Fourth Intermediate chapter
(1) Bondedness (2) Impurity (3)
Difference of the two 839-900
Declaration
839. Shloka- What is bondedness and impurity in substances- such question
is raised by some one who wishes to understand it minutely. This is explained
sequentially.
Description of bondedness
840-879
Characteristics of bandh
840. Shloka- The substance has a Vaibhaviki shakti. Under influence of
this shakti, it results in the transition (corruption) of qualities
of soul. The corruption of qualities from their nature only is called
bandh. This bandh is on account of others.
Bhavartha- Out of six dravyas the jiva and pudgala have vaibhaviki shakti which is self established quality. This is
not cause for bondage since it is there in Siddhas also. Which ever shakti is
present , it manifests in natural form also. Hence this shakti has Shuddha
natural manifestation in Siddhas and Paramanus. That manifestation is not cause
for bandh. However under presence of nimitta, when this shakti manifests in
vibhava form in conjunction with nimitta, then that manifestation in vibhava
form only is bandh. This is present in jiva and pudgala only. The manifestation
of gyan in raga form only is bandh. The manifestation of pudgala in karma form
is also bandh. The same is clarified further-
841. Shloka- In that bandh i.e. vibhava, the cause is not just vaibhaviki
shakti nor is swabhava paryaya. But the cause is dependence i.e. manifestation
under influence of nimitta.
Bhavartha- If cause for bandh be just vaibhaviki shakti then this shakti being nitya
which remains in soul forever would result in bandh in soul forever. The soul
would never be liberated or the liberated soul would also engage in bandh.
Hence only this shakti is not cause for bandh. Upayoga is also not cause.
Upayoga implies manifestation of shakti. That Upayoga occurs in swabhava state
as well as vibhava state. If the Shuddha upayoga of shakti be cause for bandh
then the same flaw accrues as above. Hence with the nimitta of pudgala the
vibhava form upayoga of vaibhaviki shakti is the cause for bandh.
Next Introduction- The vaibhaviki shakti i.e. quality is
not cause for bandh since quality is eternal. It is told in 842 later. The
swabhava manifestation of shakti is also not cause since swabhava manifestation
occurs in Siddhas and Shuddha pudgala paramanus. This is told in 843. But this
shakti in conjunction with suitable nimitta generates vibhava within self. That results in bandh of
substance due to vibhava dependence. This is told in 844. The dependence in
vibhava form is cause for bandh.
842. Shloka- Vaibhaviki shakti is Anujivi guna of jiva and Pudgala dravya.
If the shakti itself be cause for bandh then jiva would never attain salvation
since the guna is eternal.
Bhavartha- In the jiva, gyan, darshan, sukh, charitra etc. infinite gunas are there
which manifest in bhava form and hence called Anujivi gunas. In the same way
the vaibhavik shakti is also a Shuddha guna . Just as pudgala has touch, taste,
smell, colour etc. gunas, in the same way the vaibhavik shakti is also guna.
Since the gunas are eternal hence if gunas are cause for bandh then jiva would
never have chance for salvation. Hence accepting shakti as cause for bandh is not
right. Shakti is not cause for bandh.
Upayoga is also not cause
for bandh
843. Shloka- Upayoga is the expression of the shakti in complete
revelation form of own nature due to self established swabhava. If this
expression be cause for bandh then all substances would be bonded ( since the
swabhava of revelation of paryaya is existent in all dravyas by own
nature).Hence the swabhava manifestation of vaibhaviki shakti cannot be cause
for bandh.
Bhavartha- The revelation of vaibhaviki shakti occurs in pure state from its nature.
This is called swabhava manifestation of
the shakti. That swabhava manifestation is not cause for bandh. If that be
cause for bandh then siddhas shall also accrue bandh forever. This flaw becomes
applicable. Hence the guna is not cause. When swabhava paryaya is not cause
then what is the cause is told next-
Clarification of bandh
844. Shloka- In the presence of suitable reasons for bandh the faulty soul
himself being dependent gets bonded. At that time the soul renouncing its own
guna nature manifests in vibhava (corrupted) state.
Bhavartha- For vibhava to occur the presence of suitable nimitta is required. Just
as for anger bhava the nimitta of fruition of dravya anger is required. In its
presence the original guna of the
original dravya e.g. the gyan guna of soul – that guna manifests in the form of
guna of nimitta. The gyan guna adopts the shape of the guna of dravya anger
i.e. becomes bhava anger form . With that bhava anger the gyan guna by his own
fault i.e. by vibhava manifestation in conjunction with nimitta gets bonded
with vibhava. This is called bandh. In the same way the karmana varganas form
pudgala in the presence of raga of jiva deviate from original nature and
manifest in gyanavarana etc. karma form. The manifestation of pudgala in karma
form is their bandh state. Same is further clarified-
845. Shloka- That dependence is not unestablished
but is established with famous example. Just as the agyani soul with the
nimitta of hot or cold substances believes self to be hot or cold. In the same
way all the jivas with the nimitta of dravya karma of raga-dwesha-moha form
believe themselves to be ragi-dweshi-mohi.
846.
Shloka- That
is as follows- The hot and cold are completely qualities of pudgala dravya.
Even then the non corporeal soul experiences hot and cold in bonded state, this
is directly observed. The bonded state is agyan state. In Adhyatma the agyani
is described as bonded and ashuddha .
Doubt
847. Shloka- It is alright that the vaibhaviki shakti in the presence of
nimitta cause, manifests in this way i.e. gets bonded and manifests in vibhava
form but (1) can it not exist without other’s influence i.e. with absence of
nimitta does this existence of this shakti itself becomes absent or (2) Does it
remain Shuddha in paryaya or does it remain ashuddha in paryaya?
Bhavartha- The disciple has understood that
Vaibhaviki shakti manifests in vibhava form in conjunction with nimitta. Now he
enquires that with removal of nimitta does this shakti get destroyed along with
nimitta? If it gets destroyed then its alright. If not destroyed then this
shakti manifests in Shuddha form or ashuddha form?
Answer 848-850
848. Shloka- The answer to first question is that Vaibhaviki shakti is
Nitya since it is shakti (guna) like other Shuddha shaktis. Otherwise with
sequential loss of shaktis the entity itself would get destroyed. Therefore
like other shaktis the vaibhaviki shakti is also trikaal shakti. With removal
of nimitta it does not get destroyed since guna can never be destroyed. If
gunas get destroyed then dravya also would be destroyed since collection of
gunas only is dravya.
Bhavartha- Acharya says that vaibhavik shakti is real and it is Nitya since all
shaktis are always Nitya. Just as soul has Shuddha shaktis of gyan, darshan
etc. which are Nitya. In the same way this is also Nitya. Now if this Vaibhavik
shakti is not accepted to be Nitya then existent thing would itself get
destroyed. Hence vaibhaviki shakti is nitya guna of soul.
849. Shloka- The answer to second question is that it manifests in vibhava
bhava form in the presence of nimitta, from Shuddha state. Without the nimitta
it remains only Shuddha bhava form.
Bhavartha- The shakti is nitya and it would always have manifestation . In the
presence of nimitta the vibhava manifestation is there and then swabhava
manifestation occurs.
850. Shloka- In the presence of nimitta the
vaibhaviki shakti manifests in vibhava form and in its absence it manifests in
swabhava form- this Siddhant is not invalid. It is well proven with famous
example that just as water is hot with nimitta of fire , the same water becomes
cold without nimitta of fire.
Bhavartha- The water form dravya or guna is nitya. In the presence of fire as
nimitta it manifests in hot vibhava form and in absence it manifests in cold
swabhava form. With removal of nimitta of fire the water does not get destroyed
nor can be manifestation be absent. In the same way the vaibhaviki shakti form
guna is nitya. With fruition of dravya karma form nimitta it manifests in
vibhava form and in absence it manifests in swabhava form.
Doubt 851-855
851-852. Shloka- As per your statement, there is one shakti which manifests in
two ways- one is swabhavik bhava and other is Vaibhavik bhava.
If it is so then the substance has swabhava and vibhava two
types of manifestations. Then why not accept two different shaktis in the
substance rather than two manifestations of one shakti- what is the harm there?
Swabhaviki would manifest in swabhava bhava and Vaibhaviki in vibhava bhava
form.
Bhavartha- Why not accept two independent shaktis with independent manifestations ?
853. Shloka- In the presence or absence of fruition of pudgala karmas,
let the swabhaviki shakti manifest in
Shuddha bhava form since it is independent of nimitta.
854. Shloka- And let the Vaibhaviki shakti manifest in conjunction with
karmas, remaining non manifesting in absence of fruition of karmas (remaining
dormant in dravya). Therefore so long as soul has relationship with karmas ,
till then the vaibhaviki shakti shall manifest. When karmas do not fructify
then the manifestation of vaibhaviki shakti shall also not be there.
855. Shloka- The questioner strengthens his view with an example. Just as
wheel rotates with the assistance of stick and without assistance of stick it
becomes stationary. In the same way so long as the nimitta is present , let the
vaibhaviki shakti manifest within self and with absence of nimitta, like stick
it becomes dormant and remain within the dravya. You have already told that
with absence of nimitta the shakti does not get destroyed. Then becoming
dormant is alright since then it does not need to manifest.
Answer 856-861
856. Shloka- It is not so i.e. with absence of nimitta the vaibhaviki
shakti cannot become dormant since all the agglomeration of shaktis of entity
is manifesting by nature. Then why vaibhaviki shakti would not remain
manifesting? It is not so that some shakti is manifesting and some are not . All have nature of manifestation.
857. Shloka- There is no Praman which establishes that some shakti has
manifesting nature and some shakti does not have. There is absence of example
also. Therefore all shaktis by self established nature have manifestation.
Bhavartha- All the shaktis of dravya manifest at every moment. There is no Praman
nor example which tell that some shakti be considered manifesting for some
time.
858. Shloka- Hence with absence of all karmas the manifesting vaibhaviki
shakti, by own nature starts manifesting in swabhaviki form.
Bhavartha- All shaktis have manifestation and vaibhaviki shakti also manifests at
every moment. The result is that the vaibhavik shakti only changes the state
from swabhava to vibhava. So long as there is conjunction with karmas, till
then the vaibhaviki shakti manifests in vibhava form and when all karmas are
absent then the vaibhaviki shakti manifests in swabhava form. In this way the
same vaibhaviki shakti has two different states of swabhaviki and vaibhavik.
859. Shloka- With the above logic it establishes that entity has two
shaktis of swabhaviki and vaibhaviki from aspect of different states ( from
aspect of manifestation- paryaya Drishti). But it is not so that basically
there are two different shaktis which manifests in swabhava and vibhava forms
together.
Bhavartha- The substance has one paryaya at one samaya. With this rule the
vaibhaviki shakti manifests in two states sequentially. But if someone says
that both swabhaviki and vaibhavik be together then it can never happen. Since
if both are together at same time then they would be two qualities and not two
paryayas. Paryaya is one only at one samaya. Hence Vaibhaviki and swabhavik
both states can be there sequentially but not at the same time.
860. Shloka- With coexistence of swabhaviki and vaibhaviki shakti there is
great flaw of legality also since the cause-effect gets destroyed and
bandh-moksha gets destroyed.
Bhavartha- Although vaibhaviki shakti is one only and it has two states sequentially
– this is the Siddhant, even so there is duality due to different states i.e.
from aspect of paryaya swabhaviki and vaibhavik two types are there. If both
are accepted together then it is not right. This results in several flaws. One
is that cause-effect bhava would not remain since after vaibhavik state only
swabhavik state is generated. Just as after world only Moksha is attained hence
world is the cause for Moksha attainment. In the same way without the
vaibhaviki state, the swabhaviki state also cannot be there. By accepting them
together this cause-effect bhava would not be there. Secondly bandh and moksha
arrangement also would not be there. Since by accepting vaibhavik state first
the moksha after bandh gets established. But with both being together the bandh
and moksha shall also be together or due to permanent presence of bandh there would never be
Moksha.
861. Shloka- One shakti cannot have two types of manifestation together
since with such presumption the vibhava manifestation also becomes permanent
without hindrance ( which is directly hindered since there would not be
arrangement of bandh moksha).
Bhavartha- Although one shakti (vaibhaviki) has two states i.e. one shakti assumes
two forms but the shakti cannot have two divisions together. If both divisions
are together then vaibhavik state would be permanent and with its permanence
the effort of soul to attain Moksha would be futile. Hence one guna only has
swabhaviki and vaibhavik states sequentially and not together at same time.
Upon this the question is raised that when two dravyas have
absolutely absence with respect to each other and jiva pudgala do not have
karta-karma relationship either, then how can totally different pudgala matter
be cause for vibhava of jiva and why that alone and none else?
Doubt 862-867
862. Shloka- The gathering of six dravyas is eternally established without
any reason and its manifestation is also self established without any reason.
In other words just as dravya is self established with beginningless endless
nature, in the same way it has manifesting nature by itself eternally.
863. Shloka- Self established substance and its self established
manifestation is surely there, otherwise all mixed and all zero etc. form flaws
arise which are cause for destruction of substances. In other words the dravyas
would not have independent existence itself.
864. Shloka- With this it establishes that whichever conscious or
insentient form substance is there, they
are one with their nature and the nature cannot be changed by anyone. In other
words every substance functions within own Pradesh at all times and does not
interfere with another dravya.
865. Shloka- The essence is that any substance does not have any relation
with another substance since from aspects of dravya, kshetra, kaal, bhava the
substance does not transgress its limits. In other words the substance remains
within own foursome and does not even touch the foursome of other substance.
866. Shloka- When the nature of substance is as described above and jiva
and pudgala do not have karta-karma bhava relations also, then how can
corporeal dravya be cause for vibhava of jiva ? In that vibhava also why that
karma only is the cause and not dharma etc. other dravyas occupying the same
location?
Bhavartha- The disciple enquires that when two dravyas have absolute separateness
with each other and they all function within their own foursome, they do not
even touch others, then why one dravya could be cause for another dravya? You
call pudgala as the cause for vibhava manifestation but jiva and pudgala do not
even have karta-karma relationship, they are not karta of each other’s bhava.
Jiva is conscious and pudgala is corporeal. How can corporeal generate bhava of
consciousness? Hence how does the fruition of karmas generate bhava of jiva? If
it is a cause then why the fruition of karma only is the cause? If you say that
soul and karma reside in same area and this is the reason then all six dravyas
reside in same area and Dharma etc. anyone can be cause. If you say that jiva
and pudgala have special close relationship hence pudgala only can be the cause
and dharma etc. then Maharaj, the close relationship also exists with the
Visrasopachaya karma vargana existent in the same place with jiva , even they should
be cause, but you do not accept them as cause as follows-
867. Shloka- If you say that the corporeal
karma only is the cause for vaibhavik bhava due to special close relationship
and not dharma etc. other dravyas then tell us why the other corporeal dravya (
visrasopachaya karma vargana) residing in same place can not be the cause since
they too reside in same place with special close relationship. Hence Maharaj,
why fruition of absolutely separate pudgala karma can be cause for vibhava
manifestation of vaibhaviki shakti is not clear to me. Kindly explain.
Bhavartha 862-867- The disciple enquires that you have
told us that just as substance is self established, it is also self manifesting
by nature and manifests in swabhava or vibhava form due to own capability. The
foursome of one dravya does not have any relation with the foursome of other
dravya. Now you say that when soul manifests in vibhava form , at that time the
fruition of dravya karma is nimitta for the same . I ask you, how can that be
nimitta and if nimitta does exist then any one of the six dravyas could be nimitta.
Why dravya karma only? If you say that other dravyas are not nimitta and only
pudgala karma is nimitta since they are close to soul and in contact with him ,
then I say that close contact exists with visrasopachaya karma vargana also,
why they are not cause ? In the reply it would be explained that those karmas
which were bonded by soul due to raga, they only would be nimitta since the
bonded name applies to them only and
nimitta-naimittik relationship also exists with them only. The other dravyas of
the world and visrasopachaya are neither bandh form nor they have
nimitta-naimittik relationship. For explaining the nimitta-naimittik
relationship only this doubt has been raised by author.
Answer 868-879
868. Shloka- Your doubt is valid. The conscious dravya and corporeal
dravya are bonded as well as not bonded. They are bonded with their relations
and not bonded with non-relations. ( with whom they have nimitta-naimittik
relationship , they only are their relations, and they are bonded with them
only. With other they are unbonded.)
Bhavartha- It is true that every dravya is independent and their manifestation is
also independent. They function within their own foursome and do not touch the
areas of others al all. In spite of this there is a speciality due to which the
fruition of karmas become nimitta for the corruption of jiva. It is this that
the worldly jiva since eternal times is bonded with gyanavarana etc. karma
paramanus. The jiva who is bonded with karmas, they are termed as mutually
bonded and remaining dravyas and visrasopachaya are called as unbonded. With
whom it is bonded, with them they have cause-effect relationship and not with others. The cause effect means
nimitta-naimittik only and nothing else. And-
869. Shloka- In the bonded and unbonded there is
real difference. Out of the two the bonded in spite of having different types, have difference due to
cause-effect relationship
Bhavartha- Jiva and the gyanavarana etc. dravya karma bonded with him are both
mutually bonded. For them all other substances are unbonded. Although jiva is
conscious and karma are corporeal, even then in that jiva and in those karmas
there is mutual cause-effect capability. The meaning of cause-effect capability
is that the fruition of karma is nimitta cause and bhava of jiva is effect.
This cause effect bhava exists within mutually bonded only and not in unbonded.
870. Shloka- The bonded have bhava of bondage and unbonded have bhava of
non-bondage. In contemporaries there is bondage and in the opponents there is
no bondage.
Bhavartha- The bhava of bondage exists in bonded. It means that the jiva and karma
who are mutually bonded, in them only the above described cause-effect bhava is
applicable mutually. In unbonded there is bhava of non bondage which means that
the unbonded do not have mutual cause effect relationship. The contemporaries
are bonded which means that those having cause-effect relationship only get
bonded. In opponents there is no bondage which means that those not having
cause-effect relationship do not get bonded.
871. Shloka- In reality bandh is of three types and their characteristics
are also different. Out of the three two are independent by nature, described
earlier and third (Ubhaya bandh) is combination of the two which is described
now-
Bhavartha- Bandh have three types, dravya bandh, bhava bandh and Ubhaya bandh. Raga
dwesha bhava only are called bhava bandh wherein soul alone is the actor. The
corruption of charitra quality of soul with the nimitta of karmas is called
raga-dwesha. In dravya bandh only pudgala is involved. Hence both bandhs are
independent. But the third Ubhaya bandh occurs due to relationship between soul
and pudgala hence that is described now-
872. Shloka- The bandh between jiva and karmas is mutually dependent upon
each other . Jiva is bonded with karmas and karma are bonded with jiva .
Bhavartha- Saying that jiva is bonded with karmas is not enough. It is also not
right to say that karma are bonded with jiva. Then what is right? Jiva is
bonded with karma and karma are bonded with jiva is right since cause effect is
not of one only but between two mutually.
873. Shloka- The change of qualities of jiva into another form is called
as vaibhavik bhava. This bhava of jiva is the cause for bondage of karma. With
the karma generated with the nimitta of vaibhavik bhava only is the cause for
capability of generation of same vaibhavik bhava.
Bhavartha- Soul indulges in independent vibhava bhava. What is that vibhava bhava?
Soul manifests in two ways. One is in accordance with its form of quality is
swabhavik bhava which is not cause for bandh. Another manifestation is in
accordance with the shape of the nimitta which is called vaibhavik bhava. For
example samyaktva is quality of soul and manifestation in Samyak darshan form
is natural manifestation. With the fruition of darshan moha manifesting in
Mithyatva form is vaibhavik bhava of soul. Swabhavik bhava is not nimitta for
bandh but vaibhavik bhava is nimitta for bandh. This is the meaning of first
half above. Now the second half means that with the nimitta of vaibhavik bhava
the karmana varganas manifest into karma form. Under fructification of those
karmas it becomes nimitta cause for the generation of same vaibhavik bhava. For
example with Mithyatva form vaibhavik bhava of soul the Mithtava karma was
bonded and then same Mithyatva karma becomes nimitta cause for future Mithyatva
bhava of soul. Remember the question of disciple was there that how fruition of dravya karma
becomes cause for vibhava manifestation of soul. So in reply it is being told
that soul manifests in vibhava bhava. It results in bandh of same family and
when that karma generates same bhava in future then it becomes nimitta cause.
In this way totally different karma also is cause and that only is cause and not any other
dravya since soul is bonded with the same only. The same is called Ubhaya bandh
and not others.
Continued….
No comments:
Post a Comment