MokshaMargPrakashak …27

 

UbhayaBhasi (Mixed ) Mithya Drishti

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this way acceptance of both naya together is Mithya.

Then what to do?

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

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

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

And in ShatPahud it is told-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same is told in PurusharthaSiddhiUpaya-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued…..

MokshaMargPrakashak …26

 

Converse form of Samyak Charitra

How are the tendencies for Samyak Charitra are described-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In the same way know about other vows also.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The same has been told in Samaysar kalash-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here question- SamyakDrishti also makes efforts for auspicious raga ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued…..

MokshaMargPrakashak …25

                                                  Converse form of Nirjara Tattva

He believes Nirjara is attained by means of fasting etc. form Tapa but just by external Tapa alone Nirjara is not attained. The external tapa is carried out for enhancing Shuddhopayoga; Shuddhopayoga is cause for Nirjara; hence in Upachar sense Tapa is also called as means for Nirjara. If tolerating external dukh alone be cause for Nirjara then Tiryanch etc. also tolerate hunger-thirst etc.

Then he says – They tolerate it under dependence; those who carry out fasting etc. Tapa with spirit of dharma independently, they attain Nirjara.

Its reply- They carry out external fasting etc. with spirit of dharma but there the Upayoga manifests in Ashubha-Shubha-Shuddha forms, accordingly it is attained. If with lot of fasting lot of Nirjara be attained and with less fasting little Nirjara is attained then if such rule exists then fasting alone would be prime cause of Nirjara; but this is not possible. Since with manifestations being devilish, how can Nirjara be possible with fasting etc.?

If it is said – According to the  manifestation of Upayoga in Ashubha-Shubha-Shuddha form the bandh-nirjara is attained.

Then fasting etc. tapa would not be prime cause for Nirjara. Ashubha-Shubha manifestations get to be cause for bandh and Shuddha manifestations become cause for Nirjara.

Here question- In Tattvarth Sutra it is said that with Tapa Nirjara is attained?

Its reply- In shastra the prevention of desires is called tapa. Hence with elimination of Shubha-ashubha desires the Upayoga gets to be Shuddha and there Nirjara is attained; hence with Tapa Nirjara is attained.

Here he says – With elimination of desire of food etc. form ashubha, tapa is attained but fasting and repentance etc. are Shubha activities, their desire exists?

Its reply- Gyani people do not have desire for fasting etc.; only one shuddhopayoga is desired. If with fasting etc. Shuddhopayoga enhances then they do fasting etc. and if with fasting the body or the manifestations become weak resulting in shuddhopayoga becoming weaker then they accept food etc. If with fasting etc. only the siddhi can be  attained then why Ajitnath etc. 23 Tirthankaras  would have adopted two Upavas alone after accepting ordination? They had immense capability but in accordance with the manifestations, with external means they practiced one Veetrag Shuddhopayoga only.

Here question- If it is so then why fasting etc. are called as Tapa?

Its answer- They are called external Tapa. The external implies that externally it appears to others that he is Tapaswi but results would be in accordance with the internal manifestations since body activities without manifestations do not give results.

Here question again- In shastra Nirjara is said to be without desire, there  by tolerating hunger thirst etc, without desire results in Nirjara then by tolerating hardships with fasting etc., why Nirjara would not occur?

Its answer- In Akaam Nirjara also the external nimitta is toleration of hunger-thirst without desire and if the bhavas are weak Kashaya form then Nirjara of Pap is attained; bandh of Deva etc. punya is attained. But if by tolerating hardships with strong Kashaya results in Punya bandh then all Tiryanch etc. would take birth as Devas but that does not happen. In the same way by fasting with desire the hardships of hunger-thirst are tolerated, but these are external nimitta, here according to the manifestations the results are attained.

Just as in  Upachar sense the grains have been called as Pran (life) ; in the same way with external means the internal tapa gets enhanced; hence in Upachar sense they are also called Tapa. But if only external Tapa is carried out and internal Tapa is not there, then in Upachar also it cannot be called as Tapa. The same is told-

“ Where Kashaya, Vishaya and Ahar – these are renounced, that should be known as Upavas; the remaining are called by shri Guru as merely going without food. “

Then he says- if it is so then we would not do Upavas etc.

He is told- The preachment is given for climbing upwards; if you wish to fall down then what can we do? If you do Upavas with pride etc. then do or  not do; there is no gain and if with spirit of dharma you give up interest in Ahar etc. then the raga which is abandoned, that much is reduced only, but knowing this alone as Tapa, believing Nirjara with it, do not get satisfied.

In the internal Tapas the engagement in activities of Prayashchita-Vinaya-VaiyaVritya-Swadhyaya-Tyag-Dhyan should be known as external Tapa form only. Just as Anashan etc. are external activities , in the same way these are also  external activities. Hence Prayashchita etc. external means are not internal Tapa. With such external engagements, the purity of internal manifestation should be known as internal tapa.

There also this is different- with  attainment of extreme shuddhata the manifestation is shuddhopayoga form; there only Nirjara is there and there is no bandh and with little shuddhata part of shubhopayoga also exists; hence depending upon the shuddhata the nirjara occurs and the part which is Shubha bhava form causes bandh- such mixed bhava simultaneously occurs, there bandh and nirjara occur together.

Here someone says- With Shubha bhavas the nirjara of pap occurs and punya gets bonded. But with Shuddha bhavas nirjara of both occur-  why not say thus?

Its reply- In Moksha Marg, the reduction of Sthiti(duration) occurs of all Prakritis there is no difference between Punya-Pap and in Punya Prakriti the reduction of intensity does not occur even with shuddhopayoga ; the Anubhag (intensity) of punya prakriti of higher order have strong bandh-fruition and the paramanus of Pap Prakriti transform into Shubha Prakriti form- such sankraman (transformation) occurs with  Shubha and Shuddha both bhavas; hence above described rule is not possible. In accordance with the purity only the rule is possible.

Look! Even if in the fourth Guanasthana one does Shastra practice, soul contemplation etc. activities ; there is no Nirjara and bandh is high; while in fifth gunasthana even if one engages in sensory enjoyments, still he has gunashreni nirjara; bandh is also less.

And in fifth gunasthana if he engages in Upavas etc. and Prayashchita etc. Tapa; in that period his Nirjara is less only; whereas in sixth gunasthana in spite of activities of Ahar-Vihar etc., in that period also the Nirjara is high and bandh is also much less.

Hence Nirjara is not in accordance with external activities; with vishuddhata(purity)  due to reduction of internal Kashaya shakti the Nirjara occurs; its nature would be described later, know from there.

In this way the Anashan etc. activities are named as Tapa in Upachar sense. Due to this only they are termed as Vyavahara Tapa. Vyavahara and Upachar have same meaning and with  the means by which the Veetraga Bhava form Vishuddhata is attained, that is real Tapa, which should be known as means for Nirjara.

Here  example is quoted- Just as money and grains are called as Prana (life) since buying grains with  money and by eating them the Pranas are nourished; hence in upachar sense money and grains are called as Prana. But if someone does not know the Pranas of the form of senses etc. and knowing these alone as Prana, protect it then he would attain death only . In the same way Anashan etc. and Prayashchita etc. are called as Tapa since by Anashan etc. means manifesting in Prayashchita etc. form, Veetrag bhava form true tapa is nourished ; hence in Upachar sense the Anashan etc. and Prayashchita etc. are called as Tapa; but if someone does not recognise the Veetraga bhava form tapa and believing these only as Tapa, engages in them then he would traverse only in the world.

What more (can be said)!  - Just understand that Nishchaya dharma is Veetrag  Bhava; others are described in Upachar sense from aspect of different external means; they should be called as Vyavahara dharma only.

-          Since he does not know this secret; hence he does not have real shraddhan of Nirjara also.

The converse form of Moksha

He believes being Siddha as Moksha. There birth-death-old age-disease-suffering etc. dukh were eliminated and with infinite gyan the Lokalok was known, was revered in all three loks, thus in several ways he knows its glory but there is desire of eliminating dukh of all jivas, knowing all the gyeyas and being venerable. If the desire of Moksha was for these only then what is the difference between shraddhan of him and other jivas?

There he has such concept also that in swarga sukh is there and infinite times sukh is there in Moksha. In such multiplication he believes the swarga and Moksha to be of the same family. In the swarga the sukh  is pertaining to sensory pleasures, its family is known to him but in Moksha the sensory subjects are not there; hence he does not realise the family of sukh there, but great people call Moksha to be superior to swarga hence he too believes it to be supreme. Just as someone does not recognise the nature of singing but since all audience is lauding it ; hence he too lauds it; in the same way he believes Moksha to be supreme.

Here he says- In Shastra also the sukh of Siddhas is described as infinite times of that  of Indra etc. ?

Its reply- Just as – The brightness  of the body of Tirthankara is said to be infinite times that of sun light, there they do not have same family but in the Lok the sun light is glorious hence for describing  higher glory than that, such metaphor is used; in the same way the sukh of siddha is described as infinite times that of Indra, there they do not have same family  but in the Lok the sukh of Indra etc. is glorious ; to describe much higher glory they use such metaphor.

Here question- He believes the Siddha sukh and Indra etc. sukh to be of the  same family- how did you decide this?

Its answer- Since he believes swarga as result of dharma practice and Moksha also to be result of the same dharma practice. Some jiva attains Indra etc. status , another attains Moksha , in both of them he believes to be result of the same family of dharma.

He believes thus- Where the practice of dharma is less, he attains Indra etc. status; where the practice is complete, he attains Moksha but he believes the family of dharma to be the same. Hence where the family of cause is same, the family of effect would also be the same since with specific reason only the specific deed is carried out. Hence we have concluded that in his belief the sukh of Indra etc. and sukh of Siddha have the same family.
There with nimitta of karma the soul used to have aupadhik bhavas, with their absence, he has become pure soul in Shuddha nature form . Just as by separating from skandh the paramanu becomes Shuddha; in the same way by separating from Karmas etc. he becomes Shuddha.

The difference is – The paramanu was not having sukh-dukh in both states, but soul was having dukh in ashuddha state and with its elimination, he has attained infinite sukh having perturbation free characteristics. And the sukh attained by Indra etc. that has perturbation due to Kashaya bhavas; hence in reality it is dukh only; hence that and this do not have the same family.

There the cause for swarga sukh is auspicious raga and cause for Moksha sukh  is Veetrag bhava; hence there is difference even in the causes but such bhava is not realised by him.

Hence he does not have real shraddhan of Moksha also.

In this way he does not have real Tattva shraddhan . Hence in Samaysar it is said that in spite of having Tattva shraddhan the Abhavya remains Mithya Drishti.  And in Pravachansar it is told that Tattvartha Shraddhan  devoid of Atma Gyan is not functional.

There from aspect of Vyavahara Drishti this Samyak Darshan is said to have eight angs (elements) which he practices; twenty five faults are described which he avoids; Samvega etc. qualities are told which he adopts but just as without sowing the seed, by adopting all means in the field, the grains are not produced; in the same way without real Tattva shraddhan , samyaktva is not attained. 

In the same way in commentary of Panchastikaya where the VyavaharaBhasi is described,  there also it is similar description.

In this way in spite of accomplishing means for Samyak darshan , he does not attain Samyak darshan.

Converse form of Samyak Gyan

In the shastra it is told that by practice of shastras, SamyakGyan is attained, hence he remains active in practice of shastra. There his attention is over the activities  of learning, teaching, remembering, reading, speaking etc. in which he engages his Upayoga but his attention is not upon its objective.

In this preachment what is effective for me, that is not his intent. By practicing shastras he keeps intent of preaching others and lots of jivas following  his preachment make him satisfied. But the practice of gyan  is done for self and incidentally others get benefited then let it be.

If someone does not listen to preachment then let them, why should he worry? Understanding the meaning and bhava of shastra , one should care for  own benefit.

In Shastra practice also several practice grammar, logic, poetry etc. shastras extensively but all that is for establishing wisdom in the Lok; in that there is no mention of self  benefit. Actually there objective is that if the intellect is more then  by practicing these somewhat, later practice shastras which benefit own soul; if the intellect is less than one should only practice shastras which benefit own soul. It should not be that in practicing grammar etc. the ayu gets depleted and tattva gyan is not attained.

Here someone says- if it is so than one should not practice grammar etc. ?

He is told- without their practice the meaning of great granths is not realised; hence their practice is also useful.

Then there is question- then why such great granths were created, whose meaning cannot be understood without grammar etc. ? Why simple beneficial preachment was not written in local language? They did not have any purpose.

Its answer- In local language also the words of Prakrit-Sanskrit only are there but they have distorted forms and in different states it is of different forms. The Mahant people did not wish to write shastras with corrupted words. If the child stutters the elders do not do so.

And if the shastra of language of one state goes to other state then how would its meaning be realised? Hence in Prakrit-Sanskrit etc. Shuddha language form granths have been created.

Without grammar the meaning of word is not realised correctly; without logic , the examination of characteristics cannot be done correctly, etc. The decision of the nature of thing cannot be made properly with words alone without usage of grammar etc. – knowing this based upon its tradition the description is made. In local language also with some amount of tradition only preachment can be made but with lot of practice of the same only the right decision can be taken.

If you say- If it is so then why do you make granth in local language form  now?

Its reply- Due to degradation of times the intellect of the Jivas have become weaker. Knowing this with the intent of benefitting as many jivas as possible, the granths in local language are created. Hence those jivas who cannot learn the grammar etc., they should practice with such granths.

There those jivas who make use of grammar  for describing the words along with different arguments ; make use of logic for being mahant with debate etc.  and for revealing  intellect they make use of poetry; - with such worldly objectives they practice it but  they are not dharmatma.

To the extent possible, by practicing it , those who decide of the Tattva etc. for own soul  benefit , they only should be known as Dharmatma-Pandit.

Several jivas practice Purana etc. shastras which describe the results of punya-pap etc., several practice shastras of conduct etc. which describe the activities of punya-pap,  several practice shastras of Karananuyoga which describe the gunasthana-margana-karma Prakriti-Trilok etc.; but if they themselves do not consider its objective then it is like the reading of a parrot. If the objective is considered then they know the pap to be bad and punya to be good; they  know the forms of gunasthana and whatever would be practiced by them would be beneficial for them. As a result at least the Narak etc. would not be attained and swarga etc. would be attained, but Moksha Marga would not be attained.

There,  firstly true Tattva Gyan should be attained, then know the world as result of punya-pap,  know that Moksha is attained with shuddhopayoga; know the Vyavahara description of Jiva with gunasthana etc. form, thus with their shraddhan if it is practiced then Samyak Gyan is attained.

The cause for Tattva Gyan are shastras of Adhyatma form dravyanuyoga.  Several Jivas practice those shastras also but they do not arrive at right shraddhan by knowing the forms of self, others and asrava etc.

Orally he may narrate it such that with their preachment other jivas may become Samyak Drishti , but just as some boy masquerading as woman sings such that other man-woman become aroused , but he is just speaking the way he has learnt; himself he does not realise the bhava ; hence he does not get aroused; in the same way he preaches the way it is written but he himself does not experience it.

If he had attained Shraddhan then he would not have mixed part of other tattva  in another tattva, but since he does not have the conviction; hence he does not have Samyak Gyan.

In this way he also studies upto eleven Angs even then Siddhi is not attained- thus it is written in Samaysar etc. that Mithya Drishti may have knowledge of upto eleven Angs.

Here someone says- Gyan is that much but just as – Abhavya Sen had knowledge without shraddhan, it is such.

Its reply- He was Papi  who did not have fear of activities of Himsa etc. but the jiva who goes upto Graveyak etc., he has such knowledge, he is not without shraddhan; he has the shraddhan that these granths are true but  his Tattva shraddhan is not right.

In Samaysar the same jiva is said to have shraddhan of dharma, knowledge of eleven angs and practice of mahavrita etc. In Pravachansar it is written that he has such Agam Gyan that he knows all the things like a berry kept in the palm.

And he knows this also – I know them but “I am gyan form” – thus he does not experience self to be different from other dravya, only consciousness form; hence devoid of knowledge of soul, Agam Gyan is not useful.

In this way he has practice of Jain Shastras for Samyak Gyan, even then he does not have Samyak Gyan.

Continued…..