi. If he does not know the form of tattva as described above then he is not Syadvadi but he is ignorant like animal.

Summary of 289 to 308

Here independent asti-nasti i.e. different Pradesh of Samanya and different Pradesh of Vishesh have been refuted and mutual dependence of samanya-vishesh i.e. asti-nasti has been supported. This is the essence.

Note- With this in the Maha Adhikar of ‘Anekant nature of substance’ the first intermediate chapter describing the asti-nasti dual is completed.

Second Intermediate Chapter

 Important Notice- It is the procedure of Author that firstly he describes a topic in ‘asti’ form and then he narrates it in ‘nasti’ form. In other words, firstly it is described in Anvaya form and then it is analysed in Vyatirek form. Or, in other words, firstly Jain dharma is described and then other faiths are refuted. But in the description of ‘Tat-Atat’  in  309-325 firstly it is described in ‘nasti’ form i.e. Vyatirek form is analysed or the other faiths are negated, and then in 326-335 it is  described in ‘asti’ form or Anvaya form.

The secret of Tat-Atat- Just as the  dravya is self established, in the same way it manifests by itself. Hence remaining stationary it keeps changing. This steadiness is called Nitya and the manifestation is called Anitya which shall be described later in  Nitya-Anitya Adhikar. The form which is generated due to manifestation, that form has necessarily two dharmas of similarity and dissimilarity for sure. Due to similarity it appears to be the same and due to dissimilarity it appears to be different. From aspect of Dravya Drishti it appears to be same and from aspect of Paryaya Drishti it appears to be different. This is same, is ‘Tat’ and this is different, is ‘Atat’. For example the Manushya became Deva upon death. This is same jiva is ‘Tat’ and this is different is ’Atat’. Sometimes difference of ‘Nitya-Anitya’ and ‘Tat-Atat’ is not realised and both appear same. But it is not so. Nitya described his self established nature while Anitya described his manifestation. But ‘Tat-Atat’ tells that on account of manifestation the form which is produced every samaya , that form has both similarity and dissimilarity dharmas. Similarity gives impression that it is same, and dissimilarity causes impression that it is not same but different. The form need not be absolutely similar or dissimilar. Another thing to be noted is that as per Jain dharma in ‘Atat Drishti’ the dravya itself is different . The dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava of Tat is same in trikaal. The dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava of Atat is different at every samaya. Tat-atat also are like the other three pairs relative to each other and not independent. Tat is called bhava and Atat is called Abhava. They are called similar -dissimilar also. All three are equivalent.

Narration of Tat-Atat from aspect of ‘Nasti’ 309-325

Doubt

309. Shloka- The existent always remains in Dhruva form hence it is present in all the samayas of entire kaal. Then why do you (Jains) say that this existent is present at specific time and not at unspecific time?

Answer

310. Shloka- The answer to your doubt is that from aspect of existence alone the existence is same, but from aspects of states of the existence, it is different.

Doubt

311. Shloka- What is the difference between Tat-Atat and Nitya-Anitya since both have same characteristics and same objective.

Bhavartha- Tat means that and Atat means not that. The meanings of Tat and Atat are same as that of Nitya, Anitya. Then what is the purpose of telling both?

Answer

312. Shloka- This objection is not right since definitely there is a difference between Nitya-Anitya and Tat-Atat Bhavas. In the Nitya-Anitya the manifestations occurring at every moment are considered and there is no consideration  that the manifestation is similar or dissimilar. While in Tat-Atat bhavas the consideration is that of sameness or differentness of manifestation.

Doubt

313. Shloka – Entity is Nitya in some respect and Anitya in some respect, with this alone the similarity and dissimilarity of manifestation gets established then what is the purpose of considering the bhava and abhava of Tat-Atat? This makes it unnecessarily complex.

Answer 314 to 321

314. Shloka- The doubt is not valid since if the bhava and abhava of Tat-Atat is not considered then the substance becomes flawed. Without Tat-Atat, by accepting substance to be Nitya-Anitya form, it does not ensure kriya and its result.

 315. Shloka- ‘ All entity is Nitya only’ if this is accepted absolutely then in absence of Vikriya (activity) the cause and effect both do not happen and predicate also does not get established.

316. Shloka- If the entity is accepted to be absolutely Anitya then it would be transitory and being transitory it cannot have result of kriya nor any predicates be there, nor any Tattva ( entity-dhruva ) be there.

317. Shloka- Without considering the bhava-abhava of Tat-Atat if the substance is accepted as only Nitya-Anitya form only, then also the objective is not established since without accepting Tat-Atat the generation of Vishesh in substance cannot occur.

318. Shloka- If the manifesting entity is accepted to be Nitya-Anitya form, then without consideration of Tat-Atat the desired result cannot be established which is shown as follows-

319-320. Shloka- “ The manifesting entity is not same as earlier but is absolutely different” – such doubt cannot be eliminated without accepting ‘Atat’ side. The second side in the manifesting entity can be “ this flame is absolutely same as earlier” this too cannot be resolved without accepting  ‘Atat’ side.

Bhavartha- In Tat and Atat the consideration is that the substance in some aspect is same and another aspect is different. But in Nitya-Anitya this is not considered. There only manifestation in Nitya-Anitya form is considered. It is same or different is not issue. If the substance does not have Tat-Atat side and only Nitya-anitya side is accepted then  definitely the above described doubts can occur. They cannot be resolved without accepting Tat-Atat.

321. Shloka- Hence the entity like Nitya-Anitya is Tat-Atat form, this should be accepted since without it the desired meaning cannot be established.

Doubt

322. Shloka- Let the manifestation be absolutely same or different, the desired meaning of yours can be established by accepting the substance to be manifesting in some respect.

Bhavartha- It is enough to accept the substance to be manifesting in some respect, in that there is no necessity of consideration of Tat or Atat bhava ( similarity or dissimilarity)

Answer 323-325

323. Shloka-  This doubt is not valid since entity would have two types of manifestation only, either similar or dissimilar. If only similar form manifestation is accepted in entity, then also the desired meaning is not established. Just as the Nitya Ekant side is faulty, in the same way the similar manifestation also is faulty and the desired meaning is not established.

324. Shloka- If only dissimilar manifestation alone is accepted then also desired meaning is not established. Like transitory Ekant the non entity would be generated and entity would get  destroyed.

325. Shloka- With the faults of the form of Nitya Ekant and Anitya Ekant appearing in absolutely similar and absolutely dissimilar manifestation sides, the questioner has been answered for eliminating Tat-Atat sides, since being criminal against soul he has himself been weakened. Now Acharya explains him-

326. Shloka- Accompanied with Tat bhava and Atat bhava the manifestation of the substance which occurs by nature, its form is now described with example.

Example of similar manifestation

327. Shloka- Just as the gyan form manifestation of Jiva always remains gyan form only and the gyan guna  (gyan family) is never trespassed. This is example of similar manifestation.

Example of Dissimilar Manifestation

328. Shloka- Or the gyan of the same jiva in spite of manifesting in gyan form does not remain the same since the existence of the same from paryaya Drishti is not same in second samaya. This is example of Atat bhava.

329. Shloka- Another example is that although the divisions of kaal are manifesting by nature, even then due to non trespassing of its own family, they generate similarity sense in substance i.e. Tat bhava only.

330. Shloka- Or from aspect of Naya, the divisions of kaal generate sense of dissimilarity i.e. Atat bhava since in them appearance of different forms for 1,2,3, 4 samaya etc. is seen. Such appearance of different times is cause for  difference in substance.

Cause for appearance of sameness

331. Shloka- In reality in the sense of ‘Atat’ i.e. this is not same, the kriya, result and predicate are generated while in sense of  ‘Tat’ i.e. it is same, the Tattva only is the cause. Both things happen when Tat-Atat are considered relative .

Bhavartha- In any substance or quality the previous paryaya is cause form and next paryaya is effect form. The change of paryaya of substance or quality is called kriya. If considered from aspect of differentiation then the all three are different. Kriya, cause and effect paryaya are different since the times of previous paryaya and next paryaya are different. But if considered from dravya Drishti then dravya or guna are indifferent since paryaya is not different from substance. Hence in the undifferentiated state the kriya, cause and effect appear the same.

Further clarification

332. Shloka- Similar to Asti-Nasti the Tat-Atat are also Vidhi-Nishedh form. But both are not Tattva form from independent  aspects but only relative to each other both are Tattva form.  

Bhavartha- Just as in the description of asti the entire substance is Vidhi form and in  consideration of Nasti the entire substance is Nishedh form , in the same way for Tat-Atat also the entire implied substance is Vidhi form and unimplied substance is Nishedh form. The main thing is that Vidhi keeps expectations of Nishedh and vice versa. Nothing is independent. In accepting total independence the arrangement of  substances is not feasible since the nature of substance is Vidhi-Nishedh dual form in certain aspects.

Bhavartha- In the Asti-Nasti  pair the independent Asti and independent Nasti was refuted and their mutual relationship was described in 289-308, the same is applicable here for Tat-Atat. The essence is that the Pradesh of Tat are not different from that of Atat but both dharmas stay together in friendly form with mutual relationship in same Pradesh. Total independence is false. Whichever is primary the entire substance appears in same form with other dharma being minor.

333. Shloka- The elaboration of mutual relationship of Vidhi-Nishedh is as follows- When ‘Tat’ form Vidhi is primary at that time  the ‘Atat’ form Nishedh becomes secondary since it is inseparable from Vidhi. In consideration of Vidhi entire substance appears  Vidhi form.

334. Shloka- In the same way from aspect of Paryayarthika naya, when ‘Atat’ is considered in Vidhi form then that becomes primary and ‘Tat’ becomes secondary. In consideration of ‘Atat’ the substance is not considered as Tat form but the entire substance is considered as Atat form. This is the essence of mutual relationship of Vidhi Nishedh.

Bhavartha- In consideration of Tat the entire substance appears ‘That’ form. In consideration of Atat the entire substance appears different form. In Praman the substance which appears in Tat form, same appears in Atat form i.e. dual dharma form. In Anubhaya consideration it appears to be neither Tat form nor Atat form but single indivisible form.

Recognition of Ubhaya(dual) - Anubhaya etc. Bhangs (combinations)

335. Shloka- The remaining narration in respect of Tat-Atat would be same as that of Asti-Nasti pair which was described earlier and the procedure would be applicable for Nitya-Anitya pair also.

Bhavartha- (1) The substance is intermingled with Tat-Atat both bhavas at the same time. Observing the entire substance in Tat bhava form of similarity i.e. substance is same only is one view. (2) Observing in Atat bhava form of dissimilarity i.e. substance is always new, is second view. (3) Observing both dharmas in mutual aspect i.e. the one which is same only is different – this is third Praman Drishti. (4) Observing in indivisible form i.e. it is neither same nor different – indivisible, indescribable – this is Shuddha Dravyarthika or Anubhaya Drishti. (5) In the substance the Tat form is different and Atat form is different, this is called ‘Vyasta’ Drishti. (6) The substance is both Tat and Atat form together , it is known as ‘Samasta’ Drishti. (7) The substance is being generated at every samaya , this is KramaVarty (sequential) Drishti (8) The substance in trikaal is same this is Akramavarty (non sequential) Drishti.

So far it was applied as per the directive of author in Nitya-Anitya Adhikar. Now further it is described as per procedure of Asti-Nasti Adhikar. 

(9) Just as the asti-nasti pair was applied upon dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava, in the same way the Tat-Atat should be applied upon dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava . Its essence is that in Tat Drishti the  foursome of dravya is Trikaal same form while in Atat Drishti the foursome of dravya is different at every samaya. (10) Just as Asti-Nasti was not applied on two dravyas and was applied on Samanya-Vishesh , in the same way the Tat-Atat should not be applied on two dravyas and instead applied on Samanya-Vishesh of same dravya. (11) Just as Asti-Nasti was seven Bhang  (combinations) form , in the same way the Tat-Atat also should be seven Bhang (combinations) form. Such is the directive of the author.

Note – With this the second intermediate Adhikar describing Tat-Atat pair in the Maha Adhikar describing the Anekant form nature of substance is concluded.

Continued…..

GRANTHRAJ SHRI PANCH DHYAYI …..07

 

First Intermediate Chapter

Asti-Nasti pair  264-308

Asti- Nasti from aspect of dravya (264-269)

264. Shloka- One is called Maha Satta and other is called Avantar Satta. In this way the satta (existence) has two divisions, even so these two satta do not have separate Pradesh and there is no difference in nature. ( Only there is difference in Drishti.)

Bhavartha- Here the intent is not that the collective satta of all the substances of the world are called Maha Satta and the individual satta of each substance is called Avantar Satta. With such meaning the interpretation of entire granth would become erroneous. Here the bhava is that every substance of world is Samanya-Vishesh form. The Samanya form is called Maha Satta and Vishesh form is called Avantar Satta. The Pradesh of both are the same. The same dravya from aspect of dravya Drishti appears in Samanya form and the same substance from aspect of Paryaya Drishti appears to be Vishesh form. It is not like a tree where leaves are different, fruits are different, in that way the Mahasatta is different in dravya and Avantar satta is different. In undifferentiated view the same is Maha Satta and with differentiated view the same is Avantar satta form. The existence which  is Samanya , the same is Vishesh Jiva. For example keep a Shuddha jiva in front of Drishti.  So long as without knowing it to be jiva, it is observed as indivisible existence form, till then the name of jiva is maha satta or samanya only since the existence dharma ignoring all the Vishesh dharmas is displaying it as only substance form. When the Drishti is changed to that ‘ it is jiva’ then the substance instead of remaining Maha satta form became Avantar Satta form. In this neither its Pradesh changed nor its nature. The thing is as it is. Thus observing it from aspect of indivisible existence is Maha Satta and the same from aspects of dravya, guna, paryaya, utpad, vyaya etc. in divided form is Avantar Satta. The prime is Asti and secondary is nasti. This only is Asti-Nasti from aspect of dravya.

265. Shloka- The existence which touches the collection of all the substances  is called as Maha Satta. It accepts Samanya and from its aspect the substance is existence form alone ( i.e. Maha Satta form).

Bhavartha- The Astitva (existence) guna of each substance is different . The same Astitva guna is also called by existence since with that only the Satta of the substance survives. That existence Guna is same from Samanya aspect in all substances. Being same it is called as one also as Maha Satta. In reality Maha Satta is not any one substance. Only due to similarity it is named as One.

266. Shloka- Avantar satta of each are different. For example dravya, guna, paryaya, utpad, vyaya, dhrovya etc. are all different. They are family of existence known as Avantar Satta.

Bhavartha- Existence pervasive in all is called Maha Satta. Comparatively what stays in smaller place is called  Avantar Satta. In Samanya Aspect the Maha Satta is existent in all substances hence there is no difference between substances and all can be called as one. But Avantar Satta differentiates between the substances. For example with respect to Maha Satta the dravya, guna, paryaya all are existent form but from aspect of Avantar Satta they are different.  With respect to Avantar satta the existences of dravya, guna, paryaya are different. Even in dravya that of watch, table, chair are different. Past, present, future are different. Thus Avantar Satta has several divisions.

267. Shloka- From aspect of Dravya ‘Syat Asti’ and ‘Syat Nasti’ means that when the substance is present in some aspect with respect to Maha Satta, the same time from aspect of  Avantar satta in some respect it is absent. From aspect of Avantar Satta only there is absence in the substance. In reality it is not absence form.

Bhavartha- When substance is seen from aspect of Dravyarthika naya, then total substance appears  to be existence form. At that time the Avantar Satta form substance is not visible. It implies absence. It does not mean that the existence of Avantar Satta is destroyed from the substance. [Praman – commentary of Pravachasar Gatha 97,98]

268. Shloka- In the same way the moment the substance is decided from aspect of Avantar Satta , at that moment it is present from its aspect but is absent in some aspect with respect to opposing Maha Satta.

Bhavartha- In reality the substance is as it is. Nothing adds and nothing subtracts. Only description style changes. When substance is observed from Drishti of Maha Satta then it is seen as existence form. At that time it cannot be called any Vishesh dravya, guna, paryaya forms. In the same way when the substance is seen from aspect of Avantar Satta then that dravya, paryaya etc. vishesh forms are  existent but Samanya existence form is not there. In this way in the substance the Astitva and Nastitva are established from certain aspects. The Nastitva in the substance is only from aspect of Drishti, in reality the substance is not absence form.

269. Shloka- The example of Astitva in some aspect and Nastitva in some aspect is clear. Just as cloth is there from aspect of dravya cloth but the same cloth is not there from aspect of non description of white etc. gunas.

Bhavartha- The agglomeration of white etc. gunas is called cloth. When cloth is primarily described then its qualities are ignored and when white etc. qualities are primary, then cloth is ignored. From aspect of speech the thing has arrangement of primary and secondary. By this arrangement only the substance has Astitva in some aspect and Nastitva in some aspect. This only is Syadvad. So long as the Drishti was upon cloth then that existence form cloth is Maha Satta form. When it is considered to be silk cloth or white cloth then it is Avantar satta form.

Asti- Nasti from aspect of Kshetra ( 270-273)

270. Shloka- The Kshetra of substance is also described in two ways. One is Samanya , other is Vishesh. The Desha (agglomeration of Pradesh) alone is called as Samanya kshetra and its divisions are called as Vishesh Kshetra.

Bhavartha- So long as the Drishti is upon the Desha of dravya, till then it is Maha Satta form Samanya Kshetra since there is no differences between the Desha. When the Drishti is directed upon the innumerable Pradesh or ek Desha or Desha of Jiva or Desha of pudgala then it becomes Avantar satta from aspect of Kshetra. Observing in Desha form is Maha Satta and observing in any divisive form adjective is Avantar Satta. The Drishti of observation is primary and other is secondary. Primary is called Asti and secondary is called Nasti. This is Asti-Nasti from aspect of Kshetra.

271. Shloka- When the substance is described from aspect of Desha in Desha form , at that time it is Desha form with respect to own kshetra but without consideration of divisions of Desha, it is not from aspect of divisions.

Bhavartha- When Jiva is viewed in Desha form then he is seen in Desha form but not in innumerable Pradesh form. Kaal also when observed in Desha form is seen in Desha form but not in one Pradesh form.

272. Shloka- Or when the substance is described from aspect of divisions of Desha , at that time it is there from aspect of the divisions but since Desha is not considered, then it is not from aspect of Desha.

Bhavartha- From this aspect Jiva would be seen having innumerable Pradesh but not Desha form. Kaal also would be seen as single Pradesh form but not Desha form.

273. Shloka- Example for Kshetra is cloth form Desha. From aspect of white etc. threads collection and different divisions it is Asti-Nasti form in certain respects. When a specific aspect is being desired to tell then that being Prime is Asti form and other being undesired are ignored and are Nasti form. In this way the Astitva and Nastitva from aspect of Kshetra should be understood.

Bhavartha- So long as Drishti is upon the Desha of cloth, then it is Maha Satta from aspect of Desha and when its divisions of 10 or 1 meter is described, it is Avantar satta. The Prime is Asti and secondary is Nasti .

Asti-Nasti from aspect of Kaal (274-278)

274. Shloka- Kaal means manifestation or the nature of substance is manifestation.  Kaal also is of two types Samanya and Vishesh.

Bhavartha- So long as Drishti is upon the kaal (paryaya) of dravya, till then Maha Satta form Samanya Kaal is there since kaal is not different from kaal. When the Drishti is directed upon the kaal (paryaya) of Jiva or kaal of pudgala or present kaal or past kaal or kaal of samaya alone, then it is Avantar satta with respect to kaal. Observing the kaal is Mahasatta and observing any division of kaal form is Avantar satta. The one which is seen is primary  and other secondary which are Asti Nasti respectively from aspect of kaal.

275. Shloka- Samanya is Vidhi (natural)  form while Vishesh is Pratishedha ( non natural) . Out of the two with any one being implied  form and other being unimplied form the Astitva and Nastitva are encountered.

Bhavartha- The equivalent words for Maha Satta are Samanya, Vidhi, Shuddha , unattached while that of Avantar satta are vishesh, Pratishedh, ashuddha, attached etc. The Bhava of shloka is that Kaal is Samanya as well as Vishesh. With both being primary secondary they are asti-nasti form. The kaal which is samanya is the Jiva kaal vishesh.

276. Shloka- Manifestation without divisions- without considerations of divisions is called Vidhi e.g. the manifestation of existence. In existence samanya there is no imagination of divisions but its samanya manifestation is there, For the same existence imagination of  manifestations of different divisions is called as Pratishedh e.g. Manifestation of jiva dravya, manifestation of guna, paryaya.

Bhavartha- From aspect of samanya manifestation there is no divisions in the substance in any way. However from aspect of Vishesh manifestation the same undivided substance becomes several divisions form. The divisions in the substance only are Pratishedh form.

277. Shloka- The example of asti-nasti together with Samanya and Vishesh kaal is as follows- When the consideration of manifestation of existence samanya is carried out without differentiations in the substance; at that time that Samanya form is present with respect to swa-kaal but without consideration of divisions it is not existent with respect to Vishesh form - other-kaal. For example when Jiva is observed from manifestation aspect then he is existent with respect to manifestation but not with respect to jiva manifestation. In the same way when seen from aspect of Jiva manifestation , it is there with respect to jiva manifestation but not with respect to manifestation alone.

278. Shloka – For example the samanya manifestation of cloth form is swa-kaal of cloth from aspect of kaal samanya. Hence with respect to them it is present, however the same cloth with respect to other kaal in the form of Vishesh manifestation of threads and whiteness, it is not there.

Bhavartha- The Drishti of manifestation of indivisible cloth is Maha satta and Drishti of manifestations of its divisions is Avantar Satta. Just as manifestation of Dhoti , white etc. Prime is asti and secondary is Nasti.

Asti- Nasti from aspect of Bhava ( 279-283)

279. Shloka- The term bhava implies manifestation. The form of Tattva only is its bhava. Or the group of shaktis is called bhava. Or with bhava the essence of substance gets known.

280. Shloka- The bhava is also having two divisions i.e. Samanya form and Vishesha form. The one which is under consideration becomes primary known as swa-bhava while the undesired becomes secondary called as par-bhava.

Bhavartha- So long as Drishti is upon bhava (guna) of some dravya, till then that is Maha Satta form Samanya Bhava since bhava is not different. When the Drishti is upon Jiva bhava ( guna of jiva) or gyan bhava or touch bhava or infinite bhava or one bhava then it means Avantar Satta with respect to bhava. Observing from aspect of Bhava is Maha Satta while observing the bhava with respect to some adjective  or differences is Avantar Satta. The form which is observed is primary and remaining is secondary. Primary is called Asti and secondary is called Nasti. This is Asti-Nasti from aspect of Bhava. Whether it be called as bhava or existence, both words mean the indivisible existence only and Pradesh are same in both cases. Nature is also same. For example observing jiva in bhava form is Maha Satta and observing Jiva Bhava form is Avantar Satta.

281. Shloka- Of the two bhavas, the Samanya Bhava is Vidhi form which is Shuddha without any aspect considerations. Vishesh bhava is Pratishedh form with divisions and has aspect consideration.

282. Shloka- Out of the Samanya and Vishesh Bhavas of the substance, the bhava which is under consideration, that only is believed to be swa-bhava of substance and with respect to that swa-bhava only the substance gets existence. But the bhava which is not considered, that is called as Par-bhava. When Samanya is under consideration , at that time par-bhava is not under consideration hence that substance is believed to be absent. Hence with respect to Par-bhava the substance gets Nastitva (absence). The Astitva and Naastitva both gets applied in a substance at same time.

283. Shloka- Bhava of cloth, essence of cloth, attainment of nature of cloth, these three things have same meaning. The bhava of cloth is with respect to own nature and not with respect to pot etc. bhavas which are not under consideration. Other than the intended bhava all  other bhavas are undesired.

284. Shloka- So long as there is no consideration of divisions in the existence , till then it is called existence samanya. When its gets divided in forms of dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava then it is called as existence Vishesh.

Bhavartha- So long there is no sense of divisions in substance till then it is pure from aspect of Dravyarthika naya. In that state it does not have any aspect consideration. However when from aspect of Paryayarthika naya the divisions are considered then the substance becomes mutually relative and in that state it is Pratishedh also. The one which remains always contiguous form is called Vidhi and the one which stays in Vyatirek ( different) form is called Pratishedh. The substance in samanya state only can remain in Anvaya form continuously but in division considerations it adopts Vyatirek form. Hence Existence Samanya is called as Vidhi and existence Vishesh is called as Pratishedh. In Vishesh state of substance only Pratishedh is considered.

Bhavartha- Again Acharya has described Asti-Nasti from aspects of dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava in different forms , now all four are gathered together and told that so long as the substance is indivisible existence  and there is no consideration of division, till then it is called as Samanya or Maha Satta. When there is any consideration of divisions, it is Vishesh . Indivisible existence is Samanya and Jiva existence, innumerable Pradesh, Gyan etc. infinite qualities, siddha paryaya, deva form Utpad, Manushya form Vyaya, all are Vishesh or Avantar Satta. The primary is Asti and secondary is Nasti.

285. Shloka- Hence this thing is established without doubt that when complete substance is described in Samanya form then at that time they are Samanya form for sure but due to lack of consideration of remaining Vishesh they are absent also. Just as in Samanya  Jiva  is present in existence form but not as Jiva form.

286. Shloka- Or when complete substance is described in Vishesh form then they are Vishesh for sure but due to lack of Samanya consideration they are absent in Samanya Drishti. Just as in Vishesh jiva is there in Jiva form but not in existence form.

Remaining Vidhi

 Now Praman Drishti is described-  The one which is Samanya form that only is Vishesh form. In other words the substance is differentiated-undifferentiated form. It is joint form. This is Praman Drishti. This Drishti establishes the opposing dharmas without opposition, with friendly bhava, with mutual aspects in a substance at the same time. Just as the substance which is existence samanya , that substance only is existence vishesh ‘jiva’.

Now Anubhaya Drishti is described- The substance is by nature – Asti , and not of other form – Nasti, it is joint form- is Praman . These three Drishti have been described above but there is one more Drishti called Anubhaya Drishti ( neither Drishti). It is somewhat difficult to understand. Whether Pradesh of Samanya and those of Vishesh are different – No , can we take Samanya form and give Vishesh form  to someone- No. This only is Anubhaya Drishti. Anubhaya means neither of the two forms, but indivisible. This Drishti tells that Samanya and Vishesh such division itself is not existent. Neither Samanya is there nor Vishesh is there, this is indivisible, impenetrable. It has to be borne in mind that this Drishti cannot be expressed in words. Whatever we speak would become adjective form , division form. This is described as Avaktavya (indescribable), Anubhaya ( neither), Shuddha Dravyarthika Drishti etc. Here the term Shuddha means indivisible. Its subject is only experienced.

287.  Shloka- The sequence described above for Asti-Nasti etc. should be applied to all tat-atat, nitya-anitya, ek-anek pairs also. In every pair it should applied from aspects of dravya, kshetra, kaal and bhava. The one which is considered in respects of compatibility and incompatibility, that is primary and the other is secondary.

Bhavartha- Just as asti-nasti etc. are applied on samanya-vishesh of a dravya, in the same way the remaining three pairs would also be applicable to Samanya-vishesh. Just as the one applying asti-nasti on two different dravyas is ignorant , in the same way the one applying remaining three pairs on two different dravyas is ignorant and not Syadvadi.  Further just as with primary-secondary of asti-nasti the entire dravya appears as asti or nasti or joint or neither form , in the same way with remaining pairs also the entire dravya appears in primary dharma form. The one which is considered, it would appear in that form. Just as dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava are applied on asti-nasti etc. in the same way they would be applied upon remaining three pairs with aspects of dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava in primary-secondary sense.

288. Shloka- As per this procedure remaining five bhangs ( combinations) should be applied to the substance. Syat-asti and Syat-Nasti . These two have been told earlier. Remaining five bhang (combination) terms should be evolved from these two bhangs.

Bhavartha- Asti-Nasti two bhangs are told above. Remaining five bhavas  Asti-nasti, Avaktavya (indescribable), Asti Avaktavya, Nasti Avaktavya, Asti-Nasti Avaktavya should be derived. Just with  two  letters the word is created, in the same way Asti-nasti two are told. Now with their combination five more bhangs exist which as as follows- (1) where samanya or vishesh is primary that is Swa, Asti from aspect of swa (self) is first Asti Bhang (2) Where Samanya or Vishesh are secondary that is called Par (other). Nasti from aspect of Par  is the second Nasti Bhang. (3) when Samanya and Vishesh both are sequentially described then third is Asti-Nasti Bhang. Just as substance is there from aspect of Swa (samanya) and not there from aspect of Par (vishesh). (4) When both Bhangs are applied at the same time since the substance is both forms at the same time. This is Avaktavya (indescribable) naya. (5-6-7) Remaining three Bhangs  are generated with their combinations. Just  as the seven Bhangs are applied on Asti-nasti, in the same way they would be applied on tat-atat, nitya-anitya,  ek-anek pairs also. This is the procedural sutra and applicable everywhere.

Note- So far the Asti-Nasti pair was described. Now it is explained that both dharmas are Samyak with right aspect and without relation they are false. Some wise ones apply it on two different dravyas which should not be done.

(1)  Refutation  of asti-nasi without aspects 289-308

(2)  Support of asti-Nasti with aspect 289-308

Doubt 289-290

289. Shloka- Out of asti-nasti only one needs to be stated  since that would suffice, why unnecessary trouble? With both it becomes complex and more number of words make it difficult to absorb.

290. Shloka- Therefore for establishment of Tattva either ’asti’ should be told or only ‘nasti’ should be told. Absorbing both separately is not logical.

Answer 291-292

291. Shloka- The above doubt is not valid. Since the complete substance comprises of both ‘asti-nasti’ bhavas. If any one bhava is eliminated then the other bhava would also get eliminated.

292. Shloka- By not accepting any one of “asti-nasti” the remaining second also gets eliminated. If thing is believed to be only ‘asti’ form then it would always be anvaya (connection) form and would not be Vyatirek ( separateness) form. Without accepting Vyatirek the anvaya can also not be accepted.

Bhavartha- The thing which shows the sameness of bhava is called Anvaya bhava. The thing which shows difference in state is Vyatirek Bhava. The nature of thing is completed with both together. Hence both are relative. If any one is not accepted then other also cannot remain. Then the existence of thing also cannot be there. Hence both asti-nasti form anvaya and vyatirek should be accepted.

Continued….

GRANTHRAJ SHRI PANCH DHYAYI …06

 

Summary

217. Shloka- The summary of the above is that from sense of differentiation the Utpad, Vyaya and Dhrovya all three appear as parts of existent. If the differentiation sense is removed from roots then all three get merged in existent substance.

Bhavartha- From aspect of differentiated Paryayarthika naya the same existent is Utpad, Vyaya and Dhrovya form and from aspect of undifferentiated Dravyarthika naya the same existent appears as existence alone. 

Doubt

218. Shloka – Let the Utpad and Vyaya be part forms but how can dhrovya which is permanent, remain in part form?

Answer 219-225

219. Shloka- The above doubt is not valid since all the three parts are themselves existence form. In reality they are not parts of existence. Just as different substances are different , they are not many in different forms. But existence itself is every part form.

Bhavartha- Utpad, Vyaya and Dhrovya all three are not parts of existence like flower, fruit, leaves of tree but existence itself is Utpad etc. form.

220. Shloka- In this context the example is as follows- If existence is target of Utpad then manifesting in Utpad form it is only Utpad form.

221. Shloka- Or if, existence is target of Vyaya, then  manifesting in Vyaya form that existence would only be Vyaya form for sure.

222. Shloka- If existence is target of Dhrovya manifesting in dhrovya form, then like Utpad, Vyaya the existence is only dhovya form.

Bhavartha- In the three shlokas above it has been negated that Utpad, Vyaya, Dhrovya is different from existence or they are parts of existence separately. It has been told that all three are existence form and all three occur together. Whichever is the objective of discussion, the existence is that form only. Existence is by itself Utpad, Vyaya and Dhrovya form.

223. Shloka- For example  mud is dravya. The moment mud is observed in pot form, at that moment it is only pot form and when it is observed in block form it is merely a block of mud.

224. Shloka – If the mud is made with an objective of mud only then it is merely mud form . In this way the same existent (dravya) has three parts of Utpad, Vyaya and Dhrovya.

225. Shloka- It is not so that some part of existent (dravya) has generation and some part has destruction  and another part remains dhrovya. In a tree some part has fruits, another part has flowers and another part has leaves. Just as in tree the fruit, flower and leaves are separate, in the same way the existent does not have utpad, vyaya and dhrovya. In reality existent only is utpad form, existent only is vyaya form and existent only is dhrovya form.

Doubt

226. Shloka- Whether the Utpad etc. belong to three different parts ? Or do they belong to same owner? Or these are different parts of existent? Or they are different non existent form parts?

Answer 227-228

227. Shloka- The above doubt is not valid. In Jain Darshan as a rule Anekant is strong and not absolute ekant. If the above questions are raised from aspect of Anekant then all statements are acceptable. From any aspect anything can be said without contradiction. However if discarding Anekant, the questions are raised in Ekant form then surely they are contradictory to each other. Hence all these statements are non contradictory in view of Anekant and without it they are contradictory.

Bhavartha – Jain darshan is Praman Naya form. When a substance is described from aspect of naya then it is valid. If it is done without consideration of aspect then it becomes invalid. It does not mean that  Jain darshan is not decisive and is doubt form. The reason is that a substance has several dharmas and by describing in one dharma form alone distorts its form. For example take a book. The book is bhava form as well as abhava (absence)  form. From aspect of own nature it is bhava form and from  aspect of others nature it is abhava form. That’s why book is called book and not ink, pen, table, chair etc. Hence there is no contradiction in describing its nature using Anekant. It answers the question that how can bhava and abhava stay together in same substance?

228.  Shloka- Only parts do not have Utpad, Vyaya, Dhrovya nor do these three belong to owner. But the owner has parts of the form of Utpad, Vyaya all three.

Doubt

229. Shloka- A substance may have generation and destruction both; but the same substance being Dhrovya also is just statement and directly contradictory. How can the same substance have Utpad, Vyaya and Dhrovya all three?

Answer 230-231

230 Shloka- The statement of the questioner can be valid when Utpad, Vyaya and Dhrovya may have time difference or if existent only is getting destroyed and existent is getting generated. Then the three can be contradictory.

231. Shloka- But such a thing does not happen due to any reason, at any time, in any way that Utpad occurs at different time, Vyaya occurs at different time and dhrovya may be at different time. Thus to establish the time difference of these three neither a Praman exists nor any example.

Doubt

232-233. Shloka- Doubt is raised that Utpad occurs at its own time since being generated is its characteristics. The Vyaya occurs at its own time since destruction alone is its characteristics. In the same way Dhrovya also occurs at its own time since being Dhruva is its nature. Just as seed, sprout amd tree are different characteristics at different times, in the same way the Utpad, Vyaya, Dhrovya have different characteristics and different times. Is this acceptable?

Bhavartha- Having different characteristics, do the three have different times ?

Answer 234-247

234. Shloka- On account of different characteristics it is not right to believe them at different times since there is no time difference between Utpad, Vyaya and Dhrovya. All three occur at the same time. This is established by logic and example below-

235 Shloka- Seed is existent at the time of its paryaya and seed cannot be said to be absent from seed paryaya. Hence vyaya of seed paryaya is not there but at the time of generation of sprout paryaya the seed paryaya can be said to be having vyaya.

236. Shloka- The time of seed paryaya cannot be called to be the time of sprout generation. At the time of seed paryaya there is absence of Utpad of sprout paryaya. Hence the sprout paryaya would be at its own time and not at any other time.

237. Shloka- Or if seed and sprout both are called as tree in general then neither the tree was produced not destroyed . Only seed paryaya was destroyed and sprout paryaya was born.

238. Shloka- Thus with power of logic it is established that Utpad, vyaya, Dhrovya have same time. The generation of tree in sprout form is the time of destruction of in seed form and the tree-ness is same in both states.  

Bhavartha- the summary of the three shlokas above is as follows- The time of seed paryaya is not the time of its Vyaya since both presence and absence cannot be both at the same time. However the time of generation of sprout is same as that of destruction of seed paryaya. It is not so that in  between seed paryaaya and sprout generation, the seed paryaya may be getting destroyed. By such belief the dravya would be devoid of paryaya since seed has been destroyed and sprout has not been generated yet. At that time which paryaya would be present? None. Surely then dravya would be free of paryaya. In the absence of paryaya the dravya cannot stay automatically. Hence the time the sprout is generated, at that time only seed gets destroyed. In other words, the destruction of seed paryaya only is the generation of sprout paryaya. It does not mean that generation and destruction have the same meaning. If both have same meaning then it can be said that the one getting destroyed, the same is  getting generated but it is not so. Destruction is that of seed and generation is that of sprout. However the fructified paryaya of destruction and generation is same. It is not so that the time of seed paryaya is same as that of sprout paryaya. In such a case the existence of two paryayas would need to be accepted at same time which is contrary to Praman. Hence at the time of seed paryaya the sprout paryaya does not get generated, but the time of destruction of seed paryaya is same as the time of sprout generation. In seed destruction and sprout generation, both states the tree-ness is present. The moment tree is destroyed from seed paryaya form, same moment it is generated in sprout paryaya form. The tree is present in both states. Hence this establishes well that Utpad, Vyaya and Dhrovya all three are at the same time and are not different.

Just as a Manushya died and became Deva. Now the time of destruction of manushya Paryaya and generation of Deva paryaya is same. In  generation destruction at that time Dhruva jiva has neither utpad nor Vyaya but is Dhruva only.

239. Shloka- The time of sprout generation is same as seed destruction and both of these are of the form of tree. Hence the time of seed destruction and sprout generation is same as that of Dhrovya of tree.

240. Shloka- It establishes this point flawlessly that the substance has Utpad etc. all three at the same time. They occur from aspect of Paryaya of substance and not of substance without paryaya.

241. Shloka- The moment the Utpad etc. three are believed to be that of substance without aspect of paryaya , the same moment all three would be contradictory and the times also may be different.

242. Shloka- Or the contradiction would occur that the moment there is Utpad of one paryaya, the same has Vyaya and same has Utpad also.

243. Shloka- In reality it is thus that the existent gets destroyed from aspect of same paryaya and with respect to some other paryaya the Utpad takes place and some other paryaya remains Dhrovya.

244. Shloka-  The example of tree is clear. Just as tree is generated in existent form from sprout by itself, gets destroyed from seed form and remains tree form in both as Dhruva.

245. Shloka- It is not so that the tree gets destroyed from seed form and with same seed form it gets generated and the same seed remains Dhruva since this is directly contradictory.

246. Shloka- The soul ( in Jiva) is existent in both Utpad and Vyaya. There is no two  different independent substances other than existence.

247. Shloka- From aspect of paryayarthika naya Utpad , Vyaya and Dhrovya all are there. From aspect of Dravyarthika naya neither Utpad, nor Vyaya, nor Dhrovya is there.

Doubt

248. Shloka- Either accept existent Utpad form substance or non existent Vyaya form substance or Dhrovya form substance. How do you accept all three forms?

Bhavartha- Earlier it has been established that Utpad, Vyaya and Dhrovya belong to one existent at one samaya from aspect of Paryayarthika naya. The questioner askes that when it is at one samaya only then telling single existence is adequate. What is the purpose of telling all three?

Answer 249-260

249. Shloka- The above question is invalid since Utpad, Vyaya, Dhrovya as a rule are together since without one the other two also cannot exist.

250. Shloka- Or,  without any two, any one cannot exist. Hence it is essential for proper establishment of substance that Utpad, Vyaya and Dhrovya be together.

251. Shloka- All the three are mutually dependent (on each other). The same is clarified that without Utpad the Vyaya cannot occur since the abhava  of any paryaya necessarily occurs with bhava only.

252. Shloka- Utpad cannot occur without Vyaya since it it can be felt that bhava taking new birth is adorned with abhava.

Bhavartha- With destruction of any paryaya only new paryaya can be generated. The substance remains the same in all states. Hence it is essential that with destruction of previous state only the new state may exist.

253. Shloka- Or, without dhrovya, Utpad and Vyaya both cannot exist since only with existence of substance with its support Utpad and Vyaya ( Bhava and abhava) can exist.

254. Shloka- Or without Utpad and Vyaya both, dhrovya also cannot exist surely since in the absence of Vishesh the samanya existence also is absent.

Bhavartha-The substance is samanya vishesh form. Vishesh cannot be there without samanya and without Vishesh the Samanya also cannot exist. Utpad, Vyaya are Vishesh and Dhrovya is Samanya. Hence without Utpad, Vyaya, Vishesh the Dhrovya Samanya cannot be there. In the same way without Dhrovya Samanya , Utpad Vyaya Vishesh cannot be there.

255. Shloka- In this way the arrangement of Utpad, Vyaya, Dhrovya should be established in substance. No other way their arrangement can be there since by not accepting any the remaining also get negated.

Bhavartha- The above described arrangement only is suitable and with acceptance of all three together only it can be workable. By not accepting any one or two of the three the remaining two or one also cannot be valid.

256. Shloka- The above is clarified that the one who accepts only one Utpad only, in his existence the non existent would also be generated or due to lack of reason the Utpad itself would not take place.

257. Shloka- The one who accepts only Vyaya independent of Utpad side, for him the existent would surely get destroyed without residue or without cause his accepted form also would not get destroyed.

258. Shloka- In the same way those who accept only dhrovya side independent of utpad vyaya , in his belief the dravya would remain non manifesting and due to dravya being non manifesting, it cannot have dhrovya also.

259. Shloka- The one who accepts only Utpad and Vyaya to be Praman form independent of Dhrovya, in his principle everything would become transitory. Or in the absence of existent neither Vyaya is possible nor Utpad is possible.

260. Shloka- People desirous of Astikya (faith in Paramatma) and fearful of the above described flaws should in reality accept the togetherness of Utpad etc. all three.

Bhavartha- All three are relative to each other , this is established without flaw.

Note- In the Maha Adhikar describing form of substance the fifth intermediate chapter describing Utpad Vyaya Dhrovya  is completed and the first Maha Adhikar describing substance also got concluded.

GRANTHRAJ SHRI PANCHADHYAYI

FIRST KHAND / SECOND VOLUME

Narration of the Anekant state of substance (261-502)

Resolution

261. Shloka – The dravya which is guna paryaya form, that only accompanied with utpad, Vyaya, Dhrovya is existent. This is the characteristics of dravya from aspect of Praman ( since the substance is Praman form i.e. Anekant by nature). Now for purification of Anekant gyan the Anekant form state of substance is described.

Anekant form state of Substance

262. Shloka- Syat Asti, Syat Nasti, Syat Nitya, Syat Anitya, Syat Ek, Syat Anek, Syat Tat, Syat Atat in this way with these four pairs the substance is woven. ( The substance is entwined with these dharmas).

Clarification of same

263. Shloka- The same is elaborated. The one which is there from certain aspect is not there from another aspect. In the same way the one which is Nitya from  certain aspect is Anitya from another aspect. That which is one from certain aspect is Anek in another aspect. That which  is same in some aspect is not same in some other aspect. In this way these four pairs exist from aspects of dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava.  

Explanation – The substance which from Samanya nature of dravya, kshetra, kaal, Bhava is Asti form, the same substance at the same time in Vishesh nature is Nasti form with respect to dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava. Or it can also be said this way – the substance which in Vishesh form is asti with respect to dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava , the same thing in samanya nature is nasti with respect to dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava. At the same time the thing from samanya nature of dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava is Nitya and the same thing from vishesh nature of dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava is Anitya form also. At the same time the same substance from Samanya aspects of dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava is ek form and the same substance at same time from Vishesh aspects of dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava is anek form. At the same time same substance from samanya aspects of dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava is Tat form and the same substance at the same time from vishesh aspects of dravya, kshetra, kaal bhava is Atat form. In this way the same substance at the same time appears to be entwined with above described four pairs. Therefore the substance itself is Anekant form i.e. several dharma form. Other than Jain dharma all other dharmas have accepted the substance to be specific dharma form in absolutely ekant manner. For example the Samkhya say that substance is Nitya only while Bauddha call it Anitya only. Such faiths are called as followers of Ekant. Jain dharma follows Anekant. The substance is Anekant form and Syadvad i.e. from some aspect it is so – this is the method of describing the  substance. By this the ekant is avoided and Anekant is supported.

There is another Drishti which says that a dravya from aspects of dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava is existent and the same dravya from aspects of another dravya’s dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava is not existent. Such procedure is also followed in Jain dharma but that is not applicable here. Here the dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava of samanya is absent in the dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava of vishesh and vice versa. Error in this realisation would make the meaning of first part of granth erroneous. The same four pairs are there in shri Samayasar Parishisht also . But there is a difference between the two. There the dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava of a dravya is called as nasti form in dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava of another dravya. There the subject is that of Atma and Gyan-Gyeya. The dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava of Gyan(atma) is not existent in that of Gyeya and dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava of gyeya is not existent in gyan. Here the subject of one dravya only . To establish the Anekant nature of substance the dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava of samanya is shown to be different from dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava of vishesh. The other three pairs in Shri Samaysar are also from aspect of Samanya-Vishesh which is same as here. There the subject is not that of another dravya. But there is one difference -  there  between soul and others and that too from aspect of Gyana form and Gyeya form it is shown. Here all six dravyas are the subject. The view is that just as substance is self established, in the same way it manifests also by itself. In Samaysar the subject is that of soul while here that of Samanya substance.

Here the description of ‘asti-nasti’ pair is there upto shloka 308, ‘Tat-Atat’ pair upto 335, ‘Nitya-Anitya’ pair upto 433, ‘ek-anek’ pair upto 502 shloka. The author has applied the dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava on ‘asti-nasti; and ‘ek-anek’ pairs and for remaining two he has told to apply it by similarity. In Samaysar only on ‘asti-nasti’ pair the dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava has been applied hence there are 8 kalash pertaining to ‘asti-nasti’ pair and for remaining three pairs there are only 6 kalash. Thus a total of 14 kalash are pertaining to this subject.

The meaning of the term ‘Nasti’ is not total absence but ‘insignificant’ . The meaning of Syat is ‘ from certain aspect’. That aspect is not described  but it is understood. For example ‘ dravya is syat nitya’ . Here the term syat implies Dravyarthika Drishti. Dravya is Nitya from Dravyarthika Drishti. In the same way ‘ Dravya is Syat Anitya’. Here Syat means Paryaya Drishti. i.e. Dravya from aspect of Paryayarthika Drishti is Anitya. Drishti is implied in the intent of speaker. The rest should also be understood the same way. For example Dravya is Syat Tat. This is Samanya Drishti. Dravya is Syat Atat, this is Vishesh Drishti. According to this Drishti the dravya at every samaya is different. All these four pairs are true from their own aspects. Without aspect they are untrue since the substance is Samanya Vishesh form. Every pair is observed from aspect of four Drishti. For example it would apply on Nitya Anitya as follows- (1)Thing from dravya Drishti is Nitya  (2) Thing from paryaya Drishti is Anitya (3) Thing from Praman Drishti is Nitya-Anitya form together (4) Thing from Shuddha drishti is Anubhaya i.e. indivisible . Every pair is of this form.

Continued…..