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….
No comments:
Post a Comment