MokshaMargPrakashak …28

 

Samyaktva-Sanmukh MithyaDrishti

( Mithya Drishti on the verge of attaining Samyaktva)

Now those Mithya drishti who are on the verge of attaining Samyaktva, are described-

Someone attained Kshayopasham of Gyanavarana etc. karmas on account of weakness of Kashaya etc., due to which the capability of contemplating of Tattvas was attained and Moha was weakened. Thereafter,  he engaged in contemplation of Tattva and with the external nimitta of Deva-Guru-Shastra etc. he was benefited with true preachment.

There being attentive with the preachments of Moksha Marg, Deva-Guru-Dharma etc., Jiva etc. tattvas, beneficial -non beneficial bhavas of self and others etc. , he carefully considered as follows-

-          ‘Oh!  I did not have knowledge of these things; out of delusion I was engaged in the paryaya attained only, but this paryaya has duration of a short while and here I have been benefited with all nimittas; hence I should understand these things properly, since in them my own objective is apparent.’ With such thoughts , he makes efforts for enacting upon the preachments heard.

There the decision is based upon the objective, characteristics- direction and examination ; hence first he learnt their names , which was Objective; then he learnt their characteristics ; subsequently whether it is possible of not – with such thoughts he examined it.

There learning the names and knowing characteristics – these are in accordance with the preachment; the way it has been preached, accordingly it is remembered, but in examination own intellect is required, hence with rationality in isolation he considers in own Upayoga- is it as per the preachment or is it different? With inference etc. form Praman he should decide correctly.

Or, the preachment is thus and if it is not believed then it would be so ; hence which is more stronger argument and which is the weaker argument? – The one which appears strong,  that should be known as true and if in the preachment the truth appears to be other way or if some doubt is there  and decision could not be taken  then he should ask the experts and consider their reply- in this way till the decision is not taken, till then he should engage in question-answer. Or if people with similar intelligence are there, then he should put up his own thoughts and with mutual discussion or question answers contemplate of the subject in solitude.

In this way within his own self, till the decision is taken in accordance with the preachment, he should make efforts  for the realisation of the bhava.

And the other faith people have given preachment of imaginary Tattvas, with respect to them if the Jain preachment appears to be different or if doubt is there, then also he should make efforts as described above.

-          With such efforts , the way JinaDeva has preached, that only is true; it appears like that  to me also – such decision is arrived since Jina deva does not tell falsely.

Here someone says- If JinaDeva does not tell wrongly then there is no need to examine; believe it as he has preached?

Its Answer- Without examination, it can be believed that what Jinadeva has told is true, but its bhava cannot be realised by self and without bhava being realised the shraddhan is not pure. Since the thing which is realised based upon someone’s words, the same could be realised other way also with some other person’s words; hence from aspect of capability, the realisation based upon  words is similar to non-realisation. And where bhava has been realised , that he cannot accept any other way in spite of different arguments. Hence with realisation of bhava the belief is the true belief.

If you say- With the Pramanata ( truth fullness) of person the words are believed.

Then it is told- The Pramanata of the person also does not happen automatically, his several statements are examined first, then the person is validated.

Here question- The preachment is of several types, what all can be examined?

Its answer- In the preachment several venerable and several despicable and several Gyeya ( subjects of knowledge) Tattvas are described. There the venerable and despicable Tattvas should be examined since with their being  wrong, we are harmed. If venerable is believed as despicable then it harms, if despicable is believed as venerable then also it harms.

If he says- Self did not examine and from Jina words only the venerable are treated as venerable and despicable as despicable then how can it harm ?

Its reply- Without realisation of Bhava, by not recognising the intent of the words, he believes that ‘ I accept in accordance with Jina words’ but without realisation of bhava he can make mistake. In the Lok also, if some servant is sent for some work, if he knows the bhava of the work then he gets it done properly and if bhava is not known then he can make mistake; therefore for realisation of bhava , the venerable and despicable tattvas should be examined definitely.

Then he says- If the examination results in mistake then what to do ?

Its answer- If Jina words and own examination, they are similar , then he should know that the examination is right. So long as that does not happen then- Just as someone checks accounts  and keeps tallying till mistake is found; in the same way he also engages in own examination.

There he should examine the Gyeya Tattvas which can be examined ; otherwise he should infer that since those who  have not told the venerable-despicable tattvas wrongly , why would they tell Gyeya Tattvas wrongly? Just as some one does not tell a lie in the activities of importance, why would he lie in non-important activities? Hence the form of Gyeya Tattvas , with examination or by order he accepts , even then if their true bhava is not realised, then also there is no harm.

For the same reason in Jain Shastras, where Tattvas have been described, there by means of arguments etc. , the way it can be realised  with inference etc. , it is stated that way whereas the Trilok, GunaSthana, Margana , description of Purana etc. are as per the Jina order.

In this way the examination of venerable-despicable Tattvas is worthwhile.

There identify the Jivas etc. Dravya and Tattvas, recognise self-others and form of Samyak Darshan etc. which is acceptable and form of Mithyatva-Ragas etc. which are discardable. In the same way recognise the nimitta-naimittik etc. the way they are, by knowing whom the progress in Moksha Marg is attained, know them surely ; in this way they should be examined.

In Samanya form they should be known by means of some reason-arguments  or with Praman-Naya or with direction-ownership etc. or with sovereignty-numbers etc. know their specifics. In accordance with the Buddhi and depending upon nimitta , in that way they should be identified in Samanya-Vishesh form. And in this knowledge, the Gunasthana-Margana etc. and Purana etc. and Vrita etc. activities are worth knowing . Here those which can be examined, they should be examined; and if not possible, then know them in accordance with the order.

-          In this objective of knowing, sometimes he contemplates himself, sometimes he reads shastra, sometimes listens, sometimes practices, sometimes engages in question-answers, thus he   engages in different ways. He has lot of happiness in doing his work ; hence with internal affection he arranges the means . By such efforts till (1) true Tattva shraddhan is not attained ; (2) ‘this is so only’ – with such realisation the form of Jiva etc. tattvas is not attained ; (3) just as mine-ness is there in paryaya, the same mine-ness is not  attained in soul ; (4) does not recognise the beneficial-non beneficial own bhavas; till then he is Mithya Drishti on the verge of attaining Samyaktva. The same jiva would attain Samyaktva in a short while- in the same birth or another paryaya he would attain Samyaktva.

By practicing in this birth, even if he gets Triyanch etc. gati in ParLok, even then with the power of Sanskar, without the nimitta of Deva-Guru-Shastra , he attains Samyaktva since with the power of such  exercise the intensity of Mithyatva karma reduces – where it is not under fruition, there Samyaktva is attained; since prime reason is this only, Devas etc. are  external nimitta only.

In this way primarily due to their nimitta only Samyaktva is attained but in hierarchy due to Sanskar of previous practice , even if these nimitta are not there in present, even then samyaktva can be attained.  

In Siddhant there is sutra which says “ that samyak darshan is attained either by Nisarga or  with Adhigam  “ . The attainment of Samyaktva without external nimitta of Deva etc. is called Nisarga while with nimitta of Deva etc. is called Adhigam.

Look at the glory of Tattva contemplation ! Without contemplation of Tattvas- even if he worships Deva etc., practices lots of of shastras, keeps Vritas, engages in Tapa; even then he does not have right for attainment of Samyaktva and with contemplation of Tattvas- without these also he has a right to attain Samyaktva.

There, (1) some jiva before engaging in Tattva contemplation, due to some reason worships Deva etc. or adopts Vrita-Tapa  and later engages in Tattva Contemplation, but the right for Samyaktva is earned after Tattva contemplation only.

(2) Someone  after engaging in Tattva Contemplation, due to lack of interest in Tattva did not attain Samyaktva but developed interest in Vyavahara Dharma ; hence he worships Deva etc. and practices Vrita-Tapa.

(3) Someone develops interest in Devas etc. and attains Samyaktva together and Vrita-Tapa occur along with Samyaktva or before /later also . The interest towards deva etc. is a rule without which Samyaktva is not attained, but there is no rule pertaining to Vrita etc.

(4) Most of the Jivas attain Samyaktva first, later only they adopt Vrita etc. but some can have them together also.

In this way this Jiva with Tattva contemplation, has a right for Samyaktva, but there is no rule that he should attain Samyaktva since in Shastra it has been told that  the attainment of five Labdhis is required  prior to Samyaktva.

Form of Five Labdhis

1.      Kshyoapasham 2. Vishuddhi 3. Deshana 4. Prayogya 5. Karan.

Upon attainment of which the Tattva contemplation may be  carried out – such Kshyopasham of Gyanavarana etc. karmas be there i.e. the absence of fruition of Nisheks of SarvaGhatiSpardaks which have reached fruition stage, that is called as Kshaya; remaining  of same spardhaks in sovereignty form which are eligible for fruition in future kaal, that is known as Upasham and the state of fruition of karmas of Desha Ghati Spardhaks is called Kshayoapsham; the attainment of this is Kshayopasham Labdhi.

Where with mild fruition of Moha, such bhavas of weak Kashaya form occur due to which the Tattva contemplation may be carried out; that is known as Vishuddhi Labdhi.

Where Tattvas preached by JinaDeva are  considered and contemplated, that is Deshana Labdhi and in  Narak etc. where the nimitta of preachment is not there, it is attained with earlier Sanskar.

And when the sovereignty of Karmas remain equal to Antah KodaKodi Sagar and the new bondage is numerical fraction of Antah KodaKodi Sagar which too keeps reducing  sequentially and the bondage of several pap prakritis keeps  eliminating sequentially – such state of eligibility is Prayogya Labdhi.

These four Labdhis can be attained by Bhavya as well as Abhavya. After attaining these four Labdhis, Samyaktva may or may not be attained- this is told in Labdhisar.

Hence the one contemplating of Tattvas may not attain Samyaktva as a rule. For example- some disciple was given education for his benefit , knowing that he considers that the education which was given, of what nature it was? Later upon consideration , it is of this nature- in this form the realisation of the education occurs or other consideration occurs or he engages in another thought due to which  the decision of the education is not taken then realisation also does not occur.

In the same way ShriGuru have given preachment of Tattva , knowing that he considers that what form this preachment is ? Later upon consideration, it is of this nature  only- with such realisation or some other consideration occurs or he engages in another thought due to which the decision of the preachment was not taken then the realisation also does not occur; hence prime reason is Mithyatva Karma; if the fruition stops then the realisation could be attained, if not eliminated then it may not happen- such is the rule; his effort is primarily to contemplate of the Tattva only.

Upon fifth Karan Labdhi, Samyaktva is surely attained- such is the rule. Hence if earlier described four Labdhis are attained and later the one who is supposed to attain Samyaktva , he only attains Karan Labdhi within Antar Muhurta. 

The one having Karan Labdhi carries out this intelligent  effort only,  wherein he engages his Upayoga in Tattva consideration in engrossed form ; due to which his manifestations keep becoming purer every samaya.

For example – someone started having considerations due to education  so pure that he would attain realisation  in a short while ; in the same way the consideration of Tattvas preachment is so pure that soon he would attain its shraddhan. The sequence of these manifestations  is described in Karananuyoga as observed by Keval Gyan.

This Karan Labdhi has three divisions – Adhah Karan, Apoorva Karan, Anivratti Karan; their detailed description is in Labdhisar shastra , know it from there. Here it is told in brief-

From aspect of manifestations of all the jivas belonging to all three kaals having Karan Labdhi, these three names are there; where Karan implies manifestations.

Where the manifestations of the previous and later samayas are same, that is Adhah Karan. For example the manifestations of some jiva , in the first samaya of karan were with mild purity, later increased with infinite times purity every samaya; there the manifestations in  second-third etc. samaya may be similar to that of another jiva in his  first samaya itself which may be increasing with infinite times more purity every samaya- thus know the Adhah-Pravatta Karan.
Where the manifestations of the first and previous samaya are not the  same; but Apoorva( non similar) only, that is Apoorva Karan. The manifestations of this Karan, the way they are in first samaya, they are not the same in the second etc. samaya; they are always enhancing in purity. Here like Adhah Karan, those jivas who are in the first samaya of karan, those several jivas have mutually similar manifestations and also with more or less purity but here this is the difference that in this first samaya even with the supremacy of manifestation, the second samaya’s most inferior manifestation is infinitely purer that the first. In this way , those who have completed second samaya etc. after starting the karan, in that the mutual manifestations are similar or dissimilar at the same samaya, but the manifestations of those belonging to higher samaya are never the same ; they are Apoorva only- thus know Apoorva Karan.

And where the manifestations of all the jivas pertaining to same samaya are identical only;  Nivratti i.e. without mutual difference; that is Anivrattikaran. In this Karan the manifestations of all the jivas in the first samaya are identical only; in the same way in second etc. samayas also they are identical only except they are infinite times purer than the first samaya- such is Anivrattikaran.

In this way know these three karan.

There in the first AntarMuhurta kaal duration the Adhah Karan occurs, there four Avashyak (essentials) happen-

1.      Every samaya the purity enhances infinite times.

2.      With every AntarMuhurta, the duration of new bandh keeps reducing. That is SthitiBandhApasaran.

3.      The anubhag (intensity) of auspicious Prakritis keep enhancing  infinite times every samaya. That is Anubhag Bandh Vriddhi.

4.      The anubhag bandh of inauspicious Prakritis keep reducing infinitely every samaya. That is Anubhag Bandh Apasaran. In this way four Avashyak take place.

Later ApoorvaKaran occurs; Its kaal is numerical fraction  of that of Kaal of AdhahKaran; in that these Avashyaks additionally take place-

1.      The sthiti(duration) of past karmas in existence reduces every Antarmuhurta continuously, which is called SthitiKandakGhat.

2.      Reduces the Anubhag of past karmas within smaller AntarMuhurta continuously which is called Anubhag Kandak Ghat.

3.      In the Kaal of GunaShreni, karmas of innumerable times quantity are made eligible for Nirjara sequentially. That is GunaShreniNirjara.

4.      Here Guna Sankraman(transformation)  does not take place but elsewhere where ApoorvaKaran occurs, there it is attained.

-          Subsequent to ApoorvaKaran, AnivrattiKaran is attained. Its kaal is numerical fraction of ApoorvaKaran. In that after sufficient time has passed after the above described Avashyaks, AntarKaran is carried out, which eliminates the AntarMuhurta duration Nisheks of Mithyatva Karma which are eligible for fruition after the Kaal of Anivrattikaran. Those Paramanus are manifested into other sthiti form. 

After AntarKaran UpashamKaran is carried out. The Nisheks of Mithyatva above the absence form Nisheks carried out by AntarKaran, are made ineligible for fruition. With these activities, subsequent to the last samaya of Anivrattikaran, when the time comes for fruition of those Nisheks which have been eliminated ,then without those Nisheks who would be under fruition? Hence without fruition of Mithyatva, the attainment of Prathamopasham Samyaktva occurs.

Anadi (Eternal) Mithya Drishti does not have existence of  Samyaktva  Mohaniya and Mishra Mohaniya; hence he becomes Samyak Drishti by attaining Upasham of one Mithyatva Karma alone. And if some jiva again gets corrupted after attaining Samyaktva then his condition again becomes same as that of Anadi (eternal) Mithya Drishti.

Here question- after examination he attained Tattva Shraddhan, then how it got eliminated?

Its answer- Just as some person was taught and after examination he had the realisation that ‘ this is so only’ , later the thought changed ; hence he had doubt in the lesson that ‘ this is thus or other way’ or ‘ don’t know how is it’ ? Or knowing the lesson to be false he had reversal in spirit then he loses the realisation of the lesson.

Or, earlier he had  different understanding and with the contemplation upon lesson the understanding became real but afterwards lot of kaal was spent without reconsideration of the lesson; then forgetting it the understanding reverted to the original state, hence the realisation of the lesson was lost. 

Or, firstly the real understanding was attained and later without spending long time  nor due to other considerations , but due to fruition of karmas itself in  accordance with destiny , the realisation was lost and it reverted.

-          Thus in many ways the real understanding of the lesson gets lost.

In the same way Jiva had preachment of form of Tattvas etc. of Jinadeva, which upon examination it appeared ‘ it is thus only’  such shraddhan was attained; later as described above, in  many ways the shraddhan gets eliminated. This is described  in coarse form here.

In hierarchy Keval Gyan only knows that ‘ shraddhan is there now and now it is not there’ since the prime reason here is Mithyatva Karma ; when that is under fruition then irrespective of other thought etc. causes  being there or not being there, automatically the Samyak Shraddhan is absent and when it is not under fruition then irrespective of other reasons being there, automatically Samyak Shraddhan is attained.

-          Such internal fine states pertaining to different samaya cannot be known  by Chhadmastha. Hence the decision of the hierarchy of own Mithya-Samyak Shraddhan form state cannot be made by him; it is known in Keval Gyan- from this aspect only, the changes of Gunasthana are described in Shastra.

In this way the one who is corrupted from Samyaktva , he is called Saadi (having a beginning) Mithya Drishti ; he too has five Labdhis prior to attainment of Samyaktva described above.

The only difference is that some jiva has sovereignty of three Prakriti of Darshan Moha. By attaining Upasham of the three, he becomes Prathamopasham Samyaktvi . Or someone has fruition of Samyaktva Mohaniya and remaining two Prakriti are not under fruition ; he is Kshayopasham Samyaktvi ; He does not have GunaShreni etc. activities and does not have Anivrattikaran.

Or,  someone has fruition of Mishra Mohaniya , and remaining two Prakriti are not under fruition. He attains Misha Gunasthana. He does not have Karan .

-          Such is the state of Saadi Mithya Drishti upon loss of Mithyatva.  Kshayik Samyaktva is attained by [KritaKritya] Vedak Samyak Drishti only; hence it is not described here.

In this way the minimum period of Saadi MithyaDrishti is medium  AntarMuhurta only and maximum is slightly less than Ardha Pudgala Paravartan Kaal only.

Look  at the vagaries of manifestations ! Some jiva after attaining YathaKhyat Charitra in eleventh Gunasthana, becoming MithyaDrishti again, wanders in the world for slightly less than Ardha Pudgala Paravartan Kaal. And some Jiva coming out of Nitya Nigod, becoming Manushya, after loss of Mithyatva within an AntarMuhurta attains Keval Gyan – knowing this keep wary of the spoilage of own manifestations and keep making efforts for improving them.

If this Saadi MithyaDrishti remains with fruition of Mithyatva for some time then if the external Jaininess does not get destroyed and the non-shraddhan in Tattvas does not get explicit then without contemplating or with little contemplation only he regains Samyaktva again.

If for long period the fruition of Mithyatva continues then his state becomes similar to that of Anaadi Mithya Drishti. He may attain Graheet Mithyatva also and suffers in Nigod etc. also; there is no limit.

Some jiva being corrupted from Samyaktva comes to Sasadan and there the minimum period is one samaya and maximum period is six Avali kaal. His state of manifestation cannot be described in words. For very miniscule period these manifestations can be known by KevalGyan. There the fruition of Anantanubandhi is there and fruition of Mithyatva is not there- from Agam only know its form.

And some jiva corrupting from Samyaktva attains Mishra Gunasthana. There the fruition of Mishra-Mohaniya (Samyak-Mithyatva) Prakrit takes place. Its period is medium Antar-Muhurta only hence this too is small; hence its manifestations can be known by Keval Gyan only.

There this only appears-  as if someone gave preachment to someone, there he believes some of it as true and some of it as untrue at the same time. In the same way the Shraddhan and non-shraddhan of Tattvas occur at the same time.  Such is Mishra state.

Several people say that ‘ for us JinaDeva and other Devas all are venerable only.’ They believe such state as Mishra Shraddhan  of Mishra Gunasthana but it is not so. This is explicitly Mithyatva state. Since he does not have any decision of Deva-KuDeva hence it is clearly Vinay Mithyatva- know thus.

In this way the MithyaDrishis on the verge of attaining Samyaktva were described and incidentally others were also narrated depending upon the context. 

In this way the  form of Mithya Drishtis practicing Jain faith was narrated.

Here different types of Mithya Drishtis have been described.

The purpose is this- Recognising their types, if some such flaw is within self then by eliminating it, be Samyak Shraddhani ; upon observing such flaw of others, do not be passionate, since our own good-bad is with own manifestations.

If others are seen interested then by preaching them, they can be benefited; hence efforts for improving own manifestations is worthwhile. Abandoning all types of Mithyatva Bhava, being Samyak Drishti is worthwhile since the root cause of the world is Mithyatva ; there is no other pap worst than Mithyatva.

With elimination of one Mithytva along with Anantanubandhi the bandh of forty one Prakritis get eliminated. The duration remains that of Antah KodaKodi Sagar only. The Anubhag is also less and soon he attains Moksha state. But with the presence of Mithyatva , in spite of several efforts Moksha Marg is not attained.

Hence whichever way possible, the destruction of Mithyatva is worthwhile.

This completes seventh chapter of “Deliberations of Jain Mithya drishtis”.

Continued…..

MokshaMargPrakashak …27

 

UbhayaBhasi (Mixed ) Mithya Drishti

Now, those who take recourse to both Nishchaya-Vyavahara both the nayas (UbhayaBhas), such Mithya Drishtis are described-

Those Jivas who believe thus- In Jina faith Nishchaya -Vyavahara two naya are described; hence we should accept both- with such consideration, just as only NishchayaBhasi dependent was described, they adopt Nishchaya  in that way and just as only VyavaharaBhasi dependent was described, they adopt Vyavahara that way.

Although in such acceptance there is mutual opposition between the two nayas even then what to do? – The form of both nayas has not been understood truly and in Jina faith  two nayas are described, hence any one cannot be discarded; therefore with delusion, both are treated as means. Those Jivas also should be known as Mithya Drishti.

Now difference of their practices is described- Internally who has not recognised the right Nishchaya-Vyavahara MokshMarga by taking decision ; following Jina-order they believe the Moksha Marga to be of two kinds -Nishchaya-Vyavahara form,  but Moksha Marga is not of two kinds; its narration is of two types. Where the true Moksha Marga is described as Moksha Marga, that is Nishchaya Moksha Marga and the one which  is not really Moksha Marga but is nimitta to Moksha Marga and is coexistent , which is called Moksha marga in Upachar sense, that is Vyavahara Moksha Marga since the characteristics of Nishchaya-Vyavahara are everywhere like this- the true narration is Nishchaya : Upachar narration is Vyavahara. Hence from aspect of description the MokshaMarga are of two types. One is Nishchaya MokshaMarga and other is Vyavahara Moksha Marga; in this way believing two types of Moksha Marga is Mithya.

He considers Nishchaya and Vyavahara both as venerable, which is delusion only since the forms of Nishchaya and Vyavahara is mutually contradictory. In Samaysar it has been told-

“ Vyavahara is unreal ; does not narrate the true form, from  some aspect in Upachara sense the narration is unreal while the Shuddha Naya which is Nishchaya , that is real; the way the thing exists, it describes the same. 

-          In this way the forms of both are mutually contradictory.

There you believe thus – Experience of Shuddha Atma like that of Siddha, that is Nishchaya and Vrita-Sheel-Sanyam etc. form activity is Vyavahara, but such belief is not right since it is not so that some dravya bhava is called Nishchaya and another dravya bhava is called Vyavahara.

Description of singular dravya bhava in its own form is Nishchaya Naya while in Upachara sense the description of one dravya bhava in the form of another dravya bhava is Vyavahara. For example the pot of mud is called as ‘pot of mud’ in Nishchaya and in conjunction with Ghee, in  upachar sense the same pot is called as ‘pot of ghee’ which is Vyavahara- know the same elsewhere.

Therefore if you believe something as Nishchaya and something else as Vyavahara then it is delusion.

And in your belief also the contradiction of Nishchaya-Vyavahara is seen- if you believe yourself to be Shuddha like Siddha then why do you engage in Vrita etc.? If you wish to be Siddha with the means of Vrita etc. then the experience of Shuddha Atma in present would be Mithya.

-          Thus both nayas are contradictory; hence both cannot be venerable.

Here question- In Samaysar etc. the experience of Shuddha Atma is called Nishchaya; the Vrita-tapa-sanyam etc. are called Vyavahara; we also believe thus.

Its clarification- The experience of Shuddha Atma is true MokshaMarga; hence it is called Nishchaya. Here indifferent from own nature and different with respect to other’s bhava- that should be known as meaning of Shuddha word. Believing the worldly person to be  same as Siddha- such delusion form meaning is not meaning of Shuddha word.

There Vrita-Tapa etc. are not Moskha Marga; from aspect of nimitta etc. in Upachar sense they are called MokshaMarga; hence they are called Vyavahara MokshaMarga. Thus from aspect of being real-unreal they are called Nishchaya-Vyavahara. They should be accepted thus only, but believing both to be real Moksha Marga and venerable is Mithya Buddhi.

Then he says- We keep ‘shraddhan ‘ of Nishchaya and perform activities of the Vyavahara form – thus we adopt both of them.

He is told- This too is not right since shraddhan of Nishchaya should be in Nishchaya form and Vyavahara in Vyavahara form. With shraddhan of just one naya only, it results in Ekant Mithyatva and in activities there is no purpose of Naya. The activity is manifestation of dravya. The dravya which manifests, its activity should be narrated as belonging to it, that is Nishchaya naya and if it is described as that of other dravya then it is Vyavahara naya-in description with such intent the both naya are acceptable; the activity alone is not naya form.

In this way acceptance of both naya together is Mithya.

Then what to do?

That is told- Believing what has been described from aspect of Nishchaya naya as true, adopt shraddhan of the same and what has been described from aspect of Vyavahara as untrue, renounce its shraddhan. The same is told in Samaysar Kalash-

“Since all Himsa etc. and Ahimsa etc. have adhyavasaya, hence renounce all of them – thus it is told by JinaDeva. Hence I believe that all Vyavahara dependent upon others have been made to be relinquished. The saint people adopting one Param nishchaya only in proper way in perturbation free form should remain steady in Shuddha gyan-ghan form own glory. “

Bhavartha- Here Vyavahara has been made to be renounced; hence adopting Nishchaya engaging in own glory form is appropriate.

And in ShatPahud it is told-

“ The one who sleeps in Vyavahara, that Yogi keeps awake in own objective and the one who keeps awake in Vyavahara, he sleeps in his own objectgive. “

In this way giving up shraddhan of Vyavahara naya, adopting shraddhan of Nishchaya naya is appropriate.

‘ Vyavahara naya  describes mixing  own dravya-other dravya, their bhavas and cause-effect etc. with one belonging to other ‘,  with such shraddhan Mithyatva results ; hence it should be relinquished. And Nishchaya naya describes them truly without mixing one in another’ – with such shraddhan Samyaktva is attained; hence that should be taken recourse to. 

Here question- If it is so then why in Jina Marg both nayas have been asked to be accepted? 

Its reply- In Jina Marg somewhere the addressal is with the primacy of Nishchaya naya, that should be known as – ‘truly it is thus’ and somewhere the addressal is with the primacy of Vyavahara naya, which should be known as- ‘ it is not so ; from aspect of nimitta etc. the Upachar has been used’ – know thus.

In this way the acceptance of both naya is knowing them such. Believing the description of both nayas as true ‘ it is this way as well as that way’ – such delusion form manifestation is not told for acceptance of both nayas.

Question again- If Vyavahara naya is untrue then why its preachment is given  in Jina Marg? Only Nishchaya naya should  have been described.

Its answer- Same argument is put forth in Samaysar. There, this is the reply-

“ Just as a Mleccha without usage of Mleccha language cannot follow the meaning ; in the same way without Vyavahara, the preachment of Reality is not possible; hence the preachment of Vyavahara is done.”

And in the commentary to this Sutra it is told- “ For adopting this Nishchaya, the preachment is given with Vyavahara but the Vyavahara naya is not worthy of adopting.”

Here question- without Vyavahara how can the preachment of Nishchaya not be possible and why Vyavahara naya should not be followed? Please tell-

Its answer- From aspect of Nishchaya, the soul is different from other dravyas, indifferent from own bhavas, self established substance; those who do not recognise it, if they are told thus, then they cannot understand it. Hence they are told by means of Vyavahara naya by means of relationship of body etc. other dravyas, human-narak-prithvikaya etc. form different jivas ; then manushya is jiva, naraki is jiva etc. with different forms the jiva was recognised.

Or by differentiating in undifferentiated thing , the gyan-darshan etc. guna-paryaya form specifics of jiva were narrated ; then the knower is jiva,  seer is jiva etc. with different forms the jiva was recognised.

And from aspect of Nishchaya the Veetrag bhava is MokshaMarg ; those who do not recognise it, if they are told thus then they would not understand it; hence by means of Vyavahara naya with Tattva Shraddhan-Gyan, from aspect of elimination of nimitta of other dravya, the specifics of Veetrag bhava of the form of Vrita-Sheel-Sanyam  etc. were elaborated then they could recognise the Veetrag Bhava.

In this way elsewhere also, ‘ without Vyavahara, the preachment of Nishchaya is not possible’ – know thus.

Here in Vyavahara, the Nara-Narak etc. paryaya itself is called Jiva, but one should not accept paryaya only as Jiva; paryaya is conjunction form of Jiva-pudgala. There Jiva dravya is different in Nishchaya , that only should be known as Jiva. In conjunction with Jiva the body etc. also are called as Jiva in Upachar sense, that is mere statement; in reality body etc. are not jiva- such should be the shraddhan.

Or in undifferentiated Atma the divisions of Gyan-Darshan etc. were carried out, but they should not be believed to be divisions form itself, since the divisions have been carried out for explaining only. From aspect of Nishchaya the soul is undifferentiated only, that only should be accepted to be the Jiva substance.  The divisions have been told from aspect of name, numbers etc. which are mere descriptions ; in reality they are not different – such shraddhan should be carried out.

There from aspect of elimination of nimitta of other dravya, Vrita-Sheel-Sanyam etc. are called as Moksha Marg, but they themselves should not be believed to be Moksha Marg since if the acceptance-renunciation of other dravya could be done by soul then soul would become doer-destroyer of other dravya , but any dravya is not subordinate to another dravya ; hence soul by renouncing own ragas etc. bhava only becomes Veertagi ; hence  Nishchaya Veetrag Bhava only is Moksha Marg. Veetrag bhavas and Vritas etc. have cause-effect relationship in some aspect; hence Vritas etc. are called Moksha Marg which is mere statement; in reality external activity is not Moksha Marg- such should be the Shraddhan.

In this way elsewhere also Vyavahara naya should not be adopted- know thus.

Here Question- Vyavahara naya is useful only for giving preachment to others or does it serve own purpose also?

Its answer- So long as self does not recognise the thing defined by Nishchaya naya , till then with Vyavahara Marg the thing should be recognised. Hence in lower state for self also the Vyavahara naya is meaningful. But believing Vyavahara as mere Upachar, the right decision of the thing should be done then it would be meaningful, but  like Nishchaya, believing  Vyavahara to be true, the thing is ‘like this only’ –such shraddhan would be adverse.

The same is told in PurusharthaSiddhiUpaya-

“ For explaining to the Agyani, Muniraj preaches using Vyavahara naya which  is untrue. The one who knows only Vyavahara, for him the preachment itself is not suitable. And just as – the one who does not know real lion, for him cat itself is lion; in the same way for the one who does not know Nishchaya, for him the Vyavahara itself becomes Nishchaya.

Here some witless person says – you call Vyavahara as untrue-despicable hence why should we engage in Vyavahara activities of Vrita-Sheel-Sanyam etc? We will give them up.

He is told- The name of Vrita-Sheel-Sanyam etc. is not Vyavahara; believing then  to be Moksha Marg is Vyavahara, that you should give up and have such shraddhan that these (vrita-sheel-sanyam etc.) have been called Moksha Marg in Upachar sense, knowing them to be externally assistant since they are dependent upon other dravya and the true Moksha Marg is Veetrag Bhava which is dependent upon own  dravya. In this way know Vyavahara to be  untrue, despicable. By giving up Vrita etc. the Vyavahara does not become despicable.

Then we ask you- what shall you do after giving up vrita etc.? If you engage in Himsa etc. form then even the Upachar of Moksha Marg is also not possible ; what benefit you will gain with such activities? – you shall attain Narak etc. ; hence such acts are witless only and eliminating manifestations in Vrita etc. form, engaging  in only Veetrag detachment bhava form is better; which cannot be possible in lower state; hence abandoning Vrita etc. means , being promiscuous is not appropriate. In this way in Shraddhan believing Nishchaya to be venerable and in activities believing Vyavahara to be venerable, that too is Mithya Bhava only.

There this jiva, for adopting both nayas, sometimes experiences self as Shuddha, like Siddha, raga-free, soul with Keval Gyan etc.; adopting Dhyan posture he engages in such thoughts but he is not thus : ‘ with delusion, definitely I am thus only’- with such belief he gets satisfied. Possibly he describes thus in words but Nishchaya naya describes the thing to be in real form . How can it be called Nishchaya if he believes self to be what he is not visibly? Just as the unreality of NishchayaBhasi jiva was described earlier, in the same way know here.

Or he believes thus- Soul from aspect of this naya is this way, from that naya it is that way, but soul is, what  it is, like that only. He does not recognise the intent of the description by means of naya. For example- soul from aspect of Nishchaya is like Siddha , adorned with Keval Gyan etc., and free of dravya karma-No karma-Bhava Karma. From aspect of Vyavahara naya soul is worldly, having MatiGyan etc. , having dravya karma-no karma-bhava karma – thus he believes, but one soul does not have two such forms : ‘ adorned with one bhava and devoid of the same bhava ‘ – how can it be possible in one thing? Hence such belief is delusion.

Then how is it ? Just as king and pauper, from aspect of being Manushya are same ; in the same way Siddha and worldly , from aspect of Jiva-ness are same; if sameness from aspect of Keval Gyan etc. is believed then that is not so; worldly has Matigyan etc. only from aspect of Nishchaya and Siddha has Keval Gyan.

However- the worldly has MatiGyan etc. with the nimitta of karmas; hence from aspect of swabhava if worldly is said to have shakti of Keval Gyan then there is no fault. Just as the pauper has capability of being king ; in the same way know of this shakti also.

And Dravya Karma-No Karma are generated by Pudgala; hence from aspect of Nishchaya the worldly is different from them but if like Siddha from aspect of cause -effect he believes in absence of this relation also then it is delusion only. Bhava Karma is bhava of soul , that is belonging to soul from aspect of Nishchaya but occurs with nimitta of karma; hence in Vyavahara it is said to be belonging to karma. Like Siddha believing worldly jiva also not to be having raga etc. and believing them to be belonging to karma alone only – that is also delusion.

In this way , believing same thing to be from aspect of naya, i.e. from aspect of one  bhava to be ‘this way as well as that way’  is Mithya Buddhi. But from aspect of different bhavas, the description of nayas applies – knowing thus , believing the thing to be correctly is true shraddhan; hence Mithya Drishti believes thing to be Anekant form but does not recognise the true bhava – know thus.

And this jiva adopts Vrita-Sheel-Sanyam etc.  but he believes them to be cause of Moksha in Vyavahara – therefore he considers them as venerable ; hence the way earlier Vyavahara dependent jiva was told as unreal , in the same way know these also to be unreal.

There he believes thus also- appropriate Vrita etc. activities are worthy of undertaking but one should not have mine-ness with them , but where self is karta,  how to avoid mine-ness with them ? If self is not karta then ‘ they are worthy of undertaking’- how such bhava can be had? And if he is Karta then it is own Karma , then karta-karma relationship is automatically there; hence such belief is delusion.

Then how is it? – the external Vrita etc. are dependent upon body etc. other dravya , self is not karta of other dravya; hence one should not have buddhi of being doer in them , nor that of mine-ness.

There the acceptance-renunciation in Vritas etc. form Shubhopayoga is dependent upon self, he is himself karta of them; hence one should believe being doer as well as having mine-ness, but know this shubhopayoga as cause for bandh only and not that of Moksha, since bandh and Moksha are opponents ; hence same bhava be cause of punya bandh as well as that of  Moksha- such belief is delusion.

Hence where both Vrita-NonVrita are without vikalpa,  without having any objective of acceptance-renunciation of other dravya- with such detachment  Veetrag shuddhopayoga, that is only Moksha Marg. In lower state several jivas have mixture of shubhopayoga and Shuddhopayoga; hence in Upachar sense the Vrita etc. form Shubhopayoga is called Moksha Marg.

Upon consideration of thing, Shubhopayoga is harmful only for Moksha since the one which is cause for bandh; that only is harmful for Moksha for sure- have such shraddhan.

In this way believing shuddhopayoga only to be venerable, make efforts for the same and knowing shubhopayoga-ashubhopayoga to be despicable, make efforts for renouncing them .

If shuddhopayoga is not possible, then abandoning ashubhopayoga engage in shubhopayoga only, since compared to shubhopayoga the ashubhopayoga has greater ashuddha-ness. If shuddhopayoga is there then it remains witness to other dravya only, hence there is no objective with other dravya.

If Shubhopayoga is there then activities of external Vrita etc. occur and if Ashubhopayoga is there , then activities of external non-Vrita etc. occur. Since Ashuddhopayoga (Shubha-Ashubha Upayoga) and the activities of other dravya have nimitta-naimittik relationship ; hence firstly with renunciation of Ashubhopayoga , Shubhopayoga occurs and then with renunciation of Shubhopayoga, Shuddhopayoha occurs- such is the tradition of sequence.

There  someone may believe that the Shubhopayoga is cause for Shuddhopayoga but just as with abandoning  of Ashubhopayoga the Shubhopayoga occurs, in the same way with abandoning of Shubhopayoga the Shuddhopayoga is attained- if such cause -effect relationship is not there then cause for shubhopayoga would be established to be Ashubhopayoga.

Or, DravyaLingi has supreme Shubhopayoga , but no shuddhopayoga ; hence in reality he does not have cause-effect means there. Just as patient was having strong illness, later he became mildly ill then that mild illness is not cause for being free of illness.

However- with mild illness if he makes efforts to being illness free, then it would be achieved, but knowing the mild illness as beneficial, if he makes efforts for retaining it then how can he be free of illness? In the same way the Kashayi had strong Kashaya form Ashubhopayoga, later he had mild Kashaya form Shubhpayoga  then that Shubhopayoga is not cause for having  Kashaya free Shuddhopayoga.

However this is true that upon having Shubhopayoga if efforts for shuddhopayoga are carried out  then it would be attained, but if knowing shubhopayoga itself to be beneficial, efforts are made for its retention then how can shuddhopayoga be attained?

In this way the Shubhopayoga of Mithya Drishti is not cause for shuddhopayoga; with Samyak Drishti having Shubhopayoga , he may attain Shuddhopayoga in near future- with such concept, in some places the shubhopayoga is also called as cause for shuddhopayoga- know thus.

This UbhayaBhasi jiva considers self as practitioner of Nishchaya-Vyavahara form MokshaMarg. There he believed soul as Shuddha as described above, that he believed as attainment of  Samyak Darshan; knowing thus he believed as attainment of Samyak Gyan; manifested in such thoughts is the attainment of Samyak Charitra- thus he considers as attainment of Nishchaya jewel trio. But I am directly ashuddha then how he believes/considers/thinks  self as Shuddha ; thus with such irrational thoughts he gets satisfied with delusion.

There other than Arahant etc. he does not believe in other devas etc. and he has learnt the divisions of Jivas etc. in accordance with Jain Shastras ; he believes in them only and not others, that became Samyak darshan; and he engages in practice of Jain Shastras , which became Samyak Gyan and further he practices Vrita etc. form activities, that became Samyak Charitra – thus he believes self to have  attained Vyavahara jewel trio. But Vyavahara is name of Upachar , that Upachar is also applicable when the real Nishchaya jewel trio are cause . The way Nishchaya Jewel trio is attained, if he practices that then Vyavahara can be possible , but he has not recognised the true Nishchaya Jewel trio then how can he practice? In accordance with order he practices seeing others; hence he did not attain Nishchaya-Vyavahara Moksha Marg.

Later Nishchaya-Vyavahara Moksha Marg would be described; with that as means only the Moksha Marg could be attained.

-          Thus this jiva believes-knows NishchayaBhas but believes Vyavahara means also to be beneficial ; hence being promiscuous he does not manifest in Ashubha form; engages in Vrita etc. form Shubhopayoga; hence he attains last Graveyak state and if with excessiveness of NishchayaBhas the activites of Ashubha form occur then he may traverse to KuGati also ; dependent upon manifestations the result is obtained but he remains enjoyer of the world only; without attaining true MokshaMarg , he cannot attain true Siddha state.

In this way the Mithya Drishtis following NishchayaBhas-VyavaharaBhas- both (UbhayaBhas) were described.

Continued…..

MokshaMargPrakashak …26

 

Converse form of Samyak Charitra

How are the tendencies for Samyak Charitra are described-

His Drishti is upon the external activities but there is no consideration of the degradation  or improvement of the manifestations and even if there is consideration of manifestations then the Drishti is upon the manifestations which are taking place without consideration of the  passions of the intent, while the results are attained by the passions of the intent.

-          It would be further elaborated later where their nature would be clarified.

Without such recognition,  the effort is upon the external conduct only – There several jivas conduct due to Kula tradition or upon seeing others or with  anger-pride-deceit-greed etc.; hence they do not have dharma buddhi at all ; how can Samyak Charitra be attained? Out of these jivas some are simple minded or having Kashaya but by having Agyan Bhava or Kashaya the Samyak Charitra cannot be attained.

Several Jivas believe thus- ‘ What is there in knowing? If we do something then the result would be attained’ – with such considerations , they remain engaged in Vrita-Tapa etc. activities only and do not make efforts for Tattva Gyan, but without Tattva Gyan, even the conduct of Maha Vritas is given the name of Mithya Charitra only. With attainment of Tattva Gyan, even if Vritas etc. are not there, even then Asanyat Samyak Drishti name is given ; hence firstly efforts for Tattva Gyan should be done , then for reducing Kashaya the external efforts should be made.

In Yogindra Deva’s Shravakachar it is told- “ Without the base of Samyak darshan , O Jiva ! The Vrita form trees do not grow i.e. those jivas who do not have Tattva Gyan,  they cannot do real conduct.”

That is elaborated – Several Jivas, in the beginning take quite big vow but internally the desire for sensory subjects and Kashaya has not been eliminated; hence they wish to fulfil the vows somehow or other. There with the results of such vows they suffer.  

For example- Someone vows to do several Upavas and later suffers and feels unhappy, like a patient he passes the time, does not engage in dharma practice. Hence why not take vows in accordance with the capability of fulfilment? With suffering ArtDhyan is attained whose result cannot be good. Or, the misery of the vows is not tolerated then instead for nourishment of sensory subjects, he makes other arrangements. For example – if thirsty, then he does not drink water,  but takes other cool remedies in different ways. And give up Ghee but by arranging other oily products, consumes them. In the same way know other remedies also.

Now, if Parishah is not tolerated, the sensory desires were not given up then why engage in such vows ? By discarding simple subjects the arrangements need to be made for  difficult subjects – why indulge in such acts? By this the raga bhava is intensified more only.

Or, if there is misery in following vow then for engaging the manifestations, contemplates of some support. For example- during  Upavas he engages in games ; several Papi people engage in gambling etc. bad practices or wish to remain sleeping. They know that in some way the kaal of Upavas should be completed.

In the same way know about other vows also.

Or, there are several such Papis – who first take the vow, later feeling miserable with that, they give up the vow. Taking -giving up is merely game for them but the breaking of vow is great Pap, it is better not to take vow.

In this way firstly without consideration they take vow and later they suffer.

But in Jain Dharma there is no punishment for not taking vow. The preachment of Jain Dharma is that firstly attain Tattva Gyan then recognise the object he wishes to renounce by its flaws; know the gunas which are attained by relinquishment and take real decision of own manifestations, do not decide upon just the present manifestations; in future it could be fulfilled then only take the vow and consider the capability of body and dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava also.

-          With such considerations, then engage in vow; that too in such a way that there is no disrespect towards the vow; the manifestations keep improving – such is the practice of Jain Dharma.

Here someone says – Chandal etc. took vow but  they do not have all these considerations?

Its reply- Even if there is death and misery, so be it, but shall not abandon the vow- with such consideration they take vow; hence there is no disrespect towards vow.

And the vows taken by Samyak Drishti are taken after attainment of Tattva Gyan only.

And where internal detachment has not occurred and they adopt external vow, they engage in activities before the vow and after the vow with extreme obsession. For example  prior to Upavas and after completion of Upavas they eat heavy food with extreme greed and make haste. For example water was blocked and when uplifted then immediately it started flowing; in the same way with vows, the tendency for sensory subjects was blocked , but internal obsession went on increasing , later after fulfilment of vow, extreme engagement  for sensory subjects was carried out therefore in the period of the vow, the obsession with sensory subjects was not eliminated; instead before and after more raga was carried out , but the benefit is by elimination of raga bhava; hence the vow should be taken in accordance with the detachment attained.

Maha Muni also take some Vow, then reduce the quantity of Ahar etc. and if they take big vow then that also is taken upon verification of own capability; so that manifestations keep improving . The activities, which do not cause restlessness and Pramad is not generated – they only are beneficial.

Those who do not have Drishti upon dharma, they sometimes conduct in big dharma and sometimes conduct promiscuously. For example- in some dharma festival they do lot of Upavas, and in some dharma festival they eat again and again but if dharma buddhi is there then they should engage in all dharma festivals with appropriate Sanyam etc.

And sometime in some dharma activity they spend a lot of money and if some dharma activity has occurred suddenly, even then they do not spend anything, but if dharma buddhi is there then in accordance with capability they should spend in all  dharma activities. Know the same elsewhere.

There those who do not have true dharma practice, some very large activity they undertake and some other activity they perform poorly. For example – wealth is relinquished and they  engage in good food , good clothes etc. subjects specifically. In the same way they renounce wearing  some gown etc., enjoyments with woman etc. and other activities and establish their dharmatma nature and later engage in bad business etc, engage in pap activities which are deplorable in the Lok.

-          Like this some activities they do quite enthusiastically and some other ones they perform poorly. There being deplored by the Lok,  they become laughing matter that Look! Such dharmatma does such activity . For example- if some person  wears one very fine cloth and another cloth extremely poor then he is laughed at; in the same way he becomes laughing matter.

True dharma has this tradition – in accordance with elimination of ragas that have been attained, in that state whichever dharma activity is possible, he should adopt all of them. If very few ragas have been eliminated then he should conduct at lower level,  but adopting higher level, he should not engage in lowly activities.

Here question- The renunciation of enjoyment with woman is told in higher Pratima; hence the one at lower level should renounce it or not?

Its answer- The person at lower level cannot absolutely renounce it, it results in blemish hence the renunciation has been told in higher Pratima. In lower levels he should carry out the type of renunciation that is admissible, but what is not feasible in lower level, undertaking them occurs with Kashaya bhava only.

For example- someone who is engaged in seven vices and renounces enjoyment with own wife then how is that possible?  Although renunciation of own wife is dharma in Vyavahara sense but firstly seven vices should be renounced, then only it is suitable to renounce  own wife. Know the same elsewhere.

And those who do not know the Dharma in every way- such jivas  making  some part of dharma as primary ignore other dharmas. For example- some jiva keeping compassion dharma as primary, engage in Pooja -Prabhavana etc. activities.  Several keeping Pooja-Prabhavana as primary, do not fear of Himsa etc. ; several keeping Tapa as primary, with ArtDhyan also engage in Upavas etc. and believing self to be Tapasvi fearlessly engage in anger etc. Several keeping charity as primary, earning wealth engaging in pap give donations ; several keeping renunciation of violence as primary abandoning business etc. engage in begging etc. In these ways keeping some dharma as primary, other dharma is ignored and as a result conduct in pap.

This deed is like this – Just as a mindless businessman , to earn profit in some business, causes loss in other ways. It should have been  like this that the businessman should keep all the profit-loss in to consideration , where more profit is there, he should conduct accordingly. In the same way the objective of  Gyani is veetrag bhava; with all consideration where more veetrag bhava is generated he should act accordingly since the root of dharma is Veetrag bhava.

In this way the mindless Jiva adopt dharma conversely and they do not even get a feel of Samyak Charitra.

Several Jivas, conduct in AnuVrita-Maha Vrita form truly, in accordance with their conduct are their manifestations, there is no intent of deceit-greed etc.. Knowing these AnuVrita-MahaVrita as means for dharma, they practice it for Moksha . They do not have desire for enjoyments of swarga etc. also but Tattva Gyan has not been attained first. Themselves they know that they are making efforts for Moksha but they are not even  aware of the means of Moksha; just practice the means for Swarga etc. but just as some one eats Mishri believing it to be nectar but it does not have quality of nectar. Based on own belief the result is not attained ; the result is based upon the means which have been followed.

In the Shastra it has been told- the term Samyak in Charitra has been used for elimination of conduct carried out ignorantly. Hence firstly Tattva Gyan should be there, and then the conduct is termed as Samyak Charitra. Just as some farmer does not sow the seed and engages in other means then how does he attain grains ? He would get grass etc. only. In the same way the Agyani without practicing Tattva Gyan engages in other means then how can Moksha be attained? Deva etc. state would only be attained.

Several Jivas are such that they do not even know the names of Tattva etc. properly, just engage in Vrita etc. and there are several jivas who following Samyak Darshan-Gyan in unreal way engage in Vrita etc. Hence even though they conduct the Vritas etc. properly, even then without real shraddhan-gyan all the conduct is Mithya charitra only.

The same has been told in Samaysar kalash-

“ Conversely to Moksha – with such extremely difficult Panchagni Tapa etc. activities if you want to  be miserable then do so and several other jivas who suffer weighed down with the weights of MahaVrita and Tapa practicing for long periods getting  weakened  then do so, but this real Moksha form state free of diseases which is experienced on its own – such gyan swabhava, cannot be attained by any other means without Gyan Guna. “

In the same way in Panchastikaya, where in the end the description of VyavaharaBhasi Jiva is made, there in spite of having  13 types of Charitra , he has been negated in Moksha Marg. And in Pravachansar the Sanyam Bhava devoid of Atma Gyan is called ineffective. And in these granths and in other Parmatma Prakash etc. shastras the same is narrated with same objective everywhere.

In this way after attainment of Tattva Gyan only conduct is meaningful.

Here someone may say- Externally they practice AnuVrita-MahaVrita etc. Internal manifestations are  not there and with desire for Swarga etc. they practice.

Answer- But with such practices Pap bandh accrues. The DravyaLingi Muni goes upto eleventh Graveyak; in Panch Paravartanas also it is written that the attainment of Devayu of 31 Sagar has been accomplished infinite times – such high states are attained only when  with internal manifestations the MahaVrita has been practiced and is having extremely weak Kashaya, there is no desire for enjoyments of this Lok or the ParLok; only with Dharma Buddhi with desire of Moksha he practices; hence Dravya Lingi does not have sthool converseness; only sookshma converseness is there which can be  realised by Samyak Drishti.

Now,  how is their Dharma Practice and what is their converseness? That is told-

First of all, knowing the Narak etc. to be cause of misery in the world, knowing the birth-death in swarga also to be cause of misery, being detached from the world , they desire Moksha. But  all know these dukhs to be dukh only. Indra-Ahamindra  enjoy sensors generated sukh with interest towards sensory subjects but knowing that also to be dukh only, recognising  the perturbation free sukh  state, they desire Moksha, they only should be known to be Samyak Drishti.

There, the result of sensory pleasures etc. is Narak etc.; body is impure, destructible, not worth maintaining; the relatives are having selfish motives, thus considering several flaws of other dravyas, they renounce them and the result of Vrita etc. is Swarga-Moksha; Tapa etc. are pious, giver of indestructible results; with them it is worthy to thin the body; Deva-Guru-Shastra are beneficial , thus considering the gunas of other dravyas, they are   adopted, and in similar way knowing some other dravya to be bad, they are treated with  unfavourable shraddhan. Knowing some other dravya to be beneficial, they are treated with favourable shraddhan- thus in other dravyas the shraddhan of favourable-unfavourable form is all Mithya. 

On account of such shraddhan his detachment is also dwesha buddhi form since knowing something as bad only is called as ‘dwesha’.

Someone says- Samyak Drishti also renounces other dravya knowing them to be bad?

Its answer- Samyak Drishti do not  consider other dravyas to be  bad; they know their own raga bhava as bad. They renounce own raga bhava; hence the reason for the same  also gets renounced. Upon consideration of things, any other dravya is not good or bad.

Someone says- ( other dravya) is nimitta form for sure.

Its reply- Other dravya does not harm forcibly; when own bhavas get corrupted, then they are also external nimitta. And without their nimitta also, bhavas get corrupted; hence they are not nimitta as a rule. Hence observing the faults of other dravya is Mithya Bhava.

Ragas etc. bhava only are bad but he does not realise it; observing the fault of other dravyas, he engages in dwesha form detachment.

The true detachment is – where the fault or goodness of any dravya is not felt, hence no one is known as good or bad; know self as self and other as other; there is no purpose served by other dravya- believing thus remains witness; hence such detachment occurs to gyanis only.

There being detached, he accepts the AnuVrita-MahaVrita form Vyavahara Charitra described in shastra; renounces partially or totally all paps of himsa etc.; in lieu of them he engages in Ahimsa etc. punya form deeds and the way he used to believe his own doer-ship in paryaya based pap activities; in the same way now he started believing own doer-ship in paryaya based punya activities- thus there is equality in having spirit of ownership in paryaya based deeds.

For example- ‘I kill jivas; I am have possessions’, such beliefs were there; instead now they are ‘ I protect jivas; I am naked without possessions‘ – such beliefs are there. In this way the spirit of oneness in paryaya based deeds only is Mithya Drishti ( Mithya Darshan). The same is told in Samaysar commentary-

“ The jiva who believes self to be karta of paryaya based activities being pervaded by darkness of Mithyatva ; those jivas, in spite of being desirous of Moksha, just as other faith common manushyas do not attain Moksha, in the same way they too do not attain Moksha, since in both there is equality of shraddhan of doer-ship.

In this way being karta himself, he engages in the activities of Shravak Dharma or Muni Dharma by means of mind-speech-body continuously; so that in those activities there is no break, he engages thus but such bhava is with raga while charitra is veetrag bhava form; hence believing such means to be Moksha Marg is Mithya Buddhi.

Here question- The charitra is told to be of two kinds namely – sarag-veetrag , how is that?

Its reply- Just as rice are of two kinds- one is with husk and other without husk.

There know this- The husk is not rice form; it is flaw of rice. Some  wise person collected rice with husk; seeing him  some simple person collects husk only believing it to be rice  then he would be sorry only unnecessarily.

In the same way the Charitra is said to be of two kinds- Sarag and Veetrag.

There know this- The raga is not charitra form; it is a flaw of charitra. Several Gyanis practice charitra along with auspicious raga; observing them if some agyani practices auspicious raga only believing it to be charitra, then he would be unnecessarily sorry only.

Here some one says – With Pap activity strong ragas etc. used to occur , now with these activities the raga is weakened; hence considering the percentage  of raga reduced, to that extent call it as charitra; to the extent the raga  percentage remained, to that extent call it as raga. In this way he can  have  Sarag Charitra.

Its answer- If it is so along with attaining Tattva Gyan then the way you describe it is thus only. Without Tattva Gyan in spite of intense conduct it is called Asanyam only since the intent of raga bhava has not been eliminated.

The same is highlighted- The dravya Lingi Muni, renouncing kingdom etc. becomes Nirgranth; follows 28 prime gunas ; engages in strongest of the tapa of the form of Anashan etc.; tolerates hunger etc. 22 parishah; in spite of body being cut into pieces he does not get perturbed; in spite of encountering several reasons for breakage of vrita he remains firm; he does not get angry with anyone; does not value such means; there is no deceit in such means ; with such means he does not desire sensory pleasures of Lok-Parlok- such is his state. If such state was not  there, then how would he have attained Graveyak ? But in shastra he is called as Mithya Drishti Asanyami only.

The reason is that he does not have true shraddhan-gyan of Tattvas. The way it was described earlier, his shraddhan-gyan is in the same way , with such intent he practices but upon consideration of the intent of these means the intent of Kashayas is revealed.

How so! Listen- He renounces raga etc. cause of pap   knowing them as despicable but he believes the auspicious raga as venerable being cause of punya, he makes efforts for its enhancement but the auspicious raga too is Kashaya. Believing Kashaya to be venerable is shraddhan of doing Kashaya only. The intent was that of having raga with other auspicious dravyas along with dwesha with other inauspicious dravyas; the equanimity form bhava with respect of other dravyas was never intended.

Here question- SamyakDrishti also makes efforts for auspicious raga ?

Its reply- Just as someone was given lot of punishment, hence he makes efforts to reduce the punishment; with less punishment he celebrates also but in shraddhan the punishment itself is considered as undesirable; in the same way the samyak Drishti had lot of Kashaya of pap form so he also makes efforts to have punya form some Kashaya; with less Kashaya he celebrates also but in shraddhan he considers the Kashaya as despicable. And just as- some one makes efforts for business etc. for livelihood, and with success of efforts celebrates; in the same way the Dravya Lingi, believing auspicious ragas to be  cause for Moksha makes efforts for it and with its success celebrates. In this way in spite of  means of auspicious raga and pleasures being same, Samyak Drishti has shraddhan of punishment form while Mithya Drishti has that of business form; hence there is a great difference in the intent.

There he had misery with the nimitta of Parishah-tapa etc. , he does not treat it but experiences the misery but the experiencing  of misery is Kashaya only.

Where Veetragata is there, there just as he knows other gyeyas; in the same way he knows the gyeyas responsible for the misery but this person  does not experience them that way and he tolerates them  with the thinking  of the form of Kashaya.

There the thinking is like this – under influence of others, lots of miseries have been tolerated in Narak etc. Gatis, the misery pertaining to Parishah etc. is much less; by tolerating it independently, the attainment of pleasures of swarga-moksha occurs. If these are not tolerated and the sensory pleasures are enjoyed then Narak etc. would be attained, where lots of miseries would be experienced. With such thinking there is unfavourable buddhi in Parishah etc. Only due to fear of Narak etc. and due to greed of sukh he tolerates them but all these are Kashaya bhavas only.

There such thinking  also exists- Those karmas which were bonded, they cannot be discarded before serving ; hence I should serve them; therefore with such thinking he manifests in karma phal Chetana form and with Paryaya Drishti he believes the state of Parishah etc. attained as inflicted upon self. He does not recognise the states of body and self as different from aspect of Dravya Drishti.

-          Thus with different types of Vyavahara thinking he tolerates the Parishah etc.

And he has renounced kingdom etc. sensory materials and he keeps renouncing favourable food etc. Just as someone with the fear of flatulence renounces the consumption of cold things but so long as the consumption of cold things are favourite, till then he cannot be said to have absence of flatulence; in the same way the jiva with raga, gives up sensory enjoyments due to fear of Narak etc. but so long as the sensory pleasures are desirable, till then he cannot be said to have absence of raga.

In the same way, just as Deva who has tasted nectar does not enjoy other food automatically; in the same way by tasting own soul , he has not developed dislike for sensory enjoyments.

In this way from aspect of future benefits, he knows the toleration of Parishah etc to be means for sukh and sensory pleasures to be means for dukh. Immediate parishah toleration he believes as occurrence of dukh and immediate sensory pleasures as sukh.

Where presence of sukh-dukh are believed to exist, there the raga-dwesha form intent with buddhi of desirable-undesirable is not absent and where raga-dwesha are present there charitra is not present.

Hence this DravyaLingi, although engages in Tapa etc. renouncing sensory pleasures, even so he is Asanyami only. In Siddhant he is called as inferior to Asanyat and DeshSanyat SamyakDrishti since they have 4^th and 5^th Gunastana and this Dravya Lingi has just first gunasthana only.

Here someone says- Asanyat-DeshSanyat has significant activities of Kashaya while DravyaLingi Muni has much less; for this reason the Asanyat-DeshSanyat SamyakDrishti go upto 16^th Swarga while DravyaLingi goes upto last Graveyak . Hence compared to BhavaLingi Muni the Dravya Lingi may be called inferior but how can he be called inferior to Asanyat-DeshSanyat Samyak Drishti ?

Its reply- Though the Asanyat-DeshSanyat SamyakDrishti have activities of Kashaya but in Shraddhan there is no intent of engaging in any Kashaya. The Dravya Lingi has intent of engaging in Shubha Kashaya, in shraddhan he believes it to be beneficial ; hence from aspect of Shraddhan, his Kashaya is greater than that of Asanyat SamyakDrishti.

Although DravyaLingi has lot of activities pertaining to Shubha Yog and in Aghati karmas the difference of punya-pap bandh occurs in accordance with Shubha-ashubha Yog; hence he goes up to last Graveyak but it is of no use since Aghati Karmas are not harmful to Soul Gunas; with their fruition even if higher-lower state was attained, so what? They are disguises of the  worldly state in the form of external conjunctions; self is soul; hence the destruction of Ghati Karmas harmful to soul gunas is more effective.

The bandh of ghati karmas does not depend upon external activities; it is in accordance with internal Kashaya shakti. Hence compared to DravyaLingi the Asanyat-DeshSanyat Samyak Drishti has little bandh of Ghati Karmas. DravyaLingi has bandh of all Ghati Karmas with high duration-intensity while Asanyat-DeshSanyat Samyak Drishti does not have Mithyatva-Anantanubandhi etc. karmas at all; only remaining Prakriti are bonded which too are with little duration-intensity.

And DravyaLingi does not have GunaShreniNirjara at any time; SamyakDrishti has sometimes and DeshSanyat & SakalSanyat have continuously. For this reason he is MokshMargi while Dravya Lingi is declared inferior to Asanyat and DeshSanyat in the Shastra.

In SamaySar Shastra the inferiority of Dravya LIngi Muni has been revealed in Gatha-commentary and Kalash and in Panchastikaya commentary where only Vyavahara dependent Jiva has been described, there in spite of having Vyavahara five conducts he is declared as inferior only. In Pravachansar the Dravya Lingi is declared as worldy Tattva and in Paramatma Prakash etc. other shastras also this declaration is clarified and the activities of Vrita-Tapa-Sheel-Sanyam etc. of Dravya Lingi have been  told to be ineffective in these shastras. To avoid enlargement of granth it is not described here.

In this way the Mithya Drishtis dependent upon only VyavaharaBhas were described.

Continued…..