GRANTHRAJ SHRI PANCH DHYAYI…11

 

Fourth Intermediate Chapter

Description of Ek-Anek  434-502

Doubt

434. Shloka- Whether entity is Ek(one) or Anek(many),  or  is it Ubhaya or Anubhaya or, is it single bhang form or, some other form?

Answer

435. Shloka- It is alright. The entity from aspect of Naya is Ek as well as Anek, Ubhaya as well as Anubhaya, but this is told only from aspects of Naya only. Without aspect of naya, entity cannot be called as  absolute Ek and  Anek, or Ubhaya and Anubhaya since in absolute ekant form the entity is not Ek Anek form.

Note- Firstly 436-492 Ek would be established then 493-498 Anek would be established. Then 499 it is told that Ubhaya-Anubhaya remaining Bhangs should be known like before. In 500 the mutual relative nature of Ek Anek would be described. In 501 and 502 , the absolute Ek Anek doctrines would be refuted.

Logic of Ek in entity

436. Shloka-  Having undivided Pradesh of Guna Paryaya form parts the entity is one  since it is indivisible Desh. Hence from aspect of indivisible Samanya the entity is Ek.

Bhavartha- The guna-paryaya in dravya are like waves in water. Just as waves do  not have existence different from that of water, in the same way the existence of guna-paryaya is not different from that of dravya. Only in description the dravya, guna, paryaya are imagined. From aspect of Shuddha Drishti whatever is dravya is same as guna-paryaya. Whatever is guna that only is dravya-paryaya or, whatever is paryaya that only is dravya-guna. Hence when all three are one only then they do not have separate existences nor different Pradesh. Further from aspect of Shuddha Drishti they do not have divisions but it is indivisible Desh form one entity only.

Clarification of same

437. Shloka- From aspect of dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava the entity is indivisible as a rule. Now from aspect of each of the four the indivisible nature of entity is established in order.

From  aspect of Dravya 438-448

438. Shloka- Dravya is guna-paryaya form i.e. guna-paryaya only is body of dravya. Hence entity is one. It is not as if in a tree like fruits, flowers and leaves, some parts are Guna form and some are paryaya form.

439. Shloka- Just as cloth has colour etc, and thread etc. hence it has both forms. But it is not so that in cloth some parts be colour form and some parts be thread form. ( the colour-thread-cloth three are one substance only. Only in consideration there is dwait bhava.)

First false Characteristics and false example

440. Shloka- The one-ness in entity is not one Samanya entity form generated out of agglomeration of several entities like Milk. Just as milk is joint state of some ghee part, some water part etc., but upon combination it is called as Milk name. In the same way in entity some parts be guna and some parts be paryaya and their combination result in entity - such one-ness is not there.

Bhavartha- In milk there is different existences of several substances but together it is called milk, in the same way the guna-paryayas form several substances do not join and be called as one entity but because of being one entity it is called as one.

Second false characteristics and false example

441. Shloka-  Or it cannot be said either that although entity has different existences of guna-paryayas but they cannot be separated hence entity is called as one. Just as in gold ore the gold and impurity are two substances but they cannot be separated hence it is called as ore only. Just as in gold ore the gold and impurity are two different substances, in the same way in entity guna and paryaya two different substances are not there. The entity is having  single existence  and  is one only.

442. Shloka- Hence for establishing oneness neither combination of different existences is the means or the separateness of description is the means. But indivisible Vastutva only is the means i.e. the indivisible Pradesh form single existence form substance is one only. In reality from aspect of dravya one indivisible Pradesh oneness is accepted in entity.

Doubt 443-444

443. Shloka- If entity itself is dravya, guna, paryaya then it should be one only. i.e. if dravya-guna-paryaya three are one only then any one can be told. The remaining two should be eliminated since you have negated many-ness itself.

444. Shloka- But it is not so. i.e. the other two do not get eliminated since their agglomeration has been described. In Agam the agglomeration of guna-paryaya only is called as dravya and describing dravya-guna-paryaya all three is essential. Hence it establishes flawlessly that entity like mirror and image is several natured one ( joint of several it is one like mirror and image are together one substance.)

Bhavartha- If dravya-guna-paryaya three are one only then they should be called as one. Two should be eliminated. If there are three things then it establishes the entity to be several form and is called as one due to combination of several. Just as mirror and image are together one substance. Are guna-paryaya together one entity?

Solution 445-448

445. Shloka- it is alright. In some respect the entity is anek and in some respects it is ek also. However the reason for anek is not like mirror and image but according to realisation as follows-

446.Shloka- As a rule the reflection is image which is generated with combination of face and mirror. If image itself be called as belonging to mirror then with such belief the entity would be like non entity or the anvaya would not exist.

Bhavartha- With removal of face the image gets removed from mirror and you believe it to be part of mirror. Hence with absence of image the mirror would also have to be accepted as absent. In this way the entity would be like non entity. Anvaya is not seen that wherever mirror is there , the image should be there (when image belongs to mirror); without image also mirror is seen. But in dravya-guna-paryaya such absence of anvaya is not there. Wherever dravya is there, the guna-paryaya are there. Hence all three in some respect are coexistent and in some respect they are one.

447. Shloka- If the image belongs to face then this logic also appears to be told without consideration since by accepting image to be that of face, vyatirek is not satisfied. Wherever image is not there, there face should also be not there – thus is vyatirek but this is also unestablished. Where face is seen there image is not seen also. But dravya-guna-paryaya do not have such fallacy of Vyatirek. Where dravya is not there the guna-paryaya are also not there and where guna paryaya are not there, the dravya is also not there. All three have oneness like colour-taste-smell -touch. Hence in the context of entity the example of image-mirror is not valid. The entity is not produced with combination of several ones.

Bhavartha- The example of mirror and image is applicable in the corrupted paryaya of dravya as per JainSiddhant. Dravya is like mirror and raga is like image but the natural samanya-vishesh or natural dravya-guna-paryaya cannot be applied there. Here the subject is not that of corruption. It is that of self established pure dravya. The examples of milk and gold ore were by combinations of several entities in one entity form. But the questioner’s example of mirror and image is meaningful since mirror and image do not have different Pradesh . Just as Guna-paryaya do not have different Pradesh but the difference is that in mirror the image is due to others like raga in jiva is due to others while the guna paryaya is due to self. Hence this is false characteristics and false example.

Conclusion

448. Shloka- With such analysis the argument of other side believing one entity to be generated out of several got refuted. He was believing that  several different entities can join together to create one entity. The dravya entity is different, guna entity is different and paryaya entity is different. The combination of the three together is one Tattva entity.

Conclusion- Several entities do not make one entity but entity by dravya nature is self established one. This is proved.

Summary of ‘ek from aspect of Dravya’

(1)  Just as several medicines are joined together to generate a tablet, there the existences of each medicine is different and tablet is several medicines based single existence, in the same way the questioner assuming existences of each guna and paryaya to be different believes the dravya to be one as their combination.

(2)  Just as in milk the part of ghee is different and that of water is different and both together generate milk as one , in the same way the guna and paryaya are different and together they make dravya

(3)  Just as in gold ore the gold part is different from impurity part but they are joined inseparably, in the same way the guna paryaya have separate existences and together they form entity that they would never separate. In this way the entity is several together based one

(4)  Just as mirror and image are together one in the same way the guna paryaya are together one entity. In this they several together is one.

In all four examples above the questioner accepts one entity as combination of several. In answer author tells that the entity is not several ones based one but self established one only like mango fruit. The questioner asked whether it is absolutely one? In answer it is told that just as different entities are called as Anek but that Anek-ness is not absolute but base upon aspects it is Anek. For example mango is one which is yellow, soft, flavoured, sweet . These four are different in experience hence they are Anek. But these cannot be separated Hence they are not Anek absolutely. The same oneness of entity is to be realised here. Every entity of the world is self established one – this is oneness from aspect of dravya. Although from  aspect of realisation there is Anek-ness also , but in reality it is one only in Nishchaya.

Ek from aspect of Kshetra  449-470

449. Shloka- Call it Kshetra, Pradesh, support for entity, residence of entity, they all mean the same and they are all entity form only. It is not that entity is different substance and kshetra is different and in that kshetra the entity resides. But the entity and its Pradesh  mean the same thing. The kshetra of entity  is by itself entity form only.

Bhavartha- The Pradesh of Akash wherein the entity-substance is present is not called as kshetra of entity. In that kshetra other dravyas are also present. But the Pradesh where the entity has its own nature, they are called Pradesh of entity i.e. the Pradesh of own dravya where entity is present is called the kshetra of dravya.

450. Shloka – Those Pradesh are of three kinds- Some are without parts only one Desh form, some are innumerable Pradesh form and some are infinite Pradesh form.

Bhavartha- The single paramanu or kaal dravya has one Pradesh only. Here Pradesh does not imply the akash which supports the kaal dravya or paramanu but the Pradesh of paramanu or kaal dravya. Both dravya are single Pradesh form. Dharma, Adharma and Jiva dravya have innumerable Pradesh. Akash has infinite Pradesh.

Doubt Clarification

451. Shloka-  Just as dravyas having one Pradesh, Innumerable Pradesh  and infinite Pradesh have been described, in the same way numerable Pradesh dravya should also be described since such dravyas could be two-anu form, three-anu form pudgala skandhas. Why they are left out? But such doubt is not valid, since here the statement is pertaining to Shuddha dravyas and not Upacharit ( formal) dravyas.

Bhavartha- There is no dravya with numerable Pradesh, but it is skandh generated out of mixing of several pudgala dravyas. Here that is not the subject. Paramanu and Kaal dravya are not called having numerable Pradesh but they are called Apradesh having single Pradesh only. In Jain dharma the numerical number starts with two Pradesh. One is called Apradesh.

452. Shloka- In essence the entity has two divisions- (1) One Pradesh  (2) Several Pradesh . In both of these for each from aspects of naya there are one and many forms.

Bhavartha- Here the divisions of Pradesh have been described as two only instead of three. The innumerable and infinite Pradesh are included in several Pradesh. The one having one Pradesh , that dravya also from aspect of naya samanya is one and from aspect of naya Vishesh is several. In the same way the Anek Pradesh dravya also from aspect of naya samanya is ek and from aspect of naya vishesh is anek.

Characteristics of oneness of Kshetra

453. Shloka- How the entity from aspect of kshetra is one is explained-  The entity which is existent in one Desh of dravya at whichever time, at the same time, for the same dravya, in all the Desh also, same entity is existent. ( Kaalanu and Shuddha Pudgala Paramanu have six angles and this characteristics should be applied from aspects of six angles. From that aspect in them the Anek-ness from aspect of kshetra would be established in them. This Sutra is basis for Ek-ness characteristics- it should be borne in mind).

454. Shloka- In this way this is flawless characteristics of entity is described from aspect of kshetra. Since it is indivisible from aspect of kshetra hence entity  is one .

First false characteristics and false example 455-456

455. Shloka- Just as in some house one lamp, then second lamp, then third, then fourth etc. several lamps are lit sequentially then the illumination would keep enhancing as their number increases. The Kshetra (entity) is not like that. This Kshetra (entity) does not enhance like illumination of lamp.

456. Shloka- It is not so that just as with extinguishing of some lamp out of the several lamps kept in the house , the illumination reduces, in the same way the kshetra ( entity) also reduces. But it remains the same  and it does not reduce in any place.

Bhavartha- In this example the illumination of lamps is considered as Kshetra. Just as the illumination of lamps increases or decreases, in the same way the entity (kshetra) does not increase or decrease. It always remain the same and believing increase or decrease in it is the first false characteristics. The bhava is as follows- Just as in a room the illumination is one due to several causes i.e. with joining of different parts of Desha the entity has one kshetra – such belief is false characteristics – therefore it is not so. The entity by nature is indivisible Desha form. Just as the illumination of lamps increases or decreases , in the same way the kshetra (entity) does not increase or decrease. The Desha of soul is innumerable Pradesh which is indivisible one. The Pradesh  are not like pearls in a necklace wherein they increase or decrease. The innumerable Pradesh of soul are not like that wherein they have been joint together and they could reduce or increase. The Kshetra of soul is not one caused by several but is self established single. In its Kshetra the Anek-ness is from aspect of segments of Desha which is not similar to illumination of several lamps but instead it is from aspect of experience. Just as the Pradesh of ant are contracted and that of elephant are expanded which are directly experienced and for knowledge of kaya and non-kaya and small-great the imagination of segments of Desha are carried out, hence they are described as Anek. In reality the indivisible Desha is Ek only.

Second false characteristics and false example 457-459

457. Shloka- Just as the entity has defined own Pradesh which always remain the same hence the same is applicable for Ekness of Kshetra – it is not so. Since if this way the Ekness is accepted then that usage Kshetra never changes and always remains same for all, then how can the Anek from aspect of Kshetra be established? Hence it is not right to establish the Ekness of kshetra with respect to usage Desha.

Bhavartha- Here the subject is not of Akash kshetra but the own Pradesh of one dravya is its usage kshetra. Dharma-Adharma soul have innumerable Pradesh which are their usage Kshetra. Paramanu and Kaalanu have single Pradesh usage Kshetra. Akash has infinite Pradesh usage Kshetra. The bhava of usage kshetra is that the dravya experiences own sukh-dukh or the manifestation of own qualities form deed within himself. His usage kshetra is one only which is indivisible. Hence the questioner says that since each dravya has fixed usage Kshetra hence the dravya from aspect of Kshetra is Ek only. Acharya says that it is ok but now establish the Anek from aspect of kshetra for same. The only possible way is that they start using more or less Pradesh for usage but this never happens. Thus Anek cannot be established this way but Jains accepts both dharmas and not one alone.

458. Shloka- If in reply it is said that the Pradesh of entity undergo expansion-contraction, thus the usage Kshetra of entity would become Anek. But such hypothesis is not correct. If with expansion-contraction of Pradesh it is called as Anek then Anek-ness would not be possible to establish in Akash etc. all pervasive substances since they do not undergo expansion-contraction.

459.  Shloka- And Paramanu and Kaalanu, these two dravyas have one Pradesh only which also cannot undergo expansion-contraction. Here also Anek-ness cannot be established. When Anek-ness cannot be established then Ek-ness of entity from aspect of usage Kshetra also cannot be established.

Third False characteristics and false example 460-469

460. Shloka- Since the numbers of equal Pradesh of different dravyas cannot be divided , hence entity is Ek , but from aspect of differentiation the different dravyas have equal Pradesh of Anek numbers , from this aspect it is Anek- if this be proposed?

Bhavartha- Just as Jiva is innumerable Pradesh hence it is Anek and since the Pradesh cannot be separated hence it is Ek. In fact several experts believe so. But even this is false characteristics. That is explained-

461. Shloka-No. Although several dravyas occupying the same kshetra like Akash, dharma, adharma, kaal cannot be separated by kshetra. Since these substances do not have Anek-ness from aspect of Kshetra hence they cannot have Ek-ness and Anek-ness.

Doubt

462. Shloka- Questioner says that just as Pradesh of a dravya are knitted in a string, in the same way it is not so for Anek dravyas occupying the same Kshetra. Since their existences are different.

Bhavartha- The questioner is trying to justify his doubt that just as Pradesh of a dravya are indivisible , in  the same way in spite of several dravyas sharing same Kshetra they do not have indivisible Pradesh since they are Anek dravya. Their existences are different. Here only one dravya is the subject.

Answer

463. Shloka- Just as Pradesh of a substance are indivisible in the same way it is not so for Anek substances occupying the same space- your this logic is right but what is the reason due to which in spite of having Anek Pradesh the entity appears Ek indivisible to you?

Bhavartha- The author wishes to know from questioner that how the Anek Pradesh entity is called as indivisible Ek ?

Questioner

464. Shloka- The questioner says that the reason the entity appears to be indivisible in spite of having several Pradesh is that with manifestation (vibration) in one Desha of entity , all the Desha undergo manifestation( vibration). Just as with a section of cane undergoing movement results in all sections undergoing movement. This is the proof for its indivisible nature.

Answer

465. Shloka- The movement of all Desha due to movement of single Desha cannot be cause for indivisible nature of substance since its does not have establishing Praman. For Praman it requires Anvaya- Vyatirek establishing example. If both are applicable then only it can be established. Not by Anvaya or Vyatirek alone.

Questioner

466. Shloka- The Anvaya sentence is that with vibration of one Desha, all the Desha vibrate since all Desha have the same existence.

Answer

467. Shloka- The Anvaya sentence is not right. The example is defective since it makes use of several Paramanu of cane joint together. Every Paramanu has individual manifestation and together it is called as one in Vyavahara sense. While in soul with vibration of one desha all the desha do not vibrate.

Bhavartha- This Anvaya is not valid.

Vyatirek sentence of questioner

468. Shloka- With the non manifestation of one Desha of entity, in all the Pradesh the manifestation (of Guna) does not occur since they all have same entity in all the Desha.

Answer

469. Shloka- It is not so. Since the entity is Utpad-Vyaya-Dhrovya form which keeps continuously manifesting.

Bhavartha- The Vyatirek is invalid since the entity keeps  manifesting at all times and in the absence of manifestation the substance would not exist. Hence without Anvaya-Vaytirek his example of cane is invalid.

470. Shloka- In the same way other false characteristics should be discarded completely. Since they do not establish anything.

Summary of Ek-ness from aspect of Kshetra

Generally experts say that the Pradesh of dravya are indivisible hence it is Ek and Pradesh are Anek hence it is Anek- just as soul has innumerable Pradesh hence it is Anek and Pradesh are indivisible hence it is Ek. But this has been declared as third false characteristics by author. The reason is that Kaal and Pudgala dravya are single Pradesh form hence Anek would not apply there. The real rule is that the entity in own one Desha , whichever way it is existent , that entity is existent in same way in all Desha in same way. Just as in one Desha of soul the way the entity exists , in the same way it is everywhere. In the same way the Kaal has six angles. The way the entity exists in one angle, it is present in the same way in all angles. This is the right logic.

Continued…..

GRANTHRAJ SHRI PANCH DHYAYI…10

 

Example of gold and stone is also delusional

394-395. Shloka- This example also cannot withstand examination. Gold and stone do not have guna-guni relationship hence is corrupted with Asiddha fault. In stone and gold the consideration is upon which is desirable and which is discardable since both are independent dravyas. But such consideration is not suitable goal since entity and manifestation there is only single dravya which is goal.

Example of Word and thing is also delusional

396-397.Shloka- This example also cannot establish the objective. The term ‘pot’ is different from the substance. Just as word is different from the indicated substance (by the word) it is not so for entity and manifestation. If questioner says that word only is the substance then just as word is Anitya the substance would also become Anitya. This is also not valid.

Example of drum and stick is also delusional

398-399. Shloka- This example also upon consideration becomes invalid. The drum and stick together carry out the act. But it is not so in the case of entity and manifestation. Hence this suffers from Vyapya Asiddha defect. If both are considered to be YutaSiddha i.e. independent then also  it does not establish any of them. Hence they are neither independent nor together. They have oneness in mutual  aspect. Therefore this example is also not valid.

Example of PadPoorna Nyaya is invalid

400- 401.Shloka-In PadPoorna Nyaya by including one pad(verse) the purpose gets served and both are not required. If entity and manifestation are believed to be same then of the two only one would be required and not both. But in reality any one of these two cannot be discarded since both being together is meaningful.

Example of two friends is also delusional

402-404. Shloka- In this case one being Upadan cause carries out the task and the second friend assists him in the task. If such is the case then there would be need for a third to assist second and fourth to assist third and so on. This results in Anavastha anomaly (continuous dependence). If it is said that for each karya one upadan and one assistance two agents are enough and more are not required  then it is not right since no Praman is available for such a rule. Hence entity and manifestation are not like two friends being upadan and assistant.

The example of two enemies is also delusional

405-406. Shloka- The entity and manifestation are like two enemies, this example is also not valid since it results in Anavastha defect (continuous dependence). For example one is enemy of second and third is enemy of second . In this way endlessly the tradition of enemies continues resulting in anavastha defect. If it is said that for each task two enemies are adequate and more than two are not required, then it is not right. Since no Praman is available to support such logic.

Pair of Ropes is also delusional

407-408. Shloka- The example of ropes in left and right hand is also not suitable since this results in anomaly. The two ropes of left and right hand function as nimitta for the preparation of butter from milk in the pot. Here the Upadan is milk and the resultant  butter is also not different from the milk. Now the entity and manifestation are not nimitta cause for any deed hence this example is directly contradicted.

Flaw in believing entity and manifestation to be absolutely Nitya

409. Shloka- To avoid the anomalies above if this is accepted that entity and manifestation are eternal since they are not deeds of anyone. In them ‘this is same’ such sense is felt. By accepting this also the entity and manifestation do not become free of all defects.

Vishesharth- Lastly questioner poses the suggestion that the entity and manifestation do not carry out  any deed hence they can be eternal  since they give rise to feeling that ‘it is same’. The author tells that it results in several anomalies which are described next-

The examples quoted above are not praiseworthy

410. Shloka- All the examples quoted above are not capable of establishing their objective hence they were delusional examples. Those examples which establish their objective like arrows on target, they are considered praiseworthy.

First Supporting example

411. Shloka- (1) the Pradesh of entity and manifestation are not different but are same, hence they do not have DwaitBhava, but they are Adwait only. (2) In some respect entity and manifestation have Dwait also. Entity is permanent and manifestation is momentary. Hence there is a difference. (3) The difference-indifference between entity and manifestation is similar to that of lamp and illumination. The Pradesh of lamp and illumination are indifferent. The lamp is stationary and illumination is new at every samaya, hence there is difference also.

Second supporting Example

412. Shloka- Or the entity and manifestation have difference and indifference in some respects like that of ocean and its waves. In the ocean firstly one wave jumps and then subsides, then second jumps and subsides, then third jumps and subsides. The ocean always remains the same form. From the flow of waves it appears that waves of each samaya are different and permanent water is different. In this way the ocean and waves have difference. (2) If considered from another aspect then neither any wave jumped nor subsided, only water is there, Since the Pradesh of water and waves are not different but are the same. From this aspect the ocean and waves are indifferent. (3) In the same way the manifestation of entity at one samaya is not same as on second samaya. That of second samaya is not on third samaya . The entity remains same . In this way the entity and manifestation appear to be different . But when attention is given to Pradesh then the Pradesh of entity and manifestation are indifferent hence both are same only. Hence entity and manifestations are same as well as different.

Third Supporting Example

413. Shloka- Or between the entity and manifestation, there is dwait and adwait bhava like pot and mud. In mud form the substance is Nitya and in pot paryaya form it is Anitya. In the same way entity is described from  Dravya Drishti while manifestation is described in paryaya Drishti. The entity and manifestation are different but have same Pradesh.

Summary of the above three examples

One Jiva is Manushya . Now answer whether the jiva is different from that Manushya state or indifferent? From aspect of Jiva-ness nature, it is trikaal permanent. It is beginningless and would remain endlessly. It does not undergo increase or decrease. The Manushya is a paryaya, state, which is transitory and destructible. Now from this aspect the entity and manifestation have difference i.e. dwait bhava. Now look from another aspect. Manushya paryaya form manifestation is that of jiva only. On account of manifesting nature only he has manifested in Manushya form. The Pradesh of Jiva swabhava are same as that of Manushya Parayaya. It is not so that one can take Jiva-ness and give away Manushya-ness. In this aspect they are indifferent. Adwait bhava is there. The entity is indifferent in such a way that if you observe from aspect of nature then fully it appears to be Jiva-ness  form and when observed from manushya-ness paryaya form then entirely it appears manushya. The delusional examples which we have discarded, there the entity and manifestation had different Pradesh hence they were invalid.

Answer to the question raised in shloka 336 in Shlokas 414-417

Consideration of Nitya-Anitya of Entity

414. Shloka- “ this is same” with such Pratyabhigyan ( recollection) it is felt that the entity is Nitya while “ this is not same” with such feeling , the entity appears to ne Anitya.

Bhavartha- Since the self established nature of substance is always same form, from this aspect the substance is Nitya. “ this is same” with such Pratyabhgyan(recollection) the same gets established. With manifesting nature it changes at every samaya hence upon viewing the paryaya it appears that ‘ this is not the same”  hence the entity is Anitya also. Just as Jiva dies as Manushya and became Deva. From aspect of swabhava Drishti ‘ this is same jiva’ with such recollection he is Nitya . The Manushya has become Deva, with such knowledge the entity is Anitya .

Consideration of Ubhaya (dual)  Anubhaya( neither of two) for entity

415.  Shloka- Logically the entity is dual form also and in describing one only at one time, it is one also  i.e. from some aspect it is one form also. And in some aspects it is Ubhaya(dual) form  and the same entity appears Anubhaya ( neither of two) form when it is observed devoid of Naya-Praman Vad(doctrines).

Bhavartha- As described above when it is observed from aspect of nature then it is Nitya. When observed from aspect of manifestation it is Anitya. Now it is told that these are the Drishti pertaining to viewing one form at a time. But there is another Drishti wherein both forms are seen at the same time, just as the one which is Jiva, that only is Deva. This Drishti is called Praman Drishti. In this Drishti the entity is Ubhaya (dual) form.  Further it is told that other than Nitya, Anitya and Ubhaya Drishti, there is another Drishti which is called Anubhaya Drishti (neither of two). Since the entity does not have Pradesh difference between swabhava and manifestation. Hence without differentiating swabhava and manifestation, observing it in indivisible form is Anubhaya Drishti. There is no difference between two but it is one single indivisible form. In this Drishti there is no Adjective-substantive . The subject of Drishti can only be experienced. It is indescribable.

Description of Vyasta Samasta of entity

416. Shloka- In describing the nature and manifestations  separately the entity is Vyasta i.e. different-different just as from the aspect of nature it is nitya only. ( in the same way from aspect of manifestations it is Anitya only.) However from aspect of Praman the same entity is Samasta i.e. both forms , together, nitya-anitya form.

Bhavartha- Swabhava is Trikaal lasting while manifestation is momentary for one samaya. In this aspect the entity is Vyasta form ( different-different) . However when observed from aspect of Praman then it appears that the one which is nature form only is paryaya form. The one who is Jiva only is Manushya form. Hence in this Drishti the swabhava and Manifestation do not appear Vyasta form and they appear Samasta joint form together.

Consideration  of entity being sequential-non sequential

417. Shloka- since entity is manifesting natured from beginningless time hence from aspect of manifestation  it is Kramavarty ( sequentially manifesting) which is not contrary. From aspect of swabhava it is always the same form hence the entity is non sequential is also not contradictory.

Note- Thus from aspect of considerations the entity is nitya-anitya, Ubhaya-Anubhaya, Vyasta-Samasta, Kramavarty- Akramavarty etc. several dharma form and that too mutually opposite dharma natured. In this way the substance is established to be  several dharma natured i.e. Anekant form . Now the questioner raises objections. These objections have been raised deliberately to refute the believers of Ekant principles.

Doubts 418-421

418. Shloka- Whether two opposite dharmas can stay in a dravya? If as per above assertion they can stay then there would not be any shelter in the world. Everywhere opposite dharmas would be present. With such anomaly the one desirous of understanding the substance would not be able to decide anything and would keep oscillating amongst the doubts. For ex. –

419. shloka- When some inquisitive person understands the entity to be Nitya , then at the same time its opposite the Anitya nature would also be seen. In such a state he would not be able to decide between the Nitya and Anitya natures and would always remain doubtful.

420. Shloka- In the same way if he believes the substance to be Anitya then he would not be able to become doubt free with surety since at the same time the opposite realisation of entity being Nitya is felt.

421. Shloka- With these arguments it can be known that Anekant (Syadvad) is extremely difficult and one cannot get across it. Hence it is not beneficial since it does not serve. Further the Anekant itself is defective since whatever it says, at the same time its opponent also becomes prominent. Hence this Anekant is not good.

Note- All these doubts have been raised to refute the supporters of ekant principles.

Answers 422-426

422. Shloka- The assertions of questioner above are not right since if Anekant is accepted to be absent then Ekant only would be absolutely strong. It would call the entity to be absolutely Nitya or Anitya. However the substance is not established to be absolutely Nitya or Anitya. Hence ekant logic does not prove anything. The same is elaborated by the Nitya-Anitya arguments below-

Refutation of absolutely Nitya Ekant

423. Shloka- Entity is absolutely Nitya only. With such proposition, how can vikriya (activity) occur in substance ? Surely not. If the substance is devoid of activity then in its absence the substance itself does not get established nor deed is established , nor result is established, nor  its reasons are established. Nothing is established.

424. Shloka- Since states of entity only is called as manifestation and with deeds occurring in substance it is called as activity . With absence of states happening at every moment of the manifestation, the entity itself becomes absent. This is not unestablished but is established with proven example.

425. Shloka- It is well known in the world that joining of several threads is the activity of cloth. If the joining of thread form activity of cloth is not accepted then cloth does not remain as anything since without joining of threads the cloth is not a substance.

Bhavartha- With acceptance of joining of threads form activity , the existence of cloth and its usage like cold prevention  are established. If the activity of threads joining is not accepted then with different threads neither the cloth form activity is established nor with independent threads the purpose of cold prevention is established. Hence the joining of thread form activity of cloth has to be surely accepted.

426. Shloka- If activity is accepted then the means for attainment of Moksha are the deeds and its result of Moksha is also established with Praman and soul is the doer of the same. If activity in substance is not accepted then any of the predicates do not get established.

Bhavartha- With acceptance of activity in the substance only, the fruits form attainment of Moksha of Jiva and its means Samyak Darshan etc. get established otherwise nothing is possible.

427. Shloka- The questioner says that the author has told several faults in the absence of activity like non usage of predicates etc. Even if the predicates are not established , we do not mind. We will accept the substance to be absolutely Nitya , even if it does not result in attainment of Moksha etc. We do not care since the medicine is given to treat the disease only. It is not necessary that the patient likes it or not.

Bhavartha- While giving medicine it is not considered that patient would like it or not. In the same way here the consideration of substance is important. Whether it results in flaw or absence, it does not harm the questioner.

Bhavartha- We believe the soul to be Shuddha only. Then we do not need activity. Let the absence of predicates be there . The disciple is follower of Samkhya philosophy.

Answer

428. Shloka- Such consideration of believing the substance to be absolutely Nitya by questioner can sustain till the example of clouds is not confronted. The moment the inference is drawn that the entity is transitory like water bearing clouds, immediately the ideas of permanence get vanished. Those who observe the clouds forming and getting evaporated, how can they call the substance to be absolutely Nitya?

Refutation of absolute Anitya Ekant 429-432

429. Shloka- The entity is Anitya , such stand is also enemy of those believers themselves; since when the entity is Anitya then it gets destroyed immediately hence how can the Praman and its result be there? Surely not.

430. Shloka- The sentence ‘ the entity is Anitya’ itself cannot be spoken since the entity itself is absent. Then how can entity be established.

Bhavartha- When the entity itself does not exist then how can it be called Anitya?

431. Shloka- If the absence of being Nitya in substance is established along with absence of entity itself then it is false in the same way that someone says that I kill the son of infertile woman.

Bhavartha- When infertile woman does not bear a child itself then who can be killed? In the same way when the entity is accepted to be absent by absolute followers of Anitya doctrine then in whom they would establish the absence of Nitya-ness? In the world with support of entity only vikalpa is generated. Without entity how can vikalpa be there? No body gets the thought that I kill the son of infertile woman. Without existence of substance how can vikalpa be there?

432. Shloka- The Pratyabhigyan (recollection)  that this is the same substance which we had seen earlier – this is also hindrance to the momentary ekant doctrine. The feeling of recollection is real since the Lok Vyavahara is carried out with it. With the reality of recollection the substance is established to be Nitya. Without being Nitya in some aspect the feeling of recollection in  substance does not get generated. Hence this feeling refutes the momentary ekant.

Mutual relationship of Nitya-Anitya

433. Shloka- Just as with momentary ekant the substance does not get established , in the same way with Nitya Ekant also the substance does not get established. Hence with logic it is proved that the substance is Nitya in some aspect and Anitya in some respects also. Therefore it is Nitya-Anitya form. Both dharmas are mutually relative. Without opposition they stay together in same Pradesh in friendly manner.

Bhavartha- Just as absolute momentary nature is unestablished, in the same way the absolute Nitya is also unestablished since recollection cannot occur in absolute Anitya or absolute Nitya either. The reason for this is that in recollection the feeling of past and present is carried out. In absolute Nitya such feeling is not possible. Hence the substance is established to be Nitya-Anitya form by means of logic, experience and Agam, i.e. Nitya-Anitya stays in substance in mutually relative manner.

Same procedure as before

(1)  Just as the Asti-Nasti pair was applied from aspects of dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava , in the same way on this Nitya-Anitya pair the same should be applied. Its essence is that from aspect of Nitya Drishti the foursome of dravya is trikaal one form and from aspect of Anitya Drishti the foursome of dravya is different at every samaya.

(2)  Just as Asti-Nasti was not applied upon two dravyas but on Samanya-Vishesh , in the same way the Nitya-Anitya should also not be applied on  two dravyas but on Samanya-Vishesh of one dravya only.

(3)  Just as Asti-Nasti was seven Bhang (combinations) form, in the same way the Nitya-Anitya should also be accepted to be seven bhang (combinations) form.

Note- In the Maha Adhikar of Anekant state of substance , the third intermediate chapter describing the Nitya-Anitya pair is completed.

Continued….

GRANTHRAJ SHRI PANCH DHYAYI …09

 

Third Intermediate Chapter

Secret of Nitya-Anitya- Just as dravya is self established by nature, in the same way it manifests by self. Hence with the self established  nature it is Nitya and with manifesting nature it is Anitya . In this way the Tattva is Nitya-Anitya form. Nitya is trikaal stationary which is called as Samanya- Dravya-Tattva-Vastu -Sattva etc. Anitya has duration of one samaya. It is also known as Vishesh-Parinam- Paryaya-Avastha. In this way the Samanya-Vishesh nature of substance is same in some aspect and different in some other aspect like lamp flame, ocean waves, mud pot.

Description of Nitya Anitya pair

Doubt

336. Shloka –Whether entity is (1) Nitya , (2) Anitya, (3)both , (4) Anubhaya, (5) Vyasta, (6) Samasta, (7) Kramavarty , (8) Akramavarty ?

Answer 337-340

337. Shloka- If the word absolute be applied before those words then the entity is destructive of both self and others. If the term ‘Syat’ be applied before them then the same entity assumes all the forms and serves self and others both.

Bhavartha- Just as entity is self established, it is by itself manifesting natured also. Hence in description one dharma becomes primary and other becomes secondary. In this consideration of primary-secondary only the entity is sometimes called some  form and sometimes another form. However, abandoning the consideration of primary-secondary by accepting the entity to be absolutely one dharma(ekant) form only, any substance does not get established. Hence by calling absolute it is destructive and by describing it in certain aspect it establishes all as follows- (1) from aspect of swabhava the entity is Nitya (2) From aspect of Parinam entity is Anitya (3) From aspect of Praman entity is both i.e. Nitya-Anitya (4) From aspect of indivisibility entity is Anubhava i.e. neither Nitya nor Anitya, indescribable, Indivisible (5) swabhava remains for Trikaal and Parinam remains for one samaya only hence entity is Vyasta – separate (6) the one which is Swbhava form , the same is Parinam form, from this aspecy entity is Samasta (together) (7) Parinam are generated Kramabaddha hence it is Kramavarty, (8) swabhava is always one form from this aspect it is Akramavarty . In summary with application of term Syat all are right. With application of absolute even one is not right.

Elaboration of above

338. Shloka- Just as entity is self established, in the same way it is by itself manifesting by nature. In this way the entity has two natures of being Nitya as well as Anitya.

Bhavartha- It remains for ever without giving up its nature , from this aspect it is Nitya also, and keeps manifesting at every moment, i.e. changes from one state to next, from this aspect it is Anitya also. In this way the entity has two natures.

339. Shloka- The implication is that when Drishti is kept upon   the substance and not upon manifestation then from aspect of Dravyarthika naya, the substance is Nitya since the substance Samanya is never destroyed.

340. Shloka- And  when the Drishti is not upon the substance but upon manifestation alone then from aspect of Paryayarthika naya the substance is Anitya since at every moment the new paryaya is generated and old paryaya is destroyed.

Several Objections pertaining to entity and manifestation

341. Shloka- Just as entity is one, the manifestation is also one , thus they are two. What is the reason that of the two only one can be described in order and not both together?

Whether both are like sound of two letters sequentially ?

342. Shloka- Is it that just as letters B and C etc. exist equally but in speech they are spoken sequentially , in the same way the entity and manifestation are spoken sequentially although existent together?

Are they Like Vindhyachal and Himachal ?

343. Shloka- Or is it that just as Vindhyachal and Himachal are two independent entities in viewing but depending upon the wishes of the speaker the one under consideration becomes primary and other becomes secondary ? In the same way are the entity and manifestation are independent two and of the two, the one which is under consideration becomes primary and other becomes secondary ?

Are they like Lion and Sadhu ?

344. Shloka- Or is it that just as a person appears sometimes like lion and  sometimes like sadhu. In the same way the substance  sometimes appears like existent and sometimes appears like manifestation form. Do the substance has relationship of adjective-substantive with existent  and manifestation ?

Are they like two names of two horns of cow?

345. Shloka- Or is it like two names of the same substance given two names  with different objectives like Agni and Vaishvanar, in the same way the same substance has two names existent and manifestation with different objectives. Or, are they  like the left and right horns of a cow ?

Are  they like raw-ripe mud with difference of time?

346. Shloka- Or with difference of time one occurs first and then second? Just as raw and ripe mud occurs first and next, in the same way the entity and manifestation are there?

Are they like two wives

347. Shloka- Just as two wives of a person married earlier and later stay with opposition at the same kaal, in the same way the entity and manifestation generated sequentially stay with opposite bhavas at present kaal  i.e. in spite of being generated at different kaal they stay with opposition at the same kaal with equal rights.

Are they like two brothers or two wrestlers

348. Shloka- Or like elder and younger brothers they stay together with mutually non-opposite bhavas. Or are they like two wrestlers who attaining victory and defeat over each other continuously get destroyed in the end , in the same way the existence and manifestation with mutual opposition gets destroyed in the end.

Are they like other and non-other or are they like two directions

349. Shloka- Or between entity and manifestation,  the vyavahara is only in formal sense like between  two people  being called first and second. Or is  it like two directions east and west in Vyavahara sense?

Bhavartha- Just as first second are only Vyavahara sense relative terms or the east west are relative terms without any specific place being called as east.

Are they like dual predicates

350. Shloka- Do they have  support-supported form relationship of two predicates, like ‘water is in the pot’ but not other way round conversely.

Are they like seed and sprout

351.Shloka- Or just as seed and sprout have cause -effect bhava, in the same way the entity and manifestation have same bhava?

Are they like gold and stone

352. Shloka- Or are they like  gold and stone with one being desirable and other being undesirable.

Are they like Vachya-Vachak ( thing & its name)

353. Shloka- Just as Vachya(thing)  is different from Vachak (its name); is the entity and manifestation different from the substance?

Are they like drum and stick

354. Shloka- Without both the purpose is not served, therefore entity and manifestation both need to be stated, just as with drum and stick the objective is served. In the same way does the substance get established with both entity and manifestation?

Are the terms  like Poorna Nyaya

355.Shloka- As per term Poorna Nyaya with any of the two terms entity and manifestation the purpose gets served hence the second term is told in disinterested manner. One is adequate.

Are they like two friends

356. Shloka- Or one of them being Upadan cause carried out the karya while the other as supporting reason strengthens the carried out task. Are they like such two friends?

Are they like order

357. Shloka- Order is like enemy , are they like that? Wherein one completely destroys other from roots and becoming independent blossoms by itself.

Are they like two ropes

358. Shloka- Just as ropes held in left and right hand remaining separate also carry out the necessary task , in the same way do the entity and manifestation remaining opposite and disjoint carry out the task.

Visheshartha- It has been told earlier  that substance is entity and manifestation dual form. However when anyone is under consideration then it appears in that form since entity and manifestation are not totally different. However the questioner, not being satisfied with this explanation, has posed several objections with examples. The author refutes them in following shlokas-

Answers

359. Shloka- The questioner in support of his view has quotes examples which are being destructive of both own and other sides, hence they do  not qualify as examples. Which dim-witted person would attempt to destroy himself i.e. no one.

The example of letters in respect of entity and manifestation is not valid

360. Shloka- Mutually relative both dharmas entity and manifestation are subject of Praman. The example of letters which eliminates the Praman is not valid.

Bhavartha- The letters are independent. The letters A, B, C, D etc are not established with respect to each other but independently. But entity and manifestation are mutually relative hence the example of letters is irregular. Praman described two mutually relative dharmas and Praman cannot be eliminated since the nature of substance is both dharma form. Hence existence of Praman is compulsory.  

In the absence of Praman, naya also cannot remain

361. Shloka- Firstly the absence of Praman is not established with any example, secondly in the absence of Praman, naya also cannot defend itself. Without implication of sentence the words and predicates do not serve any purpose.

Bhavartha- ‘Bring pot of ghee’. In this sentence if the words pot and ghee alone are used then they do not convey any meaning in spite of predicates. In the same way if Praman is not accepted whose subject is mutually relative two dharmas, then the naya whose subject is one part of substance, cannot survive. Since only in the presence of the knowledge of all the dharmas substance the knowledge of one dharma each can exist. 

362- 363. Shloka- In answer to the above if the doubt is raised that if in accordance with Sanskar (ordination) if the meaning of the sentence be derived from words itself i.e. the nayas itself may be accepted as Praman?  This gives rise to two flaws- (1) Nayas would be eliminated since nayas have been accepted as Praman. (2) When the meaning of sentence is conveyed by a letter or word then sequential sound would not be means for realisation of meaning. 

Example of Vindhyachal and Himachal is also delusional

364. Shloka- The example of Vindhyachal and Himachal mountains also cannot establish the objective wherein one substance one dharma is primary and other is secondary; since both are totally independent.

Bhavartha- In reality the entity and manifestation are accepted to be different in some aspect. But Himacahal and Vindhyachal are totally independent and different. Then one cannot be primary and other secondary. Therefore this example is not valid.

The example of lion and sadhu is also delusional

365-366. Shloka- Just as lion or sadhu are adjectives used for a man, in the same way the entity and manifestation are not adjectives of substance. The example quoted has flaw of unestablished nature like telling that water is scented.

Bhavartha- The substance has nature of being existent and manifesting. It is not imaginary like lion and sadhu. Hence this example does not serve any purpose.

The example of Agni and Vaishvanar is also delusional (367-373)

367.  Shloka- Like agni and Vaishvanar are names of fire, in the same way entity and manifestation are two names of substance- such assertion does not establish the objective and the example is flawed being devoid of objective.

368. shloka- Here two names are imagined. Whether it is carried out neglecting both dharmas of substance or keeping them in mind? By accepting the first side, in the absence of dharmas the dharmi also becomes absent  and further consideration is useless.

369. Shloka- On accepting second side, then two questions arise that whether both dharmas are different from dravya or are indifferent. If they are accepted to be different then there is nothing new. Just as earlier dharmas are absent in the same way dharmi is also absent. Hence no purpose is served.

370. Shloka- If in spite of the two dharmas being different, they are Yutasiddha hence there can be dharma-dharmi bhava. In such a case all substances would have relation ship with all substances and all substances would become all forms.

371. Shloka- If two dharmas are not different from dravya, this sameness is like cloth and colour or dough and salt?

372. Shloka- If it is told that they are same as dough and salt, then the saltiness of the chapati is due to salt only. Chapati is different from salt. Same way the dharmas would be different from dravya. Thus they are independent like the example of letters quoted earlier. Then neither Praman gets established nor naya.

373. Shloka- If the sameness is like cloth and colour then it supports our argument only. Just as colour does not exist without cloth and cloth cannot exist without colour, in the same way the entity and manifestation do not exist without each other. Then the argument of questioner giving two names to same substance like agni and Vaishvanar is self defeating.

The example of left right horns of cow is not valid (374-375)

374. Shloka- The example of left right horns of cow is invalid since both horns are supported by the cow while entity and manifestation do not have another substance to support them. Like  lotus of the sky has good smell, this example is invalid since sky does not support lotus. 

375. Shloka- Other than entity and manifestation there is no other substance. Just as lamp and light are indifferent and intermingled, in the same way the entity and manifestation are together having oneness. Hence this example is invalid.

Raw-Ripe Mud is also delusional example (376-378)

376. Shloka- The raw and ripe mud cannot be example since they occur sequentially hence this example damages both sides.

377. Shloka- The questioner has  given this example which naturally supports sequentiality while Jains accept both entity and manifestation together. The other side has tried to establish them as two independent substances while they are two sequential states. Hence it demolishes his side.

378. Shloka- The questioner wishes to establish the substance either Nitya or Anitya. On the other hand the mud is accepted to be Nitya from aspect of Samanya while from aspect of rawness it is Anitya. Hence it does not support his stand.

Example of two wives is also delusional (379-380)

379-380. Shloka- The example of two wives has three types of flaws namely Viruddha, Anaikantik and Asiddha.

Telling some one that my mother is infertile is absolutely Viruddha. In the same way believing entity and manifestation to be sequentially produced like two wives and describing their existence in same kaal is absolutely Viruddha. Since entity and manifestation are not produced sequentially at some particular time nor they stay in same place with opposition. Eternally their mutual joint existence continues. Hence this example is Viruddha.

The two wives may live with opposition and some places they may stay without opposition. It is not a rule that they stay in opposition.  Hence this example is defective with Anaikantik anomaly.

The Siddhant of Bauddha that all substances are Anitya since they are absolutely momentary is Asiddha since the substances are observed to be Nitya also by recollection. Here the example of two wives is Asiddha since they are two substances while entity and manifestation are one only. The wives are opposite with time difference of presence. The entity and manifestation are together at same time. Hence this is flawed with Asiddha Anomaly.

The example of Elder and younger brother is also delusional

381-282- Shloka- Here also three anomalies exist. Firstly the elder and younger brother are born in sequence but the entity and manifestations are not produced in sequence. Both are together. Hence the example suffers from Viruddha defect.

Secondly the two brother are produced by their parents but the entity and manifestation do not have such support, they are independent. Hence it gives rise to Ashraya Asiddha anomaly.

Thirdly the brothers are produced by parents who in turn were produced by their parents and so on, In such case the entity and manifestations are dependent continuously which is known as Anavastha anomaly.

The example of two wrestlers is also delusional

383-384. Shloka- The two wrestlers are dependent upon each other which is known as Itaretar anomaly. In the end both die hence nothing gets established . Hence both entity and manifestation are eliminated which is not right.

Example of two predicates is also delusional

385-388. Shloka - The example of predicates dual is not useful since it is applicable both for and against hence it is defective. Just as for undifferentiated side ‘ the tree has branch’ is the Vyavahara, in the same way for differentiated side ‘ the pot has curd’ is the vyavahara. Therefore the example of dual predicates becomes defective. If it is said that although the example is defective, still it supports one side then this too is not right. Since just as it is enemy of other side, in the same way it is enemy of own side also. Possibly the questioner wants to establish that entity and manifestation are parts of substance but such a substance does not exist, then how can they be parts.

Example of seed and sprout is also delusional

389-393. Shloka- This example is also not valid since the times of seed and sprouts are different after one another. Hence both cannot be at the same time. The same is not the case with entity and manifestations which are at the same time.

Just as with the destruction of illumination the lamp also gets extinguished, both cannot stay without each other. The same applies to entity and manifestation. Entity is samanya and manifestation is vishesh. Both cannot stay without each other. Hence both are together at same time and are inseparable in some aspect.

If it is said that by accepting time difference without effort it can be established then such means is not right since by accepting time difference between entity and manifestation, the entity gets destroyed and non entity gets produced,  Hence this example is also not valid.

Continued...