MokshaMargPrakashak …23

 

Vyavaharabhasi Mithya Drishti

Now the Mithyatva of JainaBhasi who are supporters of VyavaharaBhas side is described-

In Jinagam where the preachment is from aspect of primacy of Vyavahara, believing in that, they engage in shraddhan etc. of external means only. All parts of their dharma, being converse, attain Mithya Bhava; the same is detailed as follows-

There know this- With the engagement of Vyavahara dharma,  punya bandh accrues. Hence from  aspect of pap activities, it is not prohibited, but those jivas who are satisfied with Vyavahara activities only, and do not make effort towards the true Moksha Marga, to direct them towards Moksha Marga , that Shubha form Mithya activity is also described in negation form.

When such description is made- listening to that if you abandon Shubha activity and engage in ashubha , then it would harm you and if with real shraddhan, you engage in Moksha Marga then you would be benefited. Just as some patient, listening to prohibition of medicine without qualities, abandons the medicines itself and adopts bad diet,  then he would die, there is no fault of doctor in it. In the same way if some worldly jiva, listening to prohibition of punya form dharma, abandons the means of dharma and engages in sensory subjects-kashaya form then he would suffer Narak etc.; there is no fault of preacher. The intent of preacher is to make them relinquish the untrue shraddhan and engage towards Moksha Marga.

-          With such intent it is described here.

VyavaharaBhasi followers of Dharma from aspect of Kula

Several Jivas are Jaini due to Kula  sequence itself. They are not aware of the form of Jain Dharma but they practice in accordance with the practices of their Kula. Just as other faith followers engage in their Kula Dharma, in the same way these also engage. If the kula order itself  be dharma then Muslim etc. all  would be dharmatma; then what is the speciality of Jain Dharma? The same is told-

“ In the world this is the practice  that to some extent justice is not imparted based upon the knowledge of Kula. The one whose kula is that of thieves, if he is caught stealing, then knowing his Kula background he is not released; instead he is punished only. Then in the order of dharma of Trilok Prabhu Jinendra Deva, is it possible to get justice in accordance with the Kula background? “

In the same way if the father is poor and self is rich, then considering the order of kula, the self does not remain poor then what is the purpose of kula in dharma? If father goes to Narak and Son goes to Moksha, then how the Kula order was followed? If the Drishti is upon Kula then son also should go to Narak; hence in dharma there is no purpose of the consideration of Kula background.

Considering the meaning of the Shastras, if due to flaws of times, in Jina dharma also Papi people have introduced converse practices of serving KuGuru-Kudharma etc. and  nourishment of sensory subjects-kashayas etc., then renouncing them, it is appropriate to practice in accordance with Jina order.

Here someone says- Discarding the tradition, it is not right to proceed on new path?

He is told- If with own buddhi he follows a new path then it is not right. The form of eternal Jain dharma which has been described in shastras traditionally, eliminating those practices the Papi people have introduced converse practices in between, then how can it be called traditional path? And by giving it up and following the form of Jina dharma as described in traditional Jain shastras, it cannot be called as new path.

If in Kula the practices are in accordance with  the order of Jina deva , then it is right for us also to practice the same way. But that should not be treated as Kula practices; knowing it to be dharma, deciding upon its form and result etc., it should be followed. If the true dharma also is practiced knowing it to be practice of Kula, then he is not called dharmatma, since if all people of Kula abandon it then he also would abandon it. The reason is  that whatever he practices, it is out of fear of Kula; not because of sense of dharma; hence he is not dharmatma.

Therefore in marriage etc. activities pertaining to Kula, the order of kula should be considered , but in dharma related activities, the kula should not be considered. The dharma path which is true , that only should be followed.

VyavaharaBhasi following dharma in accordance with the order without examining

There several Jains practice in accordance with the order- the way it has been ordered in shastras, they accept it but do not examine that order. If following order only be dharma then all people having  different faiths, following the orders of their own shastras would become dharmatma; hence by examining, realising the truth of Jina words, it is appropriate to follow Jina order.

Without examining , how can the true-untrue be decided? And without deciding , just as other faith people accept order of their shastras; in the same way he has followed the order of Jain Shastras- that becomes  following the order by taking sides.

Someone says- In shastras, out of ten types of Samyaktva, one is AgyaSamyaktva  and in the divisions of Dharma Dhyan one is called AgyaVichaya. In the  NihShankit Ang the doubt in Jina words has been prohibited; how is that ?

Its reply- In shastras there are several statements which can be examined by direct, inference etc. and several statements are such, which are not visible to direct, inference etc. Hence they are praman by order only. There in different shastras the statements which are similar, it is not purposeful to examine them, but those statements which are mutually converse, out of them the statements which are visible to Pratyaksha, Anuman etc., they should be examined.

There in the shastras which have been established as Praman, in those shastras the statements which are not visible to Pratyaksha or Anuman, they also can be accepted as Praman. But in the shastras which have not been established as Praman, their all statements should be considered as non-praman.

There someone says- Upon examination some statement in some shastra appears as Praman and some other statement appears as  Praman in some other shastra, then what to do?

Its answer- Those shastras which are narrated by Aapt, in them any statement is not against Praman, since if knowledge is not there or due to raga-dwesha only someone  may tell untruth, but Aapt are not such; hence you did not examine properly; therefore it is delusion.

Then he says- If the examination by Chhadmastha is erroneous then what to do?

Its answer- The true-untrue both things are mutually compared and examined abandoning pramad, then the examination is right. Where due to partiality the examination is not proper, there only the examination is unfair.

Then he says- In shastras there are several converse statements, what all can be examined?

Its answer- In  Moksha Marga Deva-Guru-Dharma, Jivas etc. Tattvas and bandh-moksha marg, are meaningful hence they should be examined. In those shastras where these are described truly, their all orders can be followed; and where these are described conversely, their orders should not be followed.

For example- in the Lok the person who does not lie in meaningful activities, why would he lie in non meaningful activities? In the same way, in the shastra in which the form of meaningful Devas etc. is not told conversely, how can  the description of island-ocean etc. be differently there? Since with converse description of Devas etc. the sensory subjects-kashaya of speaker are nourished.

Here question- The converse description of Devas etc. is done out of sensory subjects-kashaya etc., but in the same shastras why the other descriptions are made wrongly?

Its answer- If only one description is wrong then their wrongness is immediately revealed and different style does not get established; hence with several statements being different, different style can be  established. There the ones with weak intellect get confused that this is also followed and that is also followed. Hence for establishing the differentness of  meaningful, several non meaningful statements have been made differently.

For giving confidence several statements have been made true also but the wise one would not get confused. With examination of meaningful statements, where truth is revealed, all orders of that faith should be followed. 

Hence upon examination the Jain faith only appears to be true; not others, since its speaker is Veetrag omniscient; why  would he lie?

In this way by accepting Jina order, the true shraddhan is called as Agya Samyaktva  and the concentrated contemplation there only is named as AgyaVichaya Dharma Dhyan.

If this is not believed thus and if by accepting order without examination, samyaktva and dharma dhyan are  attained then those Dravya Lingi who became Muni by accepting order, they go upto Graveyak by means of following order, how did they remain Mithya Drishti?

Hence with some examination only, by accepting order Samyaktva and Dharma Dhyan are attained. In Lok also people accept something after examination only.

There you said- By having doubts in Jina words, it causes a doubt form flaw in samyaktva. But it is not clear that what is its form- believing thus if he does not take decision, then only it causes doubt form flaw. If by taking decision itself causes flaw in Samyaktva then in Ashta Sahasri ‘ the one having attitude of examination is superior to one having acceptance of order’ would not have been told. Why questioning etc. are described as the divisions of swadhyaya ? Why the preachment is given to decide upon the substances by means of praman-naya? Hence accepting order after examination is better.

There several papi people have made imaginary narrations and described them as Jina words, do not accept them as Praman considering them as shastras of Jain faith. There also after examination with Praman etc. and matching with other shastras etc. and ‘is it possible or not’ – with such consideration , ‘ converse meaning is Mithya only’ – know thus.

Just as some cheat wrote the letter himself in which he gave the name of writer as some businessman  and out of delusion of that name, someone is cheated then he becomes poor. In the same way the papi people, by creating Granth themselves have given the name of the author as ‘Jina-Ganadhar-Acharya’ , and with the delusion of that name, someone accepts false shraddhan then he becomes Mithya Drishti only.

Then he says- In Gommatsar it has been told that ‘if Samyak Drishti jiva , with the nimitta of ignorant Guru believes in false shraddhan, then by virtue of accepting order, he is Samyak Drishti only’; how this statement was made?

Its clarification- What is not directly visible, or acceptable by inference etc., which cannot be decided on account of its being sookshma; with respect to them only this statement is made. But by having converse shraddhan pertaining to primary Deva-Guru-Dharma etc. and Tattvas etc. the samyaktva does not remain at all- this should be realised; hence without examination, the Jainis who are accepting only by order should be known as Mithya Drishti only.

There several get to be Jaini after examination but they do not examine the primary subject. Believing Jina faith to be supreme and with hope of gaining desired by means of Jina dharma, impressed by activities of compassion, morality, tapa, sanyam etc. and deeds of pooja-prabhavana , miracles etc., they become Jaini but in other faiths also these deeds are seen; hence in these characteristics the AtiVyapti ( over pervasiveness) flaw exists.

Someone says- The types of deeds which are carried out in Jina dharma are not seen in other faiths; hence the AtiVyapti flaw is not there?

Its clarification- Although it is truly so, but the way you accept compassion etc., they also describe the same way. The protection of other jivas is called as compassion by you, they also say the same; the other things also should be known in the same way.

Then he says- They do not have decision since sometimes they propound compassion and sometimes they propound Himsa.

Its reply- There some part of compassion was present; hence it results in AtiVyapti – in these characteristics; by this means the right examination is not carried out.

Then how is it carried out? –

Its reply- In Jina dharma the Moksha Marga is said to be Samyak Darshan-Gyan-Charitra form. There with shraddhan of true Deva and Jivas etc. Samyaktva is attained; by knowing them Samyak Gyan is attained  and with elimination of ragas etc. in reality Samyak Charitra is attained.

-          The description of their forms have been carried out in Jina faith , such description has not been made elsewhere and except for Jains , other faiths cannot carry out such deed; hence this is the true characteristics of Jina faith – recognising this characteristics those who examine, they only are true shraddhani; and those who examine in other ways, they remain Mithya Drishti.

There several adopt Jain Dharma due to company ; several accept Jain dharma after observing other great people following Jain dharma ; several engage in Shuddha or ashuddha activities of Jina Dharma upon observing others, thus the jivas without considering themselves do not recognise the mystery of Jina dharma and adopt Jaini name, they should all be known to be Mithya Drishti.

This much is there- In Jina faith the activities of Pap cannot be specifically there and nimitta for punya are several and the reasons for true Moksha Marga are present there anyway; hence even from aspect of Kula etc. those who are Jainis, they are anyway better than others.

Dharma follower VyavaharaBhasi with worldly objectives

There those Jivas, who out of deceit for the sake of livelihood or for fame  or some objectives of sensory subjects- kashaya , become Jaini, they are anyway Papi. With highly intense Kashaya they have such buddhi, which cannot be resolved. The practice of Jain dharma is done for destruction of worldly stay ; those who wish to serve the worldly objectives by this, they indulge in treachery; hence they are Mithya Drishti only.

Here someone says- The deeds which are carried out by Himsa etc., the same deeds are carried out now by means of dharma practice then what is wrong? Both objectives are served.

He is told- With same means of the Pap activity and Dharma activity, it results in pap only.

For example- someone constructs Chaityalaya as means for dharma and the same is used for enjoying women  etc. paps, then he is Papi only; for enjoyments with Himsa etc. if he constructs the house separately then let him make, but using chaityalaya for enjoyments is not appropriate.

In the same way the means for dharma are pooja, shastra etc.; if they are made means for  livelihood etc. also then he is papi only. With Himsa for livelihood if he engages in business etc. then let him, but in activities of pooja etc. the objective of livelihood etc. is not appropriate.

Here question – If it is so, then even Munis for dharma practice take food in other’s house and Co-followers carries out benefaction of other co-followers , how is that accepted?

Its reply- The dharma practice is not from aspect of livelihood etc. for self; knowing them to  be dharmatma, someone himself provide food , benefaction etc. then there is no harm. If himself with objective of food etc. practices dharma then he is Papi only.

Those who out of detachment adopt Munihood, they do not have objective of food etc. For maintaining the body if someone himself provides food then they accept ; otherwise they keep equanimity , and do not get perturbed. They practice dharma for their own benefit; they do not have objective of making others do benevolence and the things which are not renounced, those only are provided by them.

Some co-follower himself engages in benevolence, then let it be and if he does not do then the self is not perturbed – this is proper but if himself from aspect of livelihood practices external dharma and if someone does not do benefaction of food etc., then indulges in perturbation and begs and makes some efforts or becomes careless in dharma practice then he should be known as Papi.

In this way those who practice dharma with worldly objective, they are Papi as well as Mithya Drishti.

In this way know such Jina faith followers also as Mithya Drishti.

The common practices of those VyavaharaBhasi Dharma Practitioners

Now, how do they practice Dharma, its specifics are described-

There those jivas who out of Kula practices or by seeing each other or out of greed etc. practice dharma , they actually do not have dharma Drishti.

If they perform Bhakti, then mind is elsewhere, the eyes are roaming and with lips they are engaged in recital and do Namaskar etc. but this is not right. Who am I? Whom do I worship? With which objective I do stuti? What is the meaning of recital? – nothing is known.

Sometimes he starts serving Kudeva etc. also , there he does not recognise the difference between SuDeva-Guru-Shastra etc. and KuDeva-Guru-Shastra etc.

If he gives Daan(charity), it is  without consideration of suitable- unsuitable recipient, the way it leads to his praise, he gives Daan accordingly.

And if he does Tapa then ‘by being hungry the Mahanthood is attained’ – such deeds are carried out; there is no consideration of manifestations.

And accepts Vrita etc. then there is Drishti upon the external activity, in them also he does some true activity and some false activity  and there is no consideration of internal ragas etc. bhavas and externally he arranges for nourishment of ragas etc.

And if he engages in Pooja Prabhavana etc. activities then the way he gets fame in Lok and sensory subjects-kashaya are serviced, such deeds are carried out and generates lot of Himsa.

-          These activities have been told to improve the manifestations of self and other jivas. Although  here also certain amount of Himsa is generated, even then where fault is minimal and benefit is more, those deeds have been suggested. But there is no idea about the results that how much harm is accrued , and how much benefit is accrued – thus there is no knowledge of loss-profit  and there is no knowledge of procedure- duration etc.

If he practices Shastras then he proceeds mechanically- if he speaks then he narrates it to others ;  if he reads then himself pronounces it; if he listens then what is being told he hears but the purpose of shastra practice is not absorbed within self. Thus he does not recognise the essence of dharma activities.

Or just as the seniors in the Kula engage, we should also do the same or since others do it then the same we should do or by doing thus our greed etc. would be served, with such ideas they practice unreal dharma.

Or, there are several jivas who have buddhi of the form of Kula and some have Dharma Buddhi also; hence they practice dharma as described above and some improve their manifestations as described later; thus mixed results are seen.

Dharma practitioner VyavaharaBhasi with  Dharma Buddhi

There several people practice dharma with Dharma Buddhi but they do not know the Nishchaya Dharma; hence they practice unreal form dharma. There knowing Vyavahara Samyak Darshan-Gyan-Charitra as Moksha Marg, they practice it-

Continued…..

MokshaMargPrakashak …22

 

The attitude of the Jiva supporting only NishchayaBhas

Now the tendency of the Jiva engaged in supporting only Nishchaya Bhas is narrated-

With knowing one shuddhatma only, one gets to be Gyani; nothing else is required- knowing this, sitting in isolation in dhyan posture, “ I am soul  completely free of karma afflictions, like that of Siddha”, with such thoughts he is satisfied – but how such  adjectives are possible- such consideration is not there. Or with immobile, indivisible, incomparable adjectives , he contemplates of soul but these adjectives are possible in other dravyas also and in which aspect these adjectives are possible? - That is not considered. And every time sleeping -sitting in whichever state- with such considerations, he believes self to be Gyani.

And ‘Gyani does not have Asrava-Bandh’ – this is told in Agam; hence whenever he manifests in  sensory desires- Kashaya form, there he does not have fear of bondage; being promiscuous manifests in ragas etc. form. But the indication  of knowing self and others is detachment bhava, the same is told is Samaysar-

“ This Samyak Drishti for sure has ‘Gyan vairagya shakti’.”  And then-

“ ‘ Automatically since I am SamyakDrishti, hence I do not have any bandh’ – thus one who has inflated  attitude- if such  Ragi , conducts without detachment then do so , or take support of carefulness of five samiti, then take thus, since without Gyan Shakti, they are still Papi- without knowledge of both soul and non-soul, thus they are devoid of Samyaktva only. “

Then he is asked- When other is known as other then what is the objective in engaging in raga etc, in other dravyas ?

There he says- With fruition of Moha ragas etc. occur; in past period Bharat etc. Gyani were there , they too had activities of sensory subjects- Kashaya form also, it is thus learnt.

Its reply- Ragas etc. occur to Gyani also due to fruition of Moha – this is true but they do not have ragas etc. knowingly; it would be specifically described later.

There the one who does not have any regret for having ragas etc. and there are no means for their destruction; for him ‘the ragas etc. are bad’ – such shraddhan also appears impossible and without such shraddhan , how does he become Samyak Drishti ? The objective of shraddhan of Jiva-Ajiva tattvas is to have this shraddhan only.

And the way the tendency of Bharat etc. SamyakDrishtis in sensory subjects and Kashayas occur, that would also be described specifically later. If you become promiscuous with their example then you shall accrue strong asrava-bandh.

The same is told –

“ In spite of observing gyan naya , those who become promiscuous and less careful, they sink in  the worldly ocean.”

And there(samaysar)  in different Kalash, the promiscuity is negated  and the deed which is carried out without desire , that is not cause of karma bondage – with such belief, if one engages being karta and remaining  knower – this is not valid, etc. have been described.

Hence knowing ragas etc. to be bad- non beneficial , keep making efforts for their destruction. There sequentially firstly abandoning strong ragas etc.; giving up ashubha activities, engaging in  Shubha and later for giving up weak ragas etc. abandoning Shubha, engage in shuddhopayoga form .

Several  jivas , knowing the ashubha be misery causing, reduce the business etc. activity and wife enjoyments etc, activities and knowing Shubha to be deplorable, do not engage in shastra practice etc. and have not attained veetraga bhava form shuddhopayoga either; hence those jivas , being free of arth-kaam-dharma-moksha  form purushartha , they become lazy and inactive. They have been criticized in Panchastikaya by means of example-

“ Just as by eating lots of sugar, person becomes lazy and just as a tree is inactive; in the same way those jivas have become lazy and inactive.”

Now they are asked- Externally you reduced Shubha-ashubha activities, but Upayoga does not remain without support , then where does your Upayoga get engaged? Tell so.

If he says- it contemplates of soul?

Then he is asked- Contemplation of soul by means of shastras etc. you have called as Vikalpa and it does not take long to know any attribute of soul ; in the concentrated form contemplation the Chhadmastha cannot spend much time. The Upayoga of Ganadhar etc. also does not remain thus ; hence they also engage in shastra etc. activities. Then how to accept your Upayoga being more Shuddha than Ganadhar etc.? Hence your statement is not Praman.

Just as – some lazy businessman being inactive wastes his time which ever way; in the same way being Pramadi, being inactive in dharma you waste your time. Sometimes you contemplate something , talk something, sometimes take food etc. but for purifying the Upayoga do not engage in Shastra practice, Tapa, Bhakti etc. activities; being Pramadi , naming it ‘Shuddhopayoga’, with little hardship, just as being lazy someone enjoys lying down ; he also enjoys it.

Of just as- someone believing self to be king in the dreams feels happy; in the same way under delusion, believing self to be Shuddha like Siddha, feels happy himself. Or, just as somewhere believing ‘Rati’(pleasure) he feels happy, in the same way in with some thoughts believing  ‘ rati’ he feels happy. He calls it ‘ pleasure generated by experience’. Somewhere believing ‘Arati’ he feels sad; in the same way believing business, son etc. to be cause for sorrow, he remains aloof with respect to them and with that he believes detachment. But such Gyan-Vairagya is Kashaya based. The veetrag form which is perturbation free in detached state that is true anand-gyan-vairagya ,  which is revealed to gyani jiva upon attaining weakness of charitra Moha.

There abandoning business etc. hardships he manifests happily with food etc. and believes self to be free of Kashaya, but with this kind of happiness it results in Raudra Dhyan. Where by renunciation  of materials of happiness, upon conjunction of materials of unhappiness, the perturbation is not there, raga-dwesha is not generated, then only he manifests in Kashaya free form- such delusion form attitude is prevalent with them.

In this way those jivas who are dependent upon only NishchayaBhas, they should be known as Mithya Drishti.

Just as – The Vedant and Samkhya followers jivas are shraddhani of only Shuddhatma; they should also be known in the same way since due to similarity of shraddhan, ‘ their preachment appears pleasant to these and preachment of these appears pleasant to them.’

Those jivas have such shraddhan – with contemplation of only shuddhatma samvar, nirjara are attained and part of bliss of liberated soul is revealed there while with contemplation of ashuddha bhavas of gunasthana etc. of jiva and with  contemplation of jiva -pudgala without own self results in asrava bandh ; hence they keep away from other thoughts.

-          This also is not true shraddhan, since with contemplation of Shuddha own dravya or contemplation of others; if bhavas are with veetragata, then there is samvar-nirjara only and where ragas etc. form bhavas are there , there asrava-bandh only are there. If just knowledge of other dravyas result in asrava-bandh then Kevali knows all other dravyas; hence they would also have asrava – bandh.

Then he says – Chhadmastha upon contemplation of other dravyas accrues asrava-bandh with ragas etc.

-          This is also not so. Since ‘ In Shukla Dhyan Munis have contemplation of six dravyas, and dravya-guna-paryaya  and in avadhi manah-paryay gyan the speciality is that of knowing other dravya only. ‘

There in fourth gunasthana someone contemplates of own nature, they also have more of asrava-bandh and guna shreni nirjara is not there ; in 5^th ,6^th gunasthana with activities of food-travel etc. and with  contemplation of other dravyas, the asrava-bandh is limited and guna shreni nirjara keeps occurring ; hence with contemplation of own dravya-other dravya , nirjara-bandh do not occur ; with reduction of ragas etc. nirjara occurs and with ragas etc. bandh occurs. He does not have right gyan of the nature of ragas etc. ; hence he believes other way.

There he enquires- If it is so then in Nirvikalpa experience state the vikalpas of naya-praman-nikshep etc. and those of darshan-gyan etc. have also been prohibited, how is that?

Its reply- Those jivas, who remain engaged in these vikalpas and do not experience one undifferentiated soul, they have been preached thus-

“ all these viklapas  are means for attaining nishchaya of substance. Upon attaining Nishchaya of substance, they do not serve any purpose; hence abandoning these vikalpas also, experience one undifferentiated soul; it is not right to remain trapped in the contemplation form vikalpas.”

After attaining Nishchaya of thing, it is not so that only samanya form own dravya is contemplated always. There own dravya and other dravyas are known in samanya and vishesh forms but it is  along with veetragata ; that only is named as ‘Nirvikalpa state’.

Then he asks – Here there are many vikalpas, how can they be called ‘Nirvikalpa’?

Its reply- Nirvikalpa does not mean free of thoughts since the knowledge of chhadmastha is along with thoughts , by believing its absence the gyan would become absent , then  he would be insentient , which is not possible for soul; hence thoughts always remain.

If you say- Only one samanya is thought about and not Vishesh ?

Then its reply- the thoughts of samanya cannot be there for long and without consideration of vishesh , the form of samanya does not get realised. 

If you say- The thought are that of self only and not that of others?

Then its reply- without having buddhi of others being others, how can there be buddhi of self being self?

There he says- In Samaysar it is told-

“ This differentiating knowledge should be practiced continuously till abandoning  others the gyan becomes stationary within gyan ; hence with loss of differentiating knowledge the knowledge of others gets eliminated; one continues to know self only.”

Look! Here this also has been told- Earlier he knew self-others as one , later for knowing them as different , bhedavigyan ( differentiating knowledge) should be practiced  till the gyan knowing the other’s form as different, becomes stationary in own gyan nature. Later there is no purpose of engaging in bhedavigyan ; automatically other is known as others and self as self – it is not so that the knowledge of other dravya itself gets eliminated.

 Hence the name of knowing other dravya or vishesh of own dravya is not vikalpa.

Then how is it? That is told- Engaging Upayoga in knowing a Gyeya out of raga-dwesha and preventing it to know some gyeya; in this way making Upayoga wander again and again, that is called Vikalpa. And where being Veetraga form knows something , then it is known really ; do not make upayoga wander for knowing different gyeya ; there the state is nirvikalpa.

Here someone says- The Upayoga of chhadmastha keeps wandering in different gyeyas, how nirvikalpa-ness is possible there?

Its reply- The time for which it remains in knowing one form , till then it is named as Nirvikalpa . In Siddhant the characteristics of Dhyan is described as follows-

“ The contemplation of one thing primarily and stoppage of other thoughts  is named as Dhyan”

In commentary of Sarvartha Siddhi it has been  told specifically that if stoppage of all thoughts is named as Dhyan  then one would become insentient. There this too is implied that from aspect of progeny, different gyeyas are also known  but so long as Veetragata remains; the upayoga is not wandered in ragas etc. , till then it is called Nirvikalpa state.

Then he says – If it is so then why the preachment has been given to engage the Upayoga in own form abandoning other dravya ?

Its reply- The other dravyas are cause for Shubha-ashubha bhavas, and by engaging Upayoga in them the raga-dwesha only are encountered and  by contemplation of own nature, the raga-dwesha are subdued- such lower state jivas have been preached in this manner.

Just as- some woman out of bhava of corruption was going to other’s house, she was  told not to go to other’s house, stay home , but the woman who goes to other’s house with uncorrupted bhava and engages accordingly then there is no harm; in the same way the Upayoga form manifestation used to manifest in other dravyas with raga-dwesha bhavas, it was told not to manifest in other dravyas; remain engaged in own dravya, but the upayoga form manifestation which manifests properly knowing the other dravya with veetraga bhava , then there is no harm.

Then he says- If it is so then why MahaMunis renounce the contemplation of possessions etc.

Its reply- Just as- uncorrupted woman renounces other houses which are cause of Kusheel; in the same way the Veetraga manifestation renounces the other dravya which are cause of raga-dwesha  and those which are not cause for adulteration – there is no renunciation of going into those houses; in the same way those which are not cause of raga-dwesha – there is no renunciation of knowing such other dravyas.

Then he says- Just as – The woman who goes to house of father etc. due to some reason , then let her go , it is not proper to go to whichever house without purpose; in the same way contemplate of the seven tattvas knowing the objective of manifestation; without objective the contemplation of gunasthana etc. is not right.

Its reply- Just as the wife, with objective goes to father’s and friend’s houses, in the same way the  manifestation knows gunasthana  etc. and karmas etc. due to knowledge of  tattvas specifically.

There know thus- Just as virtuous wife does not go intentionally  to the house of lusting people ; if per chance the going occurs  and she does not engage in immorality then the woman is virtuous only. In the same way the Veetrag manifestation intentionally should  not engage in other dravyas cause of ragas etc. ; if per chance on its own they get to be known, then if it does not engage in ragas etc. then manifestation is Shuddha only. There Munis upon encountering hardship of women etc. , do not know them at all and knowledge of own nature only remains- such belief is Mithya . They know them but do not engage in ragas etc.

In this way in spite of knowing other dravya also , veetraga bhava is possible- have such shraddhan.

Then he says- if it is so then how is it told in shastra that ‘ Shraddhan -gyan -acharan of soul is Samyak darshan-gyan -charitra.?’

Its reply- Since eternal times the shraddhan-gyan-acharan was of oneness in other dravya, to relinquish it this preachment is given. With the shraddhan-gyan-acharan of self within self , the shraddhan-gyan-acharan of manifesting in other dravya in raga-dwesha form gets eliminated , then Samyak Darshan etc. are attained. If the Samyak darshan etc. are not attained by shraddhan of other dravya in other dravya form, then even Kevali would not have it. Where other dravya is known  as bad and own dravya is known as good then raga-dwesha have occurred automatically. Where self is known as own form and other are known as other form really and manifests in shraddhan etc.  form accordingly then only Samyak darshan etc. are attained – know this.

Hence what more can we say- the shraddhan of eliminating raga etc. only is Samyak darshan; the way the knowledge of eliminating ragas etc. is attained, that knowledge only is Samyak Gyan and the acharan by which ragas etc. are eliminated is Samyak Charitra- Knowing such Moksha Marg only is right.

In this way supporters of Ekant side with appearance of Nishchaya naya- the Mithyatva of such JainaBhas was described.

Continued…..

MokshaMargPrakashak …21

 

Promiscuity of NishchayaBhasi and its Negation

There is no consideration  that ‘ In Moksha Marga the shraddhan-gyan-acharan is done for elimination of ragas etc.’ ; by own  Shuddha experience, believing self to be Samyak Drishti , negates all other practices.

“Practicing Shastras’ is told as useless; ‘ contemplation of dravya etc. and gunasthana-margana-trilok etc. ‘ are called as Vikalpa ; ‘Doing Tapa is termed as unnecessary hardship’ ; ‘ practicing Vrita etc. are called as bondage’ ; ‘poojan etc. activities are despicable being Shubha asrava’; thus negating all practices, manifests in   Pramad form.

‘If shastra practices are useless’ then even the Munis also have two main activities- dhyan and studies. When the Upayoga is not engaged in Dhyan then it is directed towards Studies; elsewhere it is not suitable to engage Upayoga. By practice of Shastras with knowledge of Tattvas specifically, the Samyak Darshan-Gyan gets purified and there so long as Upayoga is engaged, till then Kashaya weakens and future Veetrag bhavas get enhanced- hence how can such activity be considered as useless?

There he says- Those shastras where there is  ‘preachment of Adhyatma’, they should be practiced ; with practice of other shastras there is no gain.

He is told- If you have the right Drishti then all Jain shastras are meaningful.  There, primarily in Adhyatma Shastras the description is that of soul nature; hence upon gaining Samyak darshan the decision of Soul nature has been made, now for purity of gyan and keeping Upayoga in weak Kashaya form, the practice of other shastras is primary. Further for keeping the decision of form of soul nature clear, the practice of other Adhyatma shastras should be done, but there should not be disinterest in other shastras; those who have disinterest in other shastras , they do not have real interest in Adhyatma.

For example- The one who is obsessed with sensory pleasures, he listens to the stories of the people obsessed with sensory pleasures with interest, learns the specifics of the sensory subjects and those means which are used for conduct of sensory pleasures, them also he accepts as beneficial and recognises the nature of sensory subjects also . In the same way the one who is interested in soul, he should know the Puranas of the Tirthankaras etc. who were interested in soul; for knowing soul further he should know the Gunasthana etc. also and for conduct of soul, the means of Vrita etc. also should be known as beneficial and thus he knows the nature of soul also ; thus all four Anuyogas are meaningful. 

And for knowing it clearly, the grammar-logic shastras also should be known; hence within own capability it is worthwhile to do little or more practice of all.

Then he says – In ‘ Padmanandi Pacchisi ‘ it is told that ‘ the Buddhi that wanders in the external shastras abandoning soul nature , that is adulterer.’

Its reply- This is also true . Since Buddhi belongs to soul and abandoning it, if it is engaged in other dravya form shastras, then it is called as adulterer only. Just as- the wife remains virtuous then it is right only and if abandoning good husband, if she enjoys with other person then she is extremely despicable. In the same way if the buddhi engages in soul nature then it is right only and if it cannot be continued then abandoning Shubha shastras etc. form other dravyas , engages in ashubha sensory pleasures etc. then it is highly deplorable. But buddhi of even the Munis also cannot remain within own nature for long then how can you engage it?

Hence engaging in Shstra practice is suitable.

There you call the consideration of Dravya etc. and Gunasthana etc. as Vikalpa , so surely they are vikalpa but if upayoga does not remain Nirvikalpa , and even these vikalpas are also abandoned then the other vikalpas  which occur are highly raga form. The Nirvikalpa state does not remain for ever since the upayoga of Chhadmastha remains in one form at the most for AntarMuhurta only.

If you say- I shall carry out contemplation of soul nature in different ways.

He is told- In Samanya contemplation there are not many types and if you engage in Vishesh ( specific) then it would lead to consideration of dravya-guna-paryaya, gunasthana-margana, shuddha-ashuddha states etc. only.

And Lisen! Only with soul knowledge Moksha Marga is not attained; with shraddhan-gyan  of seven tattvas and by eliminating ragas etc. ‘Moksha Marga’ is attained; hence for knowing the seven  tattvas specifically, specifics of Jiva-Ajiva, specifics of asrava-bandh etc. of karmas, they should be learnt by which Samyak darshan-Gyan is attained, and later ragas etc. should be eliminated. In this way by abandoning the causes of enhancement of ragas etc., the upayoga should be applied towards the  means for reduction of ragas etc.

The considerations of dravyas etc. and gunasthanas etc. are means for reducing ragas etc. , none of them are  nimitta for its enhancement; hence after attaining Samyak Darshan the upayoga should be engaged there only.

Then he says – those which are means for reducing ragas etc. , the Upayoga should be engaged there but how are considerations of gati etc. of jivas of Trilok, specifics of bandh-uday-satta of karmas and knowing shape-size etc. of Trilok meaningful?

Its reply- By their consideration also the ragas etc. do not increase since those subjects of knowledge are not desirable-undesirable form ; hence they are not cause for present ragas etc. By knowing them specifically the Tattva Gyan purifies ; hence it is means for reducing future ragas etc.; there it is meaningful.

Then he says- The heaven-hell etc. get known , there the raga-dwesha occurs?

Its answer- Gyani does not have such spirit; agyani does have thus; but by abandoning pap activities it is directed towards punya deeds; hence in some respect ragas are reduced only.

Then he says- It is the preachment of shastras that limited knowledge of  meaningful subjects is sufficient; hence why should we engage in vikalpa of knowing more?

Its reply- Those Jivas who know other things a lot while they do not know the meaningful at all, or those who do not have capability of knowing more, they have been preached thus. But those who have lot of capability of knowing more, they have  not been told that by knowing more you would be harmed. The more they know, the more meaningful it would be and it would become pure, since in shastra it has been told-

“ Compared to the samanya shastra, the specific is powerful; with specifics only the decision is taken properly ; hence knowing specifics is worthwhile.”

There he calls Tapa as unnecessary hardships but after being Moksha Margi the manifestation has to be opposite to that of worldly jivas. The worldly people have raga-dwesha with desired-undesired materials, he should not have raga-dwesha.

For giving up raga he renounces desired materials food etc. and for renouncing dwesha, he accepts undesired materials fasting etc. In independent form with such practice, in spite of attainment of desired-undesired materials dependent upon others, he should not have raga-dwesha but you have dwesha with fasting etc.; hence you called it hardship.

When such hardship was present,  then taking food automatically is sukh and there raga accrued, but such manifestations occurs to worldly people only, what did you do being Moksha Margi?

If you say- So many Samyak Drishtis also do not engage in tapa.

Its reply- For specific reason they cannot do Tapa, but in shraddhan know the tapa to be good and desire to practice it. You have shraddhan that doing tapa is hardship and you make no efforts towards it; hence how do you attain Samyak darshan?

Then he says- In shastra it is told that if you wish to do  hardship of tapa etc. then do it but there is no success without Gyan.

Its reply- Those Jivas who are contrary to TattvaGyan and  believe Moksha by tapa alone, they have been preached in this way that without Tattva gyan , with tapa alone Moksha Marga is not attained and upon gaining Tattva Gyan, for eliminating ragas etc. there is no prohibition of Tapa. If it were prohibited then why would ganadhara etc. do Tapa? Hence depending upon capability, doing Tapa is worthwhile.

There he considers the Vrita etc. to be bondage but the promiscuity was there in agyan state itself; upon attainment of Gyan , it  prevents  manifestation only ( pertaining to other dravya) . Hence for preventing that manifestation, he should surely be relinquisher of external Himsa etc form reasons.

Then he says – ‘ Our manifestations are shuddha; if external renunciation is not done, it does not matter.’

Its reply- If these Himsa etc. form deeds occur on their own without your manifestations , then we shall accept it , but if you act according to your manifestation, then how can we call your manifestations as Shuddha? How can the  activity of sensory enjoyments or Pramad form travel etc. activities occur without manifestations? Those activities you yourself carried out with efforts but the Himsa etc. which is entailed there, you do not count, and believe the manifestations to be Shuddha. But with such belief your manifestations shall remain ashuddha only.

Then he says- Prevent the manifestations, reduce the external Himsa etc. also, but in taking vow there is bondage ; hence do not accept vow form Vrita?

Its answer- The activity which  is possible to be carried out , for that vow is not taken  and with possibility being there, the raga also is there. On account of that raga bhava,  without doing the act on account of Avirati, karma bandh accrues, hence the vow should surely be taken. Without bondage of the rule pertaining to the deed, how can the manifestation be prevented? With necessity such form manifestations  would surely occur and without necessity also its possibility remains; hence taking vow is appropriate.

Then he says- If some unknown form of fruition may happen and later the vow may be broken then great pap would accrue ; hence in accordance with destiny what ever happens, let is happen; but vikalpa of vow should not be taken.

Its answer- At the time of taking vow, that which cannot be fulfilled , such vow should not be taken; but if at the time of taking vow itself this attitude is there that upon necessity I would abandon it , then what is the use of such vow? At the time of taking vow, the manifestation should be such that even at the cost of life I shall not give it up- taking such vow only is appropriate. Without taking vow the bandh  pertaining to avirati does not get eliminated.

There if due to fear of future fruition , the vow is not undertaken then upon consideration of possible fruition all activities gets destroyed. For ex- One should eat that much only which he could digest. If due to food someone gets indigestion then with that fear if he gives up food then death only would result. In the same way, the vow should be taken in accordance with what can be fulfilled. Per chance someone had been  corrupted from the vow and with such fear one does not take vow then it is Asanyam only. Hence whichever  way it is possible, it is appropriate to take vow.

There, if “ according to destiny the deeds are done”, then why do you make efforts for eating  food etc? If you make efforts there then ‘ efforts can be made for renunciation  also’. When your state is like that of an idol then we shall consider it as destiny and not your deed; hence why do you give arguments in favour of promiscuity ? Hence whichever way possible, taking vows, accepting vrita is appropriate only.

And knowing the poojan etc. activities are Shubha asrava, he believes them to be deplorable- so this true only, but by renouncing these activities if he adopts shuddhopayoga form then it is good, but if he manifests in sensory subjects-kashaya form- ashubha forms then it is bad only. With shubhopayoga swarga etc. are attained or with good intents or right nimitta, the duration-intensity of karma are reduced then Samyaktva etc. can also be attained; while with ashubhopayoga the Narak-Nigod are attained or with bad intents or bad nimittas the duration-intensity of karma are enhanced then Samyaktva etc. would become more difficult to attain.

With Shubhopayoga the Kashaya weakens and with Ashubhopayoga it becomes strong ; hence abandoning activities of weak kashaya , engaging in strong Kashaya is like not eating bitter food but eating poison, but this is ignorance only.

There he says again- In shastra Shubha-ashubha have been called as equal; hence it is not important for us to know their difference?

Its answer- The jivas who, believing shubhopayoga as cause for Moksha, believe it to be venerable and do not recognise shuddhopayoga , they have been told  that from aspects of the  ashuddha nature , both Shubha-ashubha and from aspects of being cause for bondage, both are equal.  

And if Shubha-ashubha are mututally compared then in Shubha bhavas the Kashaya is weak , hence the bondage is  mild; while in ashubha bhavas the Kashaya is intense ; hence bandh is strong.

Considering this way, in Siddhant compared to ashubha, Shubha is also called as better. Just as any disease either less or more is harmful only, but compared to bigger disease the lesser disease is called superior; hence if Shuddhopayoga is not there ,  till then abandoning ashubha , manifesting in Shubha is suitable, manifesting in  ashubha abandoning Shubha is not right.

Then he says- For eliminating hunger etc. or desires etc., the ashubha activities cannot be prevented and then Shubha activity have to be undertaken by desiring so; Gyani does not want to desire, hence efforts for Shubha should not be undertaken? 

Its answer- By engaging Upayoga in Shubha activity and with their nimitta, by enhancement of detachment, the desires etc. become weaker and hardship in hunger etc. are also less; hence Shubhopayoga should be practiced. In spite of efforts if the desires etc. and hunger etc. cause suffering then for them small pap as required can be done , but abandoning shubhopayoga engaging in pap form with freedom is not appropriate.

And you say- Gyani does not wish to  desire and shubhopayoga is attained by desiring then – Just as some person does not want to donate any amount at all , but where lot of money is being lost, there with own  desire makes arrangement for giving some money; same way Gyani does not wish to engage in Kashaya form at all , but where lot of Kashaya form ashubha activities are likely to happen, there by desiring, he makes efforts for Shubha activity with low Kashaya form.

-          With this it establishes that ‘ where shuddhopayoga is seen to be possible, there the Shubha activity is prohibited, but where ashubhopayoga is seen to happen, there with efforts for Shubha , it should be carried out.

In this way with upliftment of Vyavahara activities, those who support the promiscuity are negated.

Continued…..

MokshaMargPrakashak …20

 

Seventh Chapter

Deliberation of Jain Mithya Drishtis

Those jivas who are Jains, follow Jina-order  and still have Mithyatva, they are described here since even a part of this Mithyatva enemy is bad ; hence even an iota of Mithyatva should be renounced.

In Jinagam , the description is in Nishchaya-Vyavahara form ; in them the reality is called ‘Nishchaya’ and Upachar is called ‘Vyavahara’ but without knowing their true nature, people  manifest contrarily. That is narrated  here-

NishchayaBhasi Mithya Drishti

Several Jivas without knowing Nishchaya, being shraddhani of NishchayaBhas, believe themselves to be MokshaMargi, experience own soul to be like that of Siddha, but explicitly they are worldly and out of delusion, believe themselves to be Siddha; that only is Mithya Drishti ( Mithya Darshan).

In the shastras the soul has been told to be like that of Siddha , that is from aspect of Dravya Drishti; from aspect of Paryaya it is not same as that of Siddha. Just as – king and pauper, from aspect of Manushya are same but from aspect of being king and pauper they are not same; in the same way the Siddha and worldly, from aspect of being Jiva are same but from aspect of being Siddha and worldly they are not same. Even so,  the way the Siddhas are Shuddha, they believe themselves to be Shuddha , but that is Shuddha-ashuddha state in paryaya form - from aspect of this paryaya the equality was believed; that only is Mithya Drishti (Mithya darshan).

There presence of Keval Gyan etc. are believed within self but in reality self is having Kshayopasham form Mati-Shruta etc. Gyan; the Kshayik Gyan is attained with destruction of karmas and they are believing presence of Kshayik Bhava without destruction of Karma; hence this only is Mithya Drishti (Mithya Darshan).

In Shastras all jivas are told to have Keval Gyan nature, that is told from aspect of Shakti (capability) since all Jivas have capability of attaining Keval Gyan etc. form; the present revelation is told based upon what has been  revealed so far.

Someone believes- Keval Gyan is present in the Pradesh of soul, but due to obscuration it does not get revealed, but this is delusion. If Keval Gyan is there then in spite of obscuration of wall of  Vajra also it would know the things ; how can it then be prevented by the karmas? Hence with the Nimitta of Karma, the Keval Gyan  is absent only. If it were always present then it would have been called Paarinamik Bhava, but this is Kshayik Bhava. “ All divisions are implicit within which – such Chaitanya Bhava  is Paarinamik bhava .” Its different states are Mati Gyan form and Keval Gyan etc. form but this is not Paarinamik Bhava ; hence Keval Gyan should not be believed to be present always.

In the Shastras there is example given of sun , from that this only should be derived- just as due to presence of clouds the illumination of sun is not visible; in the same way with the fruition of karma , keval gyan is not present. And such meaning should not be implied- just as sun is illuminated; in the same way the keval gyan is present in the soul since the example does not hold good from all aspects.

Just as in pudgala the colour is a guna , which has green-yellow etc.  states, there in present state with presence of a certain state, other states are absent; in the same way the soul has Chaitanya guna, which has states of Mati Gyan etc. forms, there with presence of certain state in present, other states are absent only.

Here someone says- The term ‘Avarana’ is used to denote the obscuration  of the thing; when keval gyan is not present then why do you call it Keval Gyanavarana?

Its reply- Here shakti is present, it is not being revealed – from this aspect the term ‘Avaran’ is used. Just as with absence of Desha Charitra, from aspect of destroying the shakti, ApratyaKhyanavarana Kashaya is told to be present; in the same way know here.

Know this- The bhava in the thing which occurs with the nimitta of others, they are named Aupadhik Bhava  and those bhavas which occur without nimitta of others are called Swabhava bhava.

Just as – water with the nimitta of fire became hot, hence there is absence of coldness, but with elimination of nimitta of fire the coldness returns; hence always the swabhava of water is said to be cold only since such shakti is always present and with its revelation ‘the swabhava was revealed’ – thus it is said. In the same way the soul with the nimitta of karma became other form, there Keval Gyan is absent only  but with the elimination of nimitta of karma it becomes Keval Gyan for ever. Hence at all times the swabhava of soul is said to be Keval Gyan since its has such shakti that upon its revelation ‘the swabhava gets revealed’- it is said.

Just as with swabhava of coldness, believing hot water to be cold, if someone drinks it then he would burn only; in the same way with swabahava of Keval Gyan, if Ashuddha soul is considered to be Keval Gyani then it would result in sorrow only.

In this way,  those who experience the soul to be Keval Gyan etc. form , they are Mithya Drishti.

In spite of explicit ragas etc. bhavas being present, out of delusion they believe the soul to be free of ragas etc.

They are asked- these ragas etc. are seen visibly to happen, their presence is in which dravya? If they are present  in body or karma form pudgala then these bhavas should be Achetan or corporeal, but these ragas etc. are visibly seen to be with Chetana  and non corporeal; hence these bhavas belong to soul only.

The same is told in Samaysar Kalash-

“ This ragas etc.  form  Bhava karma has not been done by anyone – it is not so since it is an activity. And it is not deed of both Jiva and Karma Prakriti also since if it were so, then the Achetan Karma Prakriti also should suffer the result of bhava karma in form of sukh-dukh which is impossible. And it is not deed of karma Prakriti alone also since its Achetan-ness is explicit; hence the karta of ragas etc. is Jiva only and these ragas etc. are karma of Jiva only since bhava karma follows in accordance with Chetana; without Chetana it does not happen and Pudgala is not sentient.

In this way the ragas etc. bhavas are existent in the Jiva only.

Now, those who believe themselves to be Akarta of ragas etc., believing the karma only to be nimitta of ragas etc. bhavas , they are karta themselves but being inactive they wish to remain in Pramad form ; hence they blame karma only,  but sadly this is a delusion.

Same is told in Samaysar Kalash-

“ Those jivas who believe other dravya only to be nimitta for the generation of ragas etc. , those jivas devoid of Shuddha gyan are blind – being such they cannot cross the river of Moha.”

In the Sarva Vishuddha Adhikar of Samaysar it is told- “ Those who believe the soul to be Akarta and says that karmas only awaken- make sleep , due to karma of other’s destruction form Himsa occurs, with Veda Karma Abramh occurs; hence karma only is karta “ – Such Jaini has been called Samkhya follower. Just as Samkhya follower believing soul  to be Shuddha becomes promiscuous ; in the same way he has also manifested.

With such shraddhan the following fault occurred- when ragas etc. are not known to be own then  self is believed to be Akarta, then there is no fear of ragas  and there is no effort for elimination of ragas etc. ; being promiscuous, bonding with bad karmas he transmigrates in infinite world.

Here question is that Samaysar also it has been told-

“ The colour etc. and ragas etc. bhavas are different from this soul”

And there only the ragas etc. are called pudgala form and in other shastras also soul is called different from ragas etc. but how is it?

Its reply- The ragas etc. bhavas are Aupadhik Bhava occurring with the nimitta of other dravya  and Jiva believes them to be his nature; the ones he believes them as own nature, how can he call them as bad? And why would he make efforts for their destruction? Hence such shraddhan is contrary; for renouncing them, from aspect of nature, ragas etc. are called different and from aspect of nimitta they  are called Pudgala form.

Just as the doctor wishes to eliminate the disease. If he sees more of coolness then he prescribes hot medicine and if he sees more of heat then he prescribes cool medicine. In the same way Shri Guru wishes the ragas etc. to be renounced ; If he becomes inactive being promiscuous believing ragas etc. to be others, then with primacy of Upadan cause, the ragas belong to soul- such shraddhan is imposed. And if believing ragas etc. to be own nature, he does not make effort for their destruction then the ragas etc. are other bhava from primacy of Nimitta cause- such shraddhan is inculcated.

-          Being free from both contrary shraddhan , when the true shraddhan occurs then he believes that ‘ these ragas etc. bhavas are not of the  nature of soul ; with the nimitta of karma they manifest in vibhava paryaya form in the soul ; with elimination of the nimitta, their destruction can be achieved and only swabhava bhava remains; hence make effort for their destruction.’

Here question is asked- If these occur due to nimitta of karma then so long as fruition of karma is there, till then how can those vibhava be destroyed? Hence making efforts for that is useless?

Its reply- For one deed to happen, several reasons are required; out of them the means which can be accomplished by means of buddhi, those he should accomplish  and if those means which  are not dependent upon  buddhi get accomplished themselves, then the deed gets accomplished.

For example- For getting a son, the means with buddhi is getting married etc. and means not dependent upon buddhi is bhavitavya (destiny) ; there the one desirous of son, makes effort for marriage etc. and if bhavitavya is accomplished on its own, then the son is attained.

In the same way for elimination of vibhava, the means with buddhi  are contemplation of Tattva etc. and means not dependent upon buddhi are upasham etc. of Moha karma ; hence the one desirous should make efforts for contemplation of Tattvas while if upasham etc. of Moha karma occur on their own , then raga etc. get eliminated.

Here this is asked- Just as marriage etc. are dependent upon Bhavitavya; in the same way Tattva contemplation etc. are also dependent upon kshayopasham etc. of karmas; hence making efforts is useless?

Its reply- The kshayopasham of gyanavarana suitable for Tattva contemplation has occurred to you; hence Upayoga has to be directed towards them. The Asangyi jivas do not have kshayopasham  hence efforts are not made to preach them .

Then he says- If destiny is there then Upayoga would be applied there; without destiny how can Upayoga be directed?

Its reply- If such is the shraddhan then do not make efforts for any activity. You make efforts for eating-drinking etc. but here you are dependent upon destiny; it appears that you do not have interest in it; out of pride etc. such false arguments are put up.

Hence those who believe the soul to be free of raga etc. in spite of its existence , they should be known as Mithya Drishti.

They believe the soul to be bondage free in spite of having bondage with karma-nokarma.

Its bondage is directly seen; with gyanavarana the loss of gyan etc. is seen, in accordance with the body its states are seen to change; then how bondage is not there? If bondage is not there then why should Moksha Margi make efforts for its destruction ?

Here someone says- How is it that in shastras the soul has been described as different  from karma-nokarma , untouched-unbonded ?

Its reply- The relationships are  of different types-

From aspect of oneness  relationship , soul is said to be different from karma-nokarma since dravya does not give up its nature and become one with it  and from the same aspect it is called untouched-unbonded . While from aspect of Nimitta-naimittik relationship the bondage is there, with its nimitta the soul attains different states; hence believing self to be absolutely bondage free is Mithya Darshan.

If someone says-  We are not interested in vikalpa of bondage-salvation, since it is written in shastras –

“ The jiva who considers self to be bonded and then liberated, he definitely gets bonded.”

He is told- Those jivas who having only paryaya Drishti believe the states of bondage and freedom; who do not accept dravya nature, they have been preached in this manner that the jiva who without knowing Dravya nature , considers self to be bonded and freed , he gets surely bonded. If absolutely there is no bondage-freedom then why should it be said that ‘this jiva gets bonded’? And why does he make efforts for destruction of bondage and attaining salvation ? Why does he engage in experiencing soul? Hence ‘ from aspect of dravya Drishti there is one state while from aspect of paryaya Drishti there are several states’ – believing thus is right.

-          In this manner  with different ways applying  only intent of  Nishchaya Naya, he engages in contrary shraddhan etc.

In Jinavani from aspects of different nayas, the description has been made in different ways; but with his own objectives he accepts the statements from aspect of Nishchaya naya only and thus attains Mithya darshan .

In Jinavani the Moksha Marga has been told to be unity of Samyak Darshan-Gyan-Charitra ; hence in his ‘Samyak Darshan-Gyan the shraddhan and gyan of seven tattvas should be there ‘ , but that is not considered and in ‘Charitra the ragas etc. should be eliminated’ – its efforts are not there;  only ‘one Shuddha Atma should be experienced’ – knowing this only as Moksha Marga, he is satisfied.

For practicing that he contemplates thus internally – ‘ I am Shuddha like Siddha; having Keval Gyan etc.; free of dravya karma- Nokarma; supremely blissful; sorrows of birth-death do not belong to me’ , in such  several way he thinks.

Here it is asked- If this contemplation is from aspect of Dravya Drishti  then ‘ Dravya is Shuddha-ashuddha, conglomeration of all paryayas, why do you experience shudddha alone?’  and if done from aspect of Paryaya Drishti then ‘ your present is ashuddha paryaya only; how do you consider yourself to be Shuddha ?’

If you believe Shuddha from aspect of Shakti (capability)  then, ‘ I have such capability’ – believe thus ; ‘I am thus’ – why do you accept thus?  Hence contemplating self to be Shuddha form is delusion since ‘ you have believed self to be like Siddha , then to whom does  this worldly state belong? If you have Keval Gyan etc. then who has these Mati Gyan etc.?  If you are free of Dravya karma-Nokarma then why the Gyan etc.  are not revealed? If you are supremely blissful, then what remained to be done? And if sorrows of birth-death are not there then why are you unhappy? ‘ Hence in one state, believing another state is delusion only.

Here someone says- In shastras why preachment for Shuddha contemplation is given?

Its reply- One is ‘shuddha state from aspect of Dravya’ and one ‘ Shuddha state from aspect of paryaya ‘ is there. From aspect of dravya ‘ different from other dravya and indifferent from own bhavas ‘ that is termed as ‘Shuddha state’ and from aspect of paryaya ‘ the absence of Aupadhik  bhavas’ is termed as ‘Shuddha state’ ; there in  ‘Shuddha contemplation the Shuddha state is from aspect of dravya’ -that has been considered. The same is told in Samaysar –

“ The soul is not Pramatta-Apramatta ; hence it is experienced to be Shuddha free of bhavas of all other dravyas being different “ – this is told.

And at the same time it is told-

“ Beyond all the activities of mass of all the karta, karma etc. predicates – such pure experience i.e. indivisible himself is Shuddha “

-          Thus the meaning of ‘Shuddha’  should be known.

In the same way the meaning of ‘Keval’ word should be known – ‘ which is different from other bhava , only self ‘ – that is Keval. In the same manner other right meanings should be applied.

Believing self  to be ‘ Shuddha from aspect of paryaya’ and  believing self as ‘Kevali’ is highly erroneous; hence ‘ self should be seen as dravya-paryaya form’ i.e. “ from aspect of dravya , samanya nature should be observed’ and ‘ from aspect of paryaya the Vishesh nature should be observed’ .

-          With such contemplation Samyak Drishti is attained since without true observation, how can he be called as Samyak Drishti ?

Continued…..