MokshaMargPrakashak …13

 

Consideration of Tattvas described by other faiths

Now on account of its scholarly value, with imaginary arguments several faiths have been established, in them  the tattvas which are accepted, these are described-

Samkhya Faith

In Samkhya faith 25 tattvas are accepted. Sattva-Raja- Tama – these three are qualities. By means of Sattva happiness is accrued. With ‘Raja’ the fickleness of mind occurs; with ‘Tama’ folly occurs, these are its characteristics.

The name of the state in this form is called ‘Prakriti’ and with that ‘Buddhi’ is generated, the same is named ‘Mahatattva’; by which ‘Ahankar’ is produced, which has sixteen ‘Matras’ ; there five are ‘Gyan-senses’ – touch, taste,  smell, eyes, ears and one mind is there. Five are karma-senses – speech, feet, hand, ling and rectum. Five Tanmatras are there- shape, taste, smell, touch,  sound. There the fire is generated by shape, water from taste, earth from smell, wind from touch and sky from sound.

-          Thus twenty four tattvas are Prakriti form ; different from them  Nirguna doer-enjoyer is one “Purush’.

In this way twenty five Tattvas are told but these are imaginary,  since Rajas etc. qualities cannot be there without recourse. Their recourse can only be Chetan dravya. They say ‘ from these Buddhi was produced’  but Buddhi is the name of gyan which is seen in substances having quality of gyan only. Hence how can they  be source of gyan? Someone says- Buddhi is different, gyan is different? Then mind was earlier told in sixteen Matras and Gyan is said to be different  then whose name would be Buddhi? And it is said that Ahankar occurred with that, there ‘ I do other thing’ – such belief is called Ahankar but with visible knowledge Ahankar does not occur then how can it be called as generated from gyan?

Sixteen Matras are described from Ahankar of them five are called Gyan-senses, in them the shape of eyes etc. form of body are ‘Dravya Indriyas’ which are seen insentient like earth etc. And the Bhavendriyas are of the form of knowledge of shape etc. They are gyan form ; what is the purpose of Ahankar? Has anyone been seen having Ahankar without Buddhi? Then how generation by means of Ahankar is possible? And mind is like senses only since dravya-mind is body form and Bhava mind is gyan form.

Five karma-senses are described but these being parts of body, are corporeal. How can these be generated from non corporeal Ahankar ? And karma-senses are not merely five; all the parts of body are involved. And the description is dependent upon all jivas, not merely dependent upon manushya  alone. Hence trunk, tail etc. form parts are also karma-senses, how can the number be just five?

Touch etc. five Tanmatras are told , but shape etc. are not different substance, these are gunas pervaded with paramanus; how can they be generated differently? And Ahankar is manifestation of non corporeal jiva; hence how can these corporeal qualities be accepted as produced by them?

With these five (Tanmatras) fire etc. are said to have been produced, that is visibly untrue. Shape etc. and fire etc. have coexistent relationship of guna-guni, the statement only  is different; but there is no difference in substance. No way they appear to be different, the difference is generated by statement only; hence how can fire etc. be produced from shape etc. ? Further in statement also ‘the gunas are there in Guni’; how can guni be produced from guna?

Different from these Prakriti   etc. 24 Tattvas , one ‘Purush’ is told but his form is told to be indescribable and do not answer so do they not understand it? – how is he? Where is he? How he is creator-destroyer? Tell. Whatever you say, in that upon consideration the contradiction would be seen.

-          Thus know the imaginary Tattvas of Samkhya faith to be Mithya.

There, knowing the Purush as different from Prakriti is called as Moksha Marga. Firstly there is no Prakriti or Purush and merely by knowing something the objective cannot be achieved; by knowing with elimination of ragas etc. something can be  attained, just by knowing alone the ragas do not reduce.

If he believes it to be act of Prakriti and self is non-doer then how would he eliminate the ragas etc. Hence this is not Moksha Marga.

There the separation of Purush-Prakriti is called as Moksha. In 25 Tattvas 24 are related to Prakriti; one Purush is different; hence they are different only and some Jiva substance is not told in 25 tattvas. There Purush only in conjunction with Prakriti is called as ‘Jiva’. Then Purush are different along with Prakriti, later by some means some purush become free of Prakriti – this is proved , single purush was not there.

There it is fault of Prakriti, Purush or something  different like Vyantara , which is associated with Jiva? If it is his fault then how can the Senses etc. and touch etc. tattvas be accepted as generated from Prakriti ? And if they are different then that too is self established substance; all deeds are his ; nothing of Purush then why sermons are given?

-          Accepting Moksha thus is Mithya.

There direct, inference, agam – these three Pramans are told but the decision of their truth-untruth can be known from Jain scriptures of Nyaya.

In this Samkhya faith several do not accept Ishwara; several believe one purush as Ishwara; several accept Shiva or Narayan as Deva; the imagination  is as per own desire; nothing is certain. And in this faith several adopt tresses , several keep choti, several are shaven ; several wear brown clothes , in different garbs with recourse to tattva gyan they are called as Mahant.

-          In this way Samkhya faith was narrated

Shiva Faith

In Shiva faith there are two divisions- Naiyayik and Vaisheshik

Naiyayik Faith

In Naiyayik faith there are sixteen tattvas – Praman, Prameya, Sanshay, Prayojan, Drishtant, Siddhant, Avayava, Tark, Nirnaya, Vaad, Jalp, Vitanda, Hetvabhas,  cchal,  Jati and Vigrahsthan.

Praman is described of four kinds- Pratyaksha, Anumaan, Shabda and upama. Atma, Deha, Arth, Buddhi etc. are called as Prameya; ‘ what is this?’ – this is called Sanshay; for whom the deed is carried out , that is Prayojan. Which is accepted by both Vadi-prativadi, that is Drishtanta; the one which is established with  Drishtanta is Siddhant. Anumaan has five parts Pratigya etc. which are Avayava; upon  elimination of Sanshaya the thought by which decision is arrived is Tark; later realisation form knowing is Nirnaya; the practice between acharya-shishya by taking two sides is Vad; the flaw of cchal, jati etc. in the desire of knowing is Jalpa; Vad without opposition is Vitanda; which are not real means – such arguments having Asiddha etc divisions are Hetvabhas; words with deception are cchal; which are not real flaw- such apparent dooshan is Jati  and by which means the Prativadi is overcome , that is Nigrah Sthan.

In this way Sanshaya etc. tattvas are described but these are not Tattvas having nature of substance. For deciding of Gyan and for showing scholar-ness with arguments these Tattvas are told but what purpose do they serve? Being perturbation free  after elimination of desire-anger etc. bhavas , that is the act- such objective has not been shown here. Different logics are put up for showing Pandit-hood but all these are for showing cleverness; hence they are not real Tattvas.

You will say- without knowing these, the decision of Tattvas which are objective form cannot  be taken; hence these Tattvas are described. But such tradition is followed by teacher of Grammer also that with learning Grammer the meaning gets decided and those in charge of food etc. also say that by taking food, with strength of body, one gets to be capable of deciding the Tattva; hence such logic is not applicable.

If you say – Grammer, food etc. surely are not means for Tattva Gyan but are means for attaining  worldly objective only. So just as these are there, in the same way the Tattva described by you are means for attaining worldly objectives only. Just as knowledge with senses is called as Pratyaksh etc. Praman and in sthanu-purush etc. the sanshay etc have been described; hence by knowing which the desire-anger etc. are surely eliminated; those tattvas only are meaningful.

If you say- In Prameya  Tattva the decision of Atma is taken hence it is meaningful?

Then we say- Everything is Prameya only; what is not subject of Pramiti – there is no such substance ; hence why Prameya has been called Tattva? Atma etc.  should have been called as Tattva.

There the form of Atma etc. is also narrated conversely- this can be realised by considering impartially. For ex.- Atma has two divisions – Paramatma and Jivatma . There Paramatma is called as Karta of all. There such inference is applied- this world is produced by Karta since this is a deed; the deed is carried out by a karta; just as pot etc. but this is Anumanabhas ( apparent inference) since such Anuman is also possible- this entire world , is not created by Karta since it has non-karya form substances also. The Akarya are not produced by Karta ; for ex. sun image etc. In the world comprising of gathering of several substances, some things are artificial ; they are created by manushya etc and some are non-artificial , hence they do not have karta; this is visible with Pratyaksh etc. praman; hence believing Ishwara as karta is Mithya.

And Jivatma is called different with every body , which is true but even after salvation it is right to accept them differently. This has been told earlier also.

-          Thus different Tattvas are narrated wrongly . The form of Praman  etc. is also imagined wrongly , this can be seen  by examining the Jain Granths.

In this way the described Tattva in Naiyayik faith should be known as imaginary.

Vaisheshik Faith

In vaisheshik faith six tattvas have been told- Dravya, Guna, Karma, Samanya, Vishesh and Samavaya.

There they say- Dravya are of nine types- Earth, water, fire, wind, sky, kaal, direction, soul and mind. Of these the paramanus of earth, water, fire and wind  are different, they are Nitya ; with them the deed form earth etc. are produced, which  are  Anitya but telling thus is contrary to Pratyaksh etc. – Fuel form paramanus of earth are seen to take fire form; paramanus of fire are seen  to take ash form earth form; the paramanus of water are seen to take the pearl form earth form.

If you say- those paramanus vanish and instead different paramanus take that form.

-          Thus Pratyaksh is told to be untrue; if some strong argument is told then we can accept, but by saying thus alone it does not establish it. Hence all paramanus have one pudgala form corporeal family, which  takes earth etc. states in manifestation.

And these earth etc. are told to be having different body.

That is Mithya only, since it does not have any Praman and earth etc. are mass of Paramanus only ; ‘their body different and , this is different’ – this is not feasible; hence it is mithya. 

Where the substances do not get blocked- such blank space is called “Akash”; moment, time etc. are called “Kaal”- thus both of these are non substance ; these are not sovereignty form substance. For consideration of area-manifestation etc. earlier and later, these are imagined and ‘direction’ is nothing at all; by means of imagination of segments of sky , the direction is presumed.

There soul is described in two ways, these are narrated earlier only.

And ‘mind’ is not separate substance. Bhava mind is gyan form , that is nature of  soul; dravya mind is mass of paramanus , that is part of body- thus these ‘dravya’ should be known as imaginary.

There they tell 24 Gunas- sparsh, ras, gandh, varna, Shabda, Samkhya, vibhag, sanyog, parimaan, prithktva, paratva, aparatva, buddhi, sukh, dukh, iccha, dharma, adharma, prayatna, Sanskar, dwesh, sneh, gurutva and dravyatva.

Of these the ‘sparsh etc gunas’ are found in paramanus but calling Earth as fragrant only , water as cold   touch form etc. is Mithya since in some earth the primacy of smell is  not seen ; some water is seen hot, thus it is contrary to Pratyaksh etc.

‘Shabda’ is called guna of sky, this is Mithya since Shabda is blocked by wall etc. ; hence it is corporeal  and sky is non corporeal all pervasive. Sky exists in wall and the Shabda guna cannot enter it – how will this be possible?

‘Samkhya etc.’ are there, they do not exist in substance ; with respect to other substance the less or more of another substance is compared by means of Samkhya etc. in the gyan.

‘Buddhi’ etc. are there, these are manifestation of soul; there buddhi is name of gyan which is guna of soul only. If the name of mind is [buddhi] then mind was told to be in dravyas , why it was told as guna here? And Sukh etc. are there which are possibly found in soul ; these gunas are not characteristics of soul; being non pervasive, they are apparent characteristics.

‘Sneh’ etc. are found in pudgala paramanu since snigdh- guru etc. are known by sparshan senses ; hence they are inclusive in sparsh guna, why should they be told separately?

‘Dravyatva guna’ was told in water- in this way fire etc. are said to have nature of going upwards etc; hence either all should have been told or they should be included in samanya- thus gunas are described which are also imaginary.

‘Five types of karmas’ are told- Utkshepan, Avakshepan,  Aakunchan, Prasaran and Gaman. These are only activities of body , what is the purpose of describing separately? And activities are not just these many; they are many more. And these are named as’Tattva’ separately; hence if they were different substances then they should have been called separate tattva or if these are meaningful for elimination of desire-anger etc. then they should have been called Tattva, but here it is none of these two. If just like that they have to be told then stones etc. also have several states, keep telling them, no purpose is served.

‘Samanya’ has two types- ‘Par’ and ‘Apar’. There ‘Par’ is sovereignty form ; ‘Apar’ is dravyatva etc. form. Which have activity in Nitya Dravya , they are ‘Vishesh’. The name of ‘Ayut Siddha Sambandh’ is ‘Samavaya’. These Samanya etc. for many are of one types (i.e. Samanya) and by means of imagination of divisions (i.e. Vishesh) and by imagination of sambandh (i.e. samavaya) with respect of divisions , in our own thoughts; there is no different substance. And by their knowledge , elimination of desire-anger etc. form objective are not served; hence why they are called as ‘Tattva’?

If such tattvas only were to be described then the thing has prameyatva etc. infinite dharmas  and relation, support etc. different types of predicates are possible in a thing ; hence either all should have been told or important ones having such purpose should have been told ; therefore these ‘samanya etc. tattvas’ have been narrated unnecessarily.

-          Thus Vaisheshik described Tattva , should be known to be imaginary.

Further Vaisheshik have two Praman only- Pratyaksh and Anumaan. The decision of their truth – untruth should be known from Jain Nyaya scriptures.

Naiyayik say that subject, senses, buddhi, body, sukh-dukh – the state of soul without them is salvation and vaisheshiks say – in the 24 gunas the absence of buddhi etc, nine gunas is salvation . Here ‘absence of buddhi’ is told , but buddhi is name of gyan  and gyan is characteristics of soul, hence with absence of gyan , the characteristics is also absent hence the target also would be absent , therefore how will soul  be present?

If buddhi is name of ‘mind’ then bhava mind is gyan form only and dravya mind is body form. Upon salvation dravya mind is separated only hence the name of corporeal dravya mind cannot be ‘buddhi’ ? And like wise senses should be known.

And “absence of subject “ occurs; there the knowledge of sparsh etc. subjects is eliminated then what shall be gyan? If the subjects are eliminated then lok would also be absent.

And ‘absence of sukh’ is said , but efforts are made for sukh only, if that is absent then how will it be venerable? And if the restlessness form senses generated sukh is absent then it is true since sukh beyond senses having characteristics being free of perturbation  are fully possible there; hence there is no absence of sukh.

And there body, dukh , dwesha etc. are also said to be absent, which is true only.

In this way in shiva faith the karta  Nirguna ‘Ishwara’ is ‘Shiva’ only, who is believed to be ‘Deva’ but the difference of his form should be known as described above. And here Bhasma, Kopin, Jata, Janeu etc. used in attire, they have four types from respect of conduct etc. – Shaiva, Pashupat, MahaVrati and Kaal Mukh; but these are having raga ; hence they are not SuLing.

In this way the Shiva Faith was described.

Mimamsak Faith

Now form of Mimamsak faith is described-

Mimamsak are of two types- BramhVadi ( Uttar Mimamsa) and KarmaVadi ( Poorva Mimamsa)

There as per BramhVadi ‘ all are Bramh; ‘there is no one else’- thus Adwait Bramh is described in Vedant  and ‘merging in soul’ is called ‘Mukti’ (salvation).

-          Their Mithya nature has been shown earlier, consider it from there.

And ‘KarmaVadi ‘ preach the activities of Kriya, conduct ,  Yagya etc. deeds but in these Kriyas the presence of raga etc. is seen ; hence these deeds are not effective at all.

There ‘Bhatt’ and ‘Prabhakar’ described two streams are present- there Bhaatt ( followers of Bhatt) believe in six Pramans – Pratyaksh, Anumaan, Veda, Upama, Arthapatti and Abhava.

And Prabhakar ( followers of Prabhakar) accept five Praman only without Abhava but their true and untrue nature should be known from Jain scriptures.

There along with shatkarma, holder of Bramha Sutra, renouncer of cereal etc. of Shudra whose name is ‘Grahastha Ashram’ – such are ‘Bhatt’. And in Vedant along with Yagyopaveet, acceptor of cereal etc. of Vipra, whose name is ‘Bhagwat’ , which are of four types- Kutichar, Bahoodak, Hamsa, Param Hamsa; although they are satisfied with some renunciation even then  the Mithya form of Gyan-Shraddhan and presence of ragas etc., is seen with them; hence these attires are of no use.

Jaiminiya Faith

The Jaiminiya faith is described this way- There is no omniscient; the words of Veda are Nitya, with them true decision is taken. Hence firstly with Veda recital engage in activities, which they call as Prerana(inspiration). That only is the characteristics- such dharma is practiced. For example- those desirous of swarga worship fire etc.

Here we ask them- Shaiva, Samkhya, Naiyayik etc. all accept Veda, you also accept it, but in the description of Tattvas by yourself and them mutual contradiction is seen , what is the reason for same? If in Veda only somewhere something and elsewhere other thing is narrated  then how can it be Pramanik? If the followers only narrate  somewhere something and elsewhere other thing then you should argue amongst yourselves and arrive at a decision and accept one Veda and discard the other Veda.

Therefore we feel this – In Veda itself there is narration which is contradictory in earlier and later places; hence followers of different faiths have derived their meanings differently as per their desire but how can such Veda be accepted as Praman? By worshiping fire swarga is attained , then how can we accept fire as superior to Manushya? Visibly it is contradictory and how can it give swarga?

-          In the same way other statements of Veda are opposite to Praman and in Veda Bramh has been told, why is he not accepted as omniscient? In these ways the Jaiminiya faith should be known to be imaginary. 

Bauddha Faith

Now Bauddha Faith is narrated-

In Bauddha faith four ‘Arya Truths’ have been narrated- Dukh, Ayatan, Samudaya and Marga. There the worldly state in skandh form is ‘Dukh’ ; which is of five kinds- Vigyan, Vedana, Sangya, Sanskar and Roop. There the knowledge of shape etc. is ‘Vigyan’ . The experience of sukh-dukh is ‘Vedana’. Waking up of the sleeping is ‘Sangya’. The recollection of the studied is ‘Sanskar’. The adaptation of shape is ‘Roop’.

Here Vigyan etc. is called as Dukh which is Mithya.  Dukh is desire-anger etc. ; Gyan is not dukh- this is noticed directly. Someone has less gyan and anger-greed etc are high, he is ‘dukhi’; someone has more gyan, desire-anger etc. are less, he is ‘sukhi’; hence Vigyan etc. are not dukh.

There twelve ‘Ayatan ‘ are told- five senses and their five subjects word etc., one mind and one dharmayatan, but why are they called as ‘Ayatan’? All are said to be momentary then what is their purpose?

And by which the mass of raga etc. is generated- such soul and belonging to soul  is named as ‘Samudaya’. There ego form is ‘soul’ and mine form is  ‘Atmiya’, but by accepting them as momentary , they do not serve any purpose by narrating.

‘There all Sanskar are momentary’- such Vasana is called as ‘Marg’  but several things are directly seen to be stationary with respect to Kaal.

You would say- they do not remain in same state.

This we also accept- the sookshma paryaya is momentary but the thing itself is believed to be destroyed, we do not see it happening, how do we accept that? And in child-old etc. states the presence of one soul is experienced; if it is not one then how do they accept same karta of the deeds carried out earlier and later.

If you say- By means of Sanskar.

Then to whom does the Sanskar belong? – whose they are , that is Nitya or momentary? – if it is Nitya, then why all they are called momentary? If it is momentary then whose basis itself is momentary, how can the tradition of such Sanskar be told? And all are momentary then yourself is also momentary. And you call such Vasana as Marga but the benefit of this Marga is not obtained by you only; then why do you proceed in such  marga? And in your faith why were the meaningless scriptures  created? The preachment is usually given for some benefit by following it – thus this path is Mithya.

There the prevention of gyan-santan-vasana of the form of raga etc. is called as ‘Moksha’. But when it is momentary then why do you call it Moksha? And the prevention of raga etc. is accepted by us also but with elimination of own nature form gyan etc. the self also would be eliminated- then how are the efforts for Moksha  meaningful? And the consideration of good-bad is carried out by gyan only; hence with absence of gyan how can the benefit be accepted by self ?

In Bauddha faith two Praman are accepted- Pratyaksha and Anumaan. The decision of their truth-untruth should be  known from the Jain scriptures. And if these two only are Praman, then their scriptures would be Apraman; then why were they created? Pratyaksha -Anumaan would be done by Jiva by themselves, why did you create shastras?

There Sugat is believed to be Deva, but his form is stated as naked and Vikriya form  which is ironical. And holders of red cloth and kamandal (pot), taking food in morning; etc. Ling  form are Bhikshuka of Bauddha faith but what is the purpose of having attire for momentary? There it establishes imaginary description and attire for attaining greatness.

-          Such Bauddha are of four types- Vaibhashik, Sautrantik, Yogachar and Madhyam.

There Vaibhashik ‘accept thing with gyan’ . Sautrantik  accept ‘pratyaksha what is seen that only exists and nothing beyond it’. In Yogachar ‘ buddhi is with conduct’. The Madhyam accept ‘ gyan without support of substance’ .

All these are own imaginations. Upon consideration there is nothing of essence.

In this way the Bauddha faith was narrated.

Continued…..