GRANTHRAJ SHRI PANCH DHYAYI …15

 

Fifth Intermediate chapter

Form of Real Vyavahara nayas ( 588-596)

Doubt

588. Shloka- What are names of all the nayas and how many are there. How do they describe Mithya meaning and the real meaning of substance.

Number of Nayas.

589. Shloka- In reality the infinite  qualities of substance described as Vishesh are equal to number of Nayavad hence that many statements are there (dravya naya) and that many places of Vikalpa are there (bhava naya). For example the Astitva guna  of jiva is called as Astitva naya , the gyan guna is described by Gyan naya and so on.

Bhavartha- Here only gunas are mentioned since here the Shuddha substance is the subject and in it the gunas only are called as naya.  There is no issue of vibhava  of paryaya hence it is not called as naya. Swabhava paryaya is included in guna and other dravya is counted as nayabhas.

How they are Samyak and Mithya ? Answer (590-591)

590. Shloka- With mutually independent relationship they are called as Mithya naya. The same with mutually dependent form relationship they are called Samyak Naya . The substance is Samanya-Vishesh form hence samanya and Vishesh both being  interdependent have mutual relationship.

591. Shloka- The mutual dependence as a rule is described as Avinabhava ( without which it cannot exist) since without avinabhava the mutual dependence cannot be established.

Bhavartha- Vishesh cannot be established without Samanya and Samanya cannot be established without Vishesh. Hence both have Avinabhava ( without one other cannot exist). With mutual Avinabhava there is mutual dependence.

Names of the nayas ? Answer (592-595)

592. Shloka- The Vishesh guna of dravya which is described by whichever name, the naya also is described by the same name in Agam  which deals with that guna.

Bhavartha – In this way in a dravya by which ever names the vishesh gunas are described, the nayas are also told by the same names dealing with those gunas.

Example-1

593. Shloka-  Just as the entity has ordinary quality by name  Astitva. Hence the naya dealing with the Astitva part of that entity is called Astitva naya in brief.

Example -2

594. Shloka- Jiva has quality by name Kartritva or Vaibhavik named guna – the naya dealing with those qualities are called respectively Kartritva naya or Vaibhavik naya.

595. Shloka- In this tradition the entire ambit of naya  should be known ; since with respect to each dharma of the substance, there is one naya each.

All these are Vyavahara naya only

596. Shloka- The above described adjective-substantive form naya are all paryayarthika naya which is also called Vyavahara naya. It is not called Dravyarthika naya. 

Summary of 588-596

What is dravya? The answer is that agglomeration of infinite qualities is dravya. The indivisible substance which is gathering of infinite qualities is called Samanya, which is subject of Dravyarthika naya. The infinite gunas are described by infinite nayas which describe one guna each. The name of guna is same as the naya. All these naya are called Paryayarthika or Vyavahara naya since they deal with one part. All these gunas are together one. Hence these nayas are mutually related just as guna in dravya.

Sixth Intermediate chapter

Resolution

597. Shloka- If the characteristics described above are not Dravyarthika naya then what is Dravyarthika naya? Now Acharya answers it.

Bhavartha- If quality-substantive form all naya are Paryayarthika ( Vyavahara) naya then what is Dravyarthika ( Nishchaya) naya?

The characteristics of Nishchaya naya and its subject

598. Shloka- Vyavahara is discardable and Nishchaya naya is its opponent which negates it. The negation of Vyavahara is the subject of Nishchaya naya . The difference is that it is not differentiated form but undifferentiated form.

Bhavartha- Vyavahara is discardable i.e. it is suitable for negating. It is negated by Nishchaya naya. Hence negation of Vyavahara only is the subject of Nishchaya naya. What all is described by Vyavahara naya is discardable since it is not the nature of substance. The substance is indivisible, indescribable, undifferentiated form. Vyavahara naya differentiates it. The substance has infinite qualities  and Vyavahara naya describes it with specific quality. The substance is Samanya-Vishesh form and Vyavahara naya handles it in part form. Hence all the subjects of Vyavahara naya are discardable and that negation only is subject of Nishchaya naya. Just as Vyavahara naya differentiates Guna-Guni  but Nishchaya naya says that it is not so. What all is the subject of Vyavahara naya, negating that is the subject of Nishchaya naya. The example of Nishchaya naya is “ not this” since any other way the subject of Nishchaya naya cannot be described.

Its Clarification

599. Shloka- The Vyavahara naya tells or knows that the dravya is existence form but Nishchaya naya says no. Vyvahara naya tells that jiva has gyan but Nishchaya naya says no. In this way Nishchaya naya negates using the term ‘Neti i.e. Not this’ which is the crown of all Nayas.

Bhavartha- The Vyavahara naya tells the dravya to be existence form but Nishchaya naya negates it i.e. the substance is not so , the reason being that existence denotes the Astitva Quality. But substance is not Astitva guna form alone. It is infinite guna form . Hence telling substance to be merely existence alone is not right. Therefore Nishchaya naya negates it. In the same way calling Jiva as having Gyan is subject of Vyavahara naya. Nishchaya naya negates it saying that Jiva is not so since jiva is mass of infinite qualities. Hence those infinite qualities  have indivisible Pradesh. In indivisibility the differentiation of guna and guni is Mithya. Hence Nishchaya naya negates it. Nishchaya naya like Vyavahara does not describe the substance but negates what all is described by Vyavahara naya or told in differentiation form. In this way its statement supports non-differentiation. It is called as crown of nayas since all other describing the differentiated form are untrue and this is the only true one which denotes non-differentiated as non-differentiated only. Moksha Marga is subordinate to it.

Nishchaya naya is Vikalpa form – its establishment (600-610)

Doubt

600. Shloka- It has been told earlier in 506 that all nayas are vikalpa form since the characteristics of nayas is Vikalpa only. ( In this Nishchaya naya there is no vikalpa since this naya is negation form only) hence due to lack of vikalpa this naya shall not have naya-ness i.e. it does not meet the criterion of being naya.

Answer (601-610)

601. Shloka- This doubt is not valid. Nishchaya naya is also naya form since it has “Neti” (negation) form vikalpa. Negation is its stand and the stand denotes naya. The stance is vikalpa form only hence it is not right to say that Nishchaya naya does not have vikalpa.

Bhavartha- The characterisitcs of naya is vikalpa. In Dravyarthika naya the negation form vikalpa exists. In other words the knowledge supporting a specific stance or its describing attribute is called naya. Nishchaya naya supports negation stance. Just as Vyavahara naya is vikalpa form describing specific dharma , in the same way the Nishchaya naya negating the subject of Vyavahara naya is also Vikalpa form. Hence the characteristics of naya is applicable in Nishchaya naya.

602. Shloka- Just as Vyavahara naya being itself Vikalpa form is procedurally vikalpa , in the same way the Nishchaya naya being negation form is also Viakalpa.

Bhavartha- Just as the negated is a procedural stand which is vikalpa form , in the same way the negator has negating stance which is vikalpa form only.

Its clarification (603-605)

603. Shloka- Negator is also vikalpa form , its clarification is as follows- The upayoga of substance is called Vikalpa and non-Upayoga of the same is Nirvikalpa.

604. Shloka- The manifestation of gyan in substance form is Upayoga and the non manifestation of gyan in substance form is called non-upayoga.

605. Shloka- When Upayoga and non-upayoga have such arrangement then in Dravyarthika naya the “Neti” form negation is having stance of the form of negation knowledge, it cannot be termed as non-upayoga but it is Upayoga only. Since upayoga is that only where gyan manifests in substance form. Here also without manifestation in substance form the negation “Neti” form knowledge cannot be conveyed. Hence with negation form manifestation the dravyarthika naya is also Upayoga form  and upayoga only is vikalpa.

Bhavartha (603-605)- Here the activity of gyan with raga is called as Upayoga and activity of knowledge without raga (nirvikalpa ) is called as non-upayoga. “ The quality of jiva is gyan” – this is subject of Anupacharita Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya. This is told in 536. There the gyan is vikalpa form along with raga. Vyavahara naya is to be negated and Nishchaya naya is Negator. Hence Nishchaya naya negates the sentence “ gyan is quality of jiva” and says that “ Jiva is not gyan quality alone”. The meaning of Upayoga is activity of gyan knowing the substance along with raga. While knowing the subject of Nishchaya naya along with raga “ the jiva is not gyan guna alone” such vikalpa is conveyed. Hence this naya is not nirvikalpa.

The meaning of Upayoga is that the activity of consciousness which shifts from one substance to another substance, that is called as Upayoga. During this Upayoga the raga is surely there. The Kevali Bhagwan do not have activity of consciousness of shifting from one substance to another, hence he does not have Upayoga. His Upayoga is told merely in Upachar sense. The activity of gyan along with raga is Upayoga with vikalpa and activity of gyan without raga is called non-upayoga . Nirvikalpa gyan is attained by Chhadmastha in Dharma and Shukla Dhyan.

606. Shloka- Just as Jiva has gyan guna , this naya cannot be known without realisation of the substance, in the same way being negation form with ‘Neti’ shape, this naya also cannot be known without realisation of the substance.     

607. Shloka- Its clarification- By observing the special capability of jiva i.e. his gyan shakti , saying or understanding that “ the jiva is consciousness form” just as this stance is there , in the same way without giving attention to only gyan guna of jiva and observing all the gunas , saying or understanding that ‘ It is not so’ i.e. the jiva is not merely having gyan guna. This too is stance. ( Both nayas are vikalpa form)

Bhavartha- The summary is that “Jiva is having gyan guna” in this Vyavahara naya the jiva is called as consciousness form with recourse to gyan quality of jiva- this is stance. In the same way in Nishchaya naya “ Jiva is not having merely gyan guna “ – thus besides the special guna of gyan form of jiva, the ‘Samanya dharma’ of jiva is taken recourse to and negating the mere gyan nature is also an stance. This supports indivisibility.

608. Shloka- Since in both nayas in the ordinary form, the vikalpa of realisation of substance is present, hence in “ it is not so” – this negation stance also the there is naya-ness of Nishchaya naya since it has taken recourse to negation stance.

Bhavartha- In both nayas of Vyavahara and Nishchaya , the vikalpa of the form of substance realisation is similar hence ‘ not so’  shaped nishchaya naya is also established to be naya.

609. Shloka- The stance is that which accepts one part. “ Not so” also has part dharma nature. Hence Dravyarthika naya having subject of “not so” has specific stand in favour of part which is the root of being naya.

Bhavartha- The general characteristics of naya is Vikalpa and in Nishchaya naya the ‘Neti’ vikalpa is present.

610. Shloka- Single part nature of Nishcahya naya having subject of “Neti” form negation is established only. Just as the substance has vishesh ( differentiation) form shakti , in the same way the samanya shakti negating the vishesh is also its part ; hence the substance is differentiation-non differentiation form. Just as differentiation is a part in the same way the non differentiation is also part.

Bhavartha- The substance is Samanya-Vishesh form. This is subject of Praman and the samanya part is subject of Dravyarthika naya. Vishesh part is subject of Paryayarthika naya. Hence Nishchaya naya having subject of samanya part negating the vishesh part is established to be one part.

Nishchaya Naya is devoid of Example (611-625)

Doubt (611-612)

611. Shloka- Just as Vyavahara naya has example, in the same way Nishchaya naya should also be with example? The gyan vikalpa is there in both in similar way hence both should also have example?

612. Shloka- Just as Vyavahara naya describes the entity to be several. Tells Jiva to be consciousness form ( examples of Vyavahara naya). In the same way Nishchaya naya also is ‘ entity is one , Jiva is consciousness only’ in this manner should state example of Nishchaya naya ? These can be examples of Nishchaya naya?

Answer 613-618

613. Shloka- Such doubt is invalid since it results in mixing anomaly and complete voidness flaw. The reason is that with differentiation of characteristics the objective also gets differentiated.

Bhavartha- By calling entity as one, the entity is target and its characteristics is established to be ‘one’. In the same way by calling jiva as consciousness form the jiva is target and its characteristics is consciousness. Such target characteristics form differentiation can be subject of Vyavahara naya but not of Nishchaya naya. If differentiation  is subject of Nishchaya also then both Nishchaya and Vyavahara have the same subjects and they would be Sankar (mixed)  anomaly. In this way with absence of Nishchaya naya only Vyavahara naya remains. The naya without relationship  is Mithya since such naya cannot exist. Therefore with lack of Vyavahara naya it would result in complete voidness.

614. Shloka- The characteristics of Vyavahara naya is to divide one entity into two parts whichever way i.e. differentiate the entity. Conversely the characteristics of Nishchaya naya is not to divide the entity into two parts whichever way i.e. not differentiating the entity. Hence it is not right to quote example for Nishchaya naya like Vyavahara naya.

615. Shloka- Even so as per questioner if the entity may be called as one and consciousness alone as jiva as examples of Nishchaya naya, then one entity would have dual bhava and Nishchaya naya would be merged in Vyavahara naya . ( There would not be difference between Vyavahara and Nishchaya naya since both examples get submerged in Vyavahara naya.)

By calling entity as one also it establishes differentiation only in it, or by calling jiva as consciousness form also it establishes differentiation only  in the jiva. How? This is answered-

616. Shloka- The questioner has described the example of Nishchaya naya as ‘ entity is one’. The author shows the flaw in it- here entity is target and its characteristics is one , but such target -characteristics differentiation is done in Vyavahara naya and not in nishchaya naya.

617. Shloka- Just as entity and one have differentiation of target-characteristics , in the same way “ Consciousness only is jiva” – in this example jiva is target and consciousness is his characteristics which also establishes Vyavahara naya and not Nishchaya naya. Hence these examples are that of Vyavahara naya and not Nishchaya naya.

618. Shloka- Hence both nayas suffer from sankar(mixing) flaw which results in complete voidness fault. That is so since both become examples of Vyavahara naya hence only Vyavahara naya is balance left. Nishchaya naya does not remain that is the flaw. Single naya becomes independent which is not characteristics of naya hence that too becomes absent. This results in complete voidness.

Doubt 619-620

619. Shloka- If by calling entity as one and calling Jiva as consciousness form it becomes subject of Vyavahara naya then the example of Nishchaya naya should be independent Vishesh ( without differentiation) only entity or just jiva. The oneness of entity as Vishesh or consciousness of Jiva as Vishesh should not be mentioned. By calling entity alone or jiva alone with lack of differentiation , it becomes example of Nishchaya. Then there is no fault since by calling entity alone or jiva alone there is no spirit of differentiation?

Doubt Continued

620. Shloka- By such belief the scope for Vyavahara definitely remains. Just as saying Entity is one , Entity is anek, Jiva is conscious dravya, Jiva has soul. Such differentiating knowledge is characteristics of Vyavahara naya. In Nishchaya naya only entity or only jiva should be treated as examples. It is not right to believe Nishchaya to be without example. If we accept thus?

Answer 621-625

621. Shloka - This statement is not right since entity – this vikalpa and Jiva – this vikalpa both are imaginary since whichever dharma is present, it is named by that dharma in Upachar sense for example-

622. Shloka- The one bestowed with Pranas is called as Jiva or the one which is having Jivan Guna is called Jiva. Hence by calling Jiva alone the life specific or Jivatva Gyna specific only is known. In the same  way-

623. Shloka- Or having existence guna it is termed as entity dravya. Hence by calling entity the Astitva guna or the dravya having Astitva guna is known.

Bhavartha- Although in entity this vikalpa has not been raised that whether it is dravya or guna but by calling entity such vikalpa gets generated without telling. All vikalpa for differentiating knowledge is subject of Vyavahara naya.

624. Shloka- If substantive without adjective only is accepted to be example of Nishchaya naya then in the absence of dravya, guna and paryaya the Vyavahara naya gets eliminated.

Bhavartha- If substantive without having any adjective is considered as subject of Nishchaya naya then with lack of adjective, the Vyavahara of dravya, guna and paryaya is not possible, Hence it results in elimination of Vyavahara naya.

625. Shloka- Hence it should be decided that all statements with example are those of Vyavahara naya. The negator of Vyavahara only is Nishchaya naya. “ Neti” is the vikalpa . There is no division of adjective and substantive and there is no example.

Next Introduction- Thus in 611-625 it is established that Nishchaya naya is without example. Now in 626-636 it is told that why Vyavahara naya is negatable and Nishchaya naya is Negator.

Doubt

626. Shloka- Vyavahara naya is Vikalpa form and Nishchaya naya is also vikalpa form. Then why Vyavahara naya is negated and Nishchaya naya negates it? When both are vikalpa form then why one is  negatable and other negator?

Answer 627-630

627. Shloka- This doubt is not valid since in each substance the gyan manifesting in the form in accordance with the substance shape is called vikalpa. That vikalpa ( part of gyan with raga) is not cause for negation since such vikalpa form gyan exists in both vyavahara and Nishchaya. The reason for negation is the unrealness ( since the nature of substance described by Vyavahara is not real. Hence Vyavahara naya describes the Mithya form which is rejectable.)

Bhavartha- The reason for negation of Vyavahara naya is not vikalpa form knowledge. Vikalpa form knowledge is there in Nishchaya naya also. Its reason is unreal knowledge i.e. the form of substance described by Vyavahara naya is unreal . Hence it should be negated. Same is clarified as follows-

628. Shloka- Vyavahara naya is Mithya since it preaches falsely and hence its is worthy of negation and the person observing the substance in accordance with Vyavahara naya is also Mithya Drishti.

Bhavartha- Vyavahara naya being vikalpa form is not Mithya but because of making statement of Mithya substance it is Mithya.

629. Shloka- The Nishchaya naya describes the real subject hence it is Samyak Form. Although Nishchaya naya is Vikalpa form even then it appears to be free of vikalpa. Although it is described by “no” etc. words, even then without having vikalpa of differentiation form  it appears to be indescribable by words only. The subject of Nishchaya naya is known by experience since it cannot be described by words. What ever is described by words, that being differentiation form becomes subject of Vyavahara naya. Hence by words it is describable in only negation form ‘No’. But its subject is not describable.

630. Shloka- Or the one having faith in the subject of Nishchaya naya only is Samyak Drishti and that only is functional. Hence Nishchaya naya only is venerable. Remaining all Vyavahara naya vad is despicable.

Bhavartha- Here Nishchaya naya with vikalpa is called Samyaktva and the one having Drishti upon its subject is called Samyak Drishti. Its reason is that the one having Drishti upon subject of Nishchaya naya can attain own experience by directing attention away from vikalpa (raga) intelligently. For those tied  in differentiation such opportunity is not there.

Doubt 631-632

631. Shloka- How can entire Vyavahara naya be Mithya? Since in Agam dravya has been called as being guna paryaya form, by experience also it appears so.

632. Shloka- The questioner asks ‘dravya is guna paryaya form’ – here what is unreal? Is it absence of dravya or guna? Or both are absent or their combination is lacking? If nothing is lacking then why Vyavahara naya is Mithya?

Answer 633-636

633. Shloka- Its alright. Neither Guna is absent nor dravya is absent , nor both are absent and nor their combination is absent. Even then Vyavahara naya is Mithya which is clarified below-

634. Shloka- The Vyavahara naya is Mithya . Its reason is that in the sutra dravya is guna paryaya form- it implies that some guna substance is separate and some dravya substance is separate and with their combination dravya is established.

635. Shloka- But such statement is Mithya since there is no guna nor dravya , nor both , nor combination of both. But only adwait entity is there. This entity can be called Guna or dravya but they are not different i.e. they are indifferent from aspect of Nishchaya. They are one only.  

636. Shloka- Hence this has been established with logic that Vyavahara naya is non-real. Those who experience only Vyavahara naya are Mithya Drishti, they too have been refuted here.

Bhavartha- The term ‘only’ in the Gatha indicates that by carrying out Vyavahara alone one cannot attain Nishchaya. Differentiating properly only is the meaning of ‘Vyavahara’ word. This establishes that it is non real only.

Next Introduction- In this way Nishchaya has been established as the negator and Vyavahara as the one to be negated. Now in 637-641 it is told that Vyavahara naya is to be negated, it is despicable and not venerable. Even so it is existent for sure. With some objective it needs to be used. It is not worthy of complete abandonment since it described the reality.

Continued….

GRANTHRAJ SHRI PANCH DHYAYI ….14

 

Description of Anupacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya ( 546-548)

Characteristics of Anupacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya

546. Shloka- Those anger etc. form bhavas which are undetectable by the present gyan are described as that of jiva from aspect of Anupacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya. Therefore calling the raga indulged by Jiva without his knowledge (AbuddhiPoorvak) is the characteristics of Anupacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya. By means of this naya the Abuddhipoorvak raga is said to belong to jiva.

Bhavartha- The anger etc. form bhavas belong to Jiva from aspect of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya – this has been told in 539. The anger etc. form bhavas are of two kind- (1) Abuddhipoorvak ( without knowledge) – undetectable ( 2) Budddhipoorvak ( with knowledge)- detectable. Of these the undetectable bhavas are called as that of jiva in Anuapacharita sense and the detectable bhavas are belonging to jiva in Upacharita sense. Calling Vaibhavika bhavas to be those of jiva is the part pertaining to Asadbhoot . The division of guna and guni is Vyavahara part. The Undetectable anger etc. bhavas are  Anupacharita since the knowledge of Sadhak Jiva cannot detect them.

Reason for Usage of Anupacharita Asadbhoot Vayavahara naya

547. Shloka- The reason for usage of this naya is that the capability of the substance in Vibhava form which is functioning in vibhava manner, that capability at that moment is not different from own dravya.

Bhavartha- The Anger is Vibhava condition of Charitra guna . During engagement in anger etc. the Jiva and anger etc. become indifferent and the Vyavahara of oneness is carried out. This is the reason for usage of this naya.

Benefit of Knowledge of Anupacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya

548. Shloka- All the Vibhava bhavas which are generated in self with nimitta of others, they all not being dharma of soul are transitory and being transitory are not acceptable – such spirit is the benefit of this naya. Therefore the spirit of despicability towards raga is the benefit.

Description of Upachrita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya (549-551)

Characteristics of Upacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya

549. Shloka- The Audayik anger etc. bhavas which are carried out by jiva knowingly i.e. Buddhipoorvak are called so from aspect of Upacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya.

Bhavartha- In reality the Audayik anger etc. bhavas are not nature of jiva – this part is Asadbhoot and it is known in the knowledge – detectable , hence it is Upacharita and description by differentiation is Vyavahara.

The reason for usage of Upacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya

550. Shloka- The reason for its usage is that all the vibhava bhavas as a rule occur due to self and others both since in spite of special capability of dravya to manifest in vibhava form, those bhavas do not generate without recourse to other’s nimitta. Therefore the manifestation of qualities of soul in Vaibhavik form with the nimitta of pudgala karmas is the cause of Upacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya.

Bhavartha- The vibhava bhavas are not generated without other’s nimitta. With such knowledge by this naya, the Bhavya jiva discarding the other’s dependent Buddhi which generates raga with its  nimitta, directs his Drishti upon self. Raga does not occur without nimitta and it does not mean that nimitta forces the jiva to indulge in raga but it means that when jiva carries out raga , then karma functions as nimitta only. Soul without engaging in nimitta cannot carry out raga.

Benefit of Knowing Upacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya

551. Shloka- Where Buddhipoorvak ( knowingly) raga bhava is there, the Abuddhipoorvak (unknowingly) raga bhava is also present as a rule. Buddhipoorvak bhavas cannot exist without Abuddhipoorvak bhavas. The Abuddhipoorvak bhava are Sadhya and the means for establishing their existence are Buddhipoorvak bhavas. Informing such a relationship only is the benefit of this naya.

Bhavartha- By means of this naya the Jiva gets to know the existence of Abuddhipoorvak raga in the soul. The Abuddhipoorvak undetectable anger etc. bhavas are only realised to be in existence but they are not experienced. This is decided by Gyani due to  the relationship of Buddhipoorvak raga with them. The Buddhipoorvak passions part  detectable by present upayoga are the means while the Abuddhipoorvak passions  part which are not detectable by the present upayoga are the Sadhya – in this way both are eliminated from the soul . This is the purpose of knowing these two naya. Upacharita Asadbhoot and Anupacharita Asadbhoot , both of them are detectable and undetectable vibhava bhavas at the same time. Realising both of them to be despicable is the purpose of these two nayas.

Summary of Shloka 535-551

1.     Upacharita Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya- “ Gyan knows others” – saying this or by knowing the raga in gyan saying that” raga is known” – or knowing own nature the Gyani “ knows the corruption also” – these are statements of Upacharita Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya.

2.     Anupacharita Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya- Knowing soul by differentiating gyan and soul as guna and guni is Anupacharita Sadbhoot Vyavahara naya.

3.     Upacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya- The Sadhak knows that at present his paryaya is corrupted. The raga which is known by Buddhi and is detectable – knowing such vibhava bhavas to be that of soul is Upacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya.

4.     Anupacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya- At the moment the detectable corrupted bhavas are there, at the same moment the undetectable corrupted bhavas are also there- such knowledge is Anupacharita Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya.

Doubt- This form of Vyavahara naya has not been described in any Agam granth. The nayas applicable to same substance are called as Nishchaya naya and Vyavahara naya is practiced between two dravyas. Such Vyavahara naya is termed as Nayabhas by author.

Answer- In other granths the relation between two dravyas is called as Vyavahara naya in Upachar sense only. Such is the practice of Siddhant Granths. The reason is that Siddhant described six dravyas and their mutual Nimitta-Naimittik relationship. The name of Nimitta-naimittik relationship only is Vyavahara naya in Siddhant. But it does not mean that the function of one dravya  is undertaken by other dravya. The author has established it to be Nayabhas with logic in 563 etc.

Narration of Vyavahara naya is completed

Third Intermediate Chapter

The test for examining Samyak Naya and Mithya naya or introduction to Nayabhas (552-565)

Doubt

552. Shloka- The Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya is applied there where the qualities  of one substance are implied onto another substance. For example calling jiva as having colour etc. Is it alright to accept it?

Answer 553-555

553. Shloka- Calling the qualities of a substance to be its own is Tat-Guna (own guna). These alone are Samyak Naya. Calling the qualities of one substance to belong to other substance is Atat-Guna( not own guna) which are not real naya but are Nayabhas ( false naya). They appear like Vyavahara naya and they are used in Lok and Agam but upon examining they are proven to be Nayabhas. Praman accepts the complete substance while naya accepts one dharma of substance. This characteristics itself tells that calling dharma of one substance to be that of another is Nayabhas. You have told Jiva to be having colour etc., this is Atat-Guna since colour etc. are dharma of pudgala and not bhava of soul. Being Atat-Guna it is not suitable for Vyavahara naya. Hence it is not naya but Nayabhas.

Bhavartha- Earlier the author has given the characteristics of Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya that “ where forcibly the qualities of one dravya are imposed upon another dravya” – that is called Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya. For example calling the anger of pudgala to be that of jiva. Taking recourse to those words only the disciple has called the colour etc. of pudgala to be that of jiva. Thus he has imposed qualities of one dravya upon another dravya. But the meaning of term ‘Forcibly’ has been misunderstood. Forcibly means due to some reason – due to the reason of capability of jiva to manifest in vibhava form. Therefore due to manifestation of jiva in anger etc. vibhava form – due to this they are called to be that of jiva. The way anger etc. manifest in the foursome of jiva, the colour etc. do not manifest. They are clearly dharmas of other substance. All the relations of one dharmi with other dharmi are negated. Hence calling dharma of one dharmi to be that of another dharmi is not Vyavahara but Nayabhas/Vyavahara-bhas. It is not Samyak naya but is Mithya Naya. Anger etc. are Tat-guna bhava of jiva while colour etc. are Atat-guna . Tat-guna are naya but Atat-guna are nayabhas. This is the rule.

In Jain dharma and other faiths, this is the difference that all other  faiths believe the effect of one dharmi upon other dharmi in the form of doing, enjoying, influence, effect etc. but Jain dharma makes every dravya to be experienced eternally independent. With the mistake described above the Siddhant of Jain dharma becomes haywire. True that Jain dharma accepts Nimitta but it is merely present. It does not force upadan to manifest. All nimitta are like dharma dravya form as detached reason alone. Just as with rising of sun , every one starts doing their work.

554. Shloka- The ‘ Atat-guna characteristics’ naya are Mithya and hence they are unacceptable. Those believing them to be Samyak Naya are also Mithya speakers.

555. Shloka- The statement of such naya is of the form of “Jiva  has colour” i.e. black, white etc. but such narration is defective since it leads to spirit of oneness between jiva and pudgala.( which is mithyatva)

Doubt

556. Shloka- Whether it be right or wrong in the consideration of substance, but the sequence of nayas has been realised in the Nyaya and hence it cannot be avoided?

Bhavartha- calling jiva having colour is also naya. To establish this naya it may lead to  the unity of jiva with  colour but is its establishment  necessary?

Answer 557-563

557. Shloka- This is alright that the sequence of nayas are essential. But this is also important that it should be valid (Praman form). Some naya is real and some are Mithya (false). This quality of naya is also important. For example-

558. Shloka- Gyan is Arth-Vikalpa form hence from aspect of Samanya Gyan it is one only. However the Arth-vikalpa is there in all gyans but in context of subjects it gets divided into two parts (1) Samyak gyan and (2) Mithya Gyan.

559. Shloka- In these two gyans the cause for Samyak gyan is real knowledge of substance while that of Mithya Gyan is false knowledge of substance.

Bhavartha- The thing which is subject of gyan, knowing the thing to be as it exists is called Samyak Gyan . For example someone believes silver to be silver only then it is Samyak gyan. However if he believes silver to be shell then it is Mithya Gyan. In this way with divisions of subject the gyan also has Samyak and Mithya divisions. In the same way-

560. Shloka- Just like gyan the naya also is like that. Samanya gyan is one , in the same way the complete naya is just vikalpa form hence it is one in samanya form. However just as gyan from aspect of vishesh is Samyak and Mithya, in the same way the nayas also are samyak and mithya naya. The Mithya naya are called Nayabhas.

Examination of Nayas

561. Shloka- (1) Definitely the naya which describes the qualities of a substance to belong to that substance only – the bhavas of jiva are that of jiva and that of pudgala are bhavas of pudgala – imparts such knowledge  (2) along with example (3) with reason (4) with result. These naya are called naya and devoid of above are called Nayabhas.

562. Shloka- Just as Praman is accompanied with fruition, in the same way the nayas also should be accompanied with fruition since the owner of segments is Praman and the segments only are called naya. Naya are segments of Praman only.

Bhavartha- In the generation of Naya, the root cause is Praman. The substance is described with Praman and its segments which describe the substance are called naya. The subject of Praman is entire substance and naya deals with part of the same. Hence being segment the naya like praman is also having result.

563. Shloka- Hence when a substance does not have specific guna(bhava) then Vyavahara of imposing those gunas upon that substance is not venerable since with such Vyavahara the desired result of Samyak Gyan is not attained. Hence calling jiva as having colour is not naya but nayabhas. Since it establishes the Mithyatva only.

Bhavartha- The questioner had asked that calling jiva as having colour should be Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya. But author says that it is Nayabhas since jiva does not have colour etc. qualities. This results in loss of desired result.

Doubt

564. Shloka- If it is so then the Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya described in 529 also should not be called naya but should be called nayabhas. Since anger etc. are not qualities of jiva even so they are called as that of jiva. This too is imposition of Tat-Guna . Hence the Asadbhoot Vyavahara naya is also Nayabhas ?

Bhavartha- Just as you call anger etc. to belong to jiba , in the same way I call colour etc. as belonging to jiva. If your is Samyak naya then so should be mine?

Answer

565. Shloka- This assertion of questioner is not right since the way the anger etc. form bhavas are generated in jiva, the pudgala form colour etc. are not bhavas of jiva.

Bhavartha- The corruption of charitra guna of soul due to nimitta of pudgala is called as anger, pride, deceit, greed etc. Hence anger etc. are Vaibhavik bhavas of soul. Hence Imposing them upon jiva is not Atat-Guna imposition  but Tat-Guna imposition. These bhavas do not belong to Shuddha atma but they occur with the nimitta of others hence they are called as subject of Asadbhoot Naya.  Whether sadbhoot or Asadbhoot , the Tat-Guna imposition only is naya otherwise it is nayabhas. Colour, smell taste etc. are qualities of pudgala and no way they belong to jiva. Calling them to be jiva’s is Atat-guna imposition hence Nayabhas.

Fourth Intermediate Chapter

Description of nayabhas (566-587)

Resolution

566. Shloka- Those nayas where the real characteristics is not applicable but they appear like naya by name and example and are traditionally used in Agam and Lok , some such Nayabhas are described here. They should be realised to be nayabhas and discarded and with their knowledge the knowledge of Shuddha naya be attained.

First NayaBhas (567-571)

567. Shloka- Without differentiating knowledge the Vyavahara in the Loks is that the body of manushya etc. belong to jiva since it is indifferent from jiva.

568. Shloka- The Vyavahara of body being jiva in Lok and Agam is unsuitable Vyavahara since it is against the Siddhant. The body and jiva are famous different dharmis hence it is well established to be against Siddhant.

Bhavartha- Body pudhala dravya is different and Jiva conscious dravya is different. Even so those who engage in vyayahara of body being jiva is surely against Siddhant.

569. Shloka- Body and Jiva have the same Kshetra in Avagahan (occupation) hence by occupying the same kshetra the Manushya etc. body can be called as jiva in Vyavahara – such doubt should not be raised since the same kshetra occupation is happening for all dravyas. If same kshetra occupation is the cause for unity then all substances would have AtiVyapti defect. (characteristics which are present beyond the target)

570. Shloka- Possibly the manushya body etc. may be called as Jiva since jiva and body have bonded and bonder bhava form vyavahara. Such doubt should not be raised since as a rule body and soul are different dharmis , their bondage is itself unestablished i.e. there is no bondage between the two.

571. Shloka- Possibly the cause for manushya etc. body being treated as Jiva could be nimitta naimittik relation between body and jiva- this too cannot be stated since the one which manifests by itself, what would  the nimitta cause do in it?

Bhavartha- The nimitta naimittik relation between jiva and body informs only of the nimitta-ness of body and naimittik-ness of the jiva. That relation cannot generate the oneness buddhi between the two. Since jiva manifests in his own form and nimitta cause does not make it become other form. Hence Vyavahara of jiva in body is nayabhas.

Second Nayabhas (572-579)

572. Shloka- Four varganas ( Ahar vargana, Bhasha vargana, Taijas Vargana, Mano Vargana) when related with soul are called as Nokarma. Karmana Varganas when in relation with soul manifest in gyanavarana etc. karma form then they are called as Karma name. These karma and Nokarma are paryayas of pudgala ( hence they are corporeal) Calling jiva as karta bhokta of corporeal karma nokarma is second Nayabhas.

Bhavartha- Jiva is non corporeal natured. He is karta of raga etc, form bhavas and bhokta of sensual sukh-dukh from aspect of Vyavahara. But calling him karta-bhokta of corporeal karma-nokarma is not naya but nayabhas. In Drvaya Sangrah jiva is called karta in Vyavahara sense but it is done for telling the nimitta-naimittik relationship . It does not mean at all that jiva is karta of karma-nokarma. Such interpretation is our own fault.

573-574. Shloka- Vyavahara naya calling Jiva as karta-bhokta of corporeal karmas is Nayabhas- this is not unestablished since such Vyavahara naya is opposite to Siddhant. The reason for being against Siddhant is that karma and jiva both are different substances then how can they have Guna Sankraman ( exchange) ? It cannot be.

Without changes in guna the jiva cannot be karta-bhokta of karmas. If without sankraman (exchange) of gunas the jiva becomes karta-bhokta of karma then it would result in sankar (mixing) fault in all substances .

Bhavartha- If the qualities of jiva are given to pudgala then only jiva can be karta-bhokta of pudgala. If the qualities of weaver are imparted to cloth then weaver can be called as karta of cloth. Otherwise what karta-ness of jiva was imparted to cloth? If without sankraman(exchange)  of qualities Jiva is accepted to be karta of pudgala then all can be karta of each other. In such a case the dharma etc. dravya also would be karta of jiva.

Cause for delusion

575. Shloka- Jiva is karta of karmas, the cause for this delusion is that with nimitta  of impure manifestation in jiva the pudgala dravya karmana vargana themselves (Upadan) manifest in karma form.

Bhavartha- With the nimitta of raga-dwesha-moha bhavas of jiva the karmana vargana themselves adopt karma paryaya form hence the delusion of jiva being karta is created. In reality the karma form manifestation of karmana varganas occur due to their own manifestation capability with eligibility of swa-kaal. Hence jiva is not karta of them even in an iota form but since the raga of jiva is present in nimitta form, the ignorant jivas get deluded that it was created by jiva himself or his raga.

Solution

576. Shloka- The solution to delusion is that whoever be the karta, he would be karta of own bhava. In spite of being nimitta for other’s bhava, no one can be karta or bhokta for other’s bhava.

Bhavartha- Jiva can be called karta of own raga bhava but cannot be called as karta of karmas. He can be called as bhokta of sukh - dukh bhavas but he cannot be bhokta of other karma or other substance.

Example

577. Shloka- Potter is always karta-bhokta of own bhavas only . He cannot be karta-bhokta of other bhava form pot.

578. Shloka- Why potter is not karta of pot, in this context the example is clear that pot is of the nature of mud or it is mud form only, but pot is never of the nature of potter or potter form.

Bhavartha- When a single quality of potter is not found in pot then what did potter do in the pot? Nothing.

579. Shloka- If it is said that in Lok this Vyavahara is practiced that potter makes the pot; then why? The author says let that Vyavahara be there , it does not harm us but know it to be nayabhas.

Third Nayabhas (580-584)

580. Shloka- Dim witted Mithya Drishti people talk Mithya tales e.g. the other substance which is quite far from jiva and not bonded to him, even then jiva is karta-bhokta of them.

581. Shloka- for example with fruition of Satavedaniya karma the house, wealth, wife, son etc. living-non living substances – for them jiva is himself karta and their bhokta.

Doubt

582. Shloka- It is directly seen that with house, wife etc. jiva attains happiness and in their absence he is unhappy also. Hence jiva only is their karta and their bhokta?

Bhavartha- The jiva himself acquires the material for pleasure and himself enjoys them . This is the question.

583.  Shloka- In this world the worldly pleasures are only sensual i.e. the imagination of pleasures in the sensual subjects is carried out by ignorant, even then that imaginary pleasure does not get generated by means of sensual subjects. The reason is that in spite of external objects being present, for someone the cause for unhappiness due to house, wife etc. get produced hence there is anomaly of adultery.

Bhavartha- In spite of having house , wealth, wife etc. they are cause for misery for some. Hence its result in flaw of adultery.

584. Shloka- Whether Jiva is karta or Bhokta of self or others or not in some respect , the essence is that he is consciousness form. Other than gyan he has no other activity.

Bhavartha- The summary is that in that Vyavahara of ignorant people whether jiva is called as karta-bhokta of other substances or not, we do not have any purpose with it. With the objective of differentiating knowledge , only this has to be told that jiva in every way is gyan form only. All the paryayas of jiva do not relinquish their consciousness. Hence in reality the soul only is the karta of own bhavas of soul and he alone is enjoyer of them. He is neither karta or bhokta of other’s bhavas. Here by informing jiva to be gyan form even the vikalpa of karta-bhokta of self and other’s has been renounced.

Fourth NayaBhas (585-586)

585. Shloka- This too is nayabhas that gyan and gyeya have mutual knower-known relationship. In other words the Gyan is in gyeya and gyeya comes in gyan- such belief is naya bhas.

Bhavartha- The nature of gyan is to know every substance but in spite of knowing the substance it always remains within own nature. It does not migrate into the substances nor does it become its dharma. Nor do some segment of substance comes into gyan. Those who believe opposite, they are diseased with Nayabhas or Mithya Gyan.

586. Shloka- Just as eyes see the scene but they do not migrate into the scene or  they do not become dharma of scene. The eyes remain eyes only. In the same way the Gyeya substance is known by gyan but gyan doe not migrate into gyeya or it does not become dharma of gyeya, but gyan remains gyan only. In the same way the gyeya also does not enter into eyes or does not become dharma of eyes. He knows with his own capability of swa-kaal.

587. Shloka- In this four nayabhas are described. Besides these there are several nayabhas which have similar characteristics. The objective of all these nayabhas is contrary to the naya hence they are called nayabhas. All statements describing the relation of jiva with other dravyas of common nature is nayabhas.

The description of Nayabhas is concluded.

Continued…..