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…..