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…..
No comments:
Post a Comment