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...