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….
No comments:
Post a Comment