Doubt
293-298
293. Shloka- The questioner says that if in absence of Vyatirek, the
Anvaya does not survive then let Vyatirek be there. But this should be conceded
that Anvaya and Vyatirek both are independent like jiva and ajiva.
294. Shloka- If perhaps your Siddhant is that anvaya does not stay within
vyatirek then also it does not negate our argument. Since just as Anvaya does
not stay in Vyatirek, in the same way Vyatirek does not stay in Anvaya.
295. Shloka- Hence this is well established that just as only Anvaya is
there, the same way the Vyatirek is there. Since there is no difference. In
Samanya Drishti both are same, independent. Just as Anvaya is told, same way
Vyatirek is told.
296. Shloka- For example take pots and pans. Just as pot remains in its
own form separately in the same way the pan also stays in own form separately.
Pot does not stay in pan and vice versa. Both are independent and separate.
297. Shloka- Just as absence of pot is not pan nor in the absence of pan
the pot is produced. In the same way absence of pan is not pot and with absence
of pot, pan is produced.
298. Shloka- In such conditions your saying that in the absence of
Vyatirek even Anvaya does not occur, is not right. Since like pots and pans we
can say that anvaya is different by its nature and Vyatirek is different by
nature. In such a case without Vytirek also Anvaya can occur?
Bhavartha- The questioner believes the anvaya
to be independent and vyatirek also to be independent. He does not accept the
substance to have joint relative dharma form.
Bhavartha- The questioner has made the mistake of nor realising that Maha satta and Avantar satta need to be
applied on samanya-Vishesh of same dravya and not two different dravyas. Whereas
he has applied Asti-Nasti upon two dravyas, pot and pan or sentient-insentient.
Answer
299-308
299. Shloka- This is not right
since existence in spite of being dwait form, is Adwait form in certain
respect. Hence upon consideration of Vidhi the existence is Vidhi alone and
same existence upon consideration of Nishedh is just Nishedh form.
Bhavartha- The substance is Samanya- Vishesh form or Vidhi-Nishedh form. The bhava
which is under consideration at given moment, at that moment that substance is that bhava form only.
300. Shloka- It is not so that some part of dravya be samanya form and
other part be Vishesh form since such existence cannot be established by any
means and there no dwait can be imagined since dravya is not just vishesh form.
Bhavartha – Like fruit, leaves of a tree , in same existence some part be samanya
form and some part be vishesh form, it is not so. Since Samanya and vishesh
cannot be established as independent, in reality samanya-vishesh do not have
dwait bhava , only appear to be so in presentation.
301-302. Shloka- It is not so either that like other dravyas ( pots&pans,
sentient& insentient) the samanya and vishesh are totally different. The
term absolute is also unacceptable since by telling the substance to be
absolutely samanya form, it becomes only samanya form and Vishesh characteristics become absent. In the same way by describing it as
absolutely Vishesh only the Samanya becomes absent. Thus with complete
independence of the two the Vastutva nature of dravya gets lost. Only if the
substance is accepted to be dual form then it gets established.
303. Shloka- When it has been established that substance is
samanya-vishesh form then sometimes it is described as samanya form and
sometimes Vishesh form. Since being mutually dependent, one gets intermingled
with other.
Bhavartha- In this way with the substance getting to be established as
Anvaya-Vyatirek form, when the substance is described as Samanya form at that
time the negation form Vishesh dharma gets hidden in same Samanya. Further when
the same substance is described as Vishesh form at that time the Samanya also
gets hidden in the same Vishesh. Since asti-nasti are not absolutely different
but mutually relative. Hence in the primacy of described the undescribed is
present in secondary way.
304-305. Shloka- For example when cloth is seen from aspects of thread then it
does not appear to be cloth but threads only. When the same cloth is seen from
aspect of cloth then it does not appear to be thread form but cloth form only.
Collecting both the implications by means of Praman, the cloth is joint
samanya-vishesh form of cloth-ness and thread-ness, thus it is so viewed by the
experts.
306. Shloka- Similar to the cloth there are other examples also which
support our stand. All examples support the dual nature and none of them negate
the Jain darshan.
307. Shloka- The essence of the above is that samanya only itself becomes
Vishesh form under influence of logic and the Vishesh also becomes Samanya form
with logic.
Bhavartha- When the substance is described in samanya form at that time
the entire substance appears to be samanya. It is not so that some part of
substance appears in Vishesh form also. In the same way under description of
Vishesh the entire substance appears to be Vishesh form . Those philosophers
who believe samanya and vishesh to be separate divisions of the substance,
their stand gets refuted by this affirmation since the substance can not get
described in two forms at the same time. When it is described in a particular
form then at that time it appears to be that form only. All the forms of
Syadvad are dependent upon description. Hence those who do not understand Naya
viewpoint , they cannot realise Syadvad.
Conclusion
308. Shloka- As per the description above, the one knower of tattva is
only Jain and is real Syadvadi. If he does not know the form of tattva as
described above then he is not Syadvadi but he is ignorant like animal.
Summary of 289 to 308
Here independent asti-nasti i.e. different Pradesh of Samanya
and different Pradesh of Vishesh have been refuted and mutual dependence of
samanya-vishesh i.e. asti-nasti has been supported. This is the essence.
Note- With this in the Maha Adhikar of ‘Anekant nature of substance’ the first
intermediate chapter describing the asti-nasti dual is completed.
Second Intermediate Chapter
Important Notice- It is the procedure of Author that firstly he describes a topic
in ‘asti’ form and then he narrates it in ‘nasti’ form. In other words, firstly
it is described in Anvaya form and then it is analysed in Vyatirek form. Or, in
other words, firstly Jain dharma is described and then other faiths are
refuted. But in the description of ‘Tat-Atat’
in 309-325 firstly it is
described in ‘nasti’ form i.e. Vyatirek form is analysed or the other faiths
are negated, and then in 326-335 it is described in ‘asti’ form or Anvaya form.
The secret of Tat-Atat- Just as the dravya is self established, in the same way
it manifests by itself. Hence remaining stationary it keeps changing. This
steadiness is called Nitya and the manifestation is called Anitya which shall
be described later in Nitya-Anitya
Adhikar. The form which is generated due to manifestation, that form has
necessarily two dharmas of similarity and dissimilarity for sure. Due to
similarity it appears to be the same and due to dissimilarity it appears to be
different. From aspect of Dravya Drishti it appears to be same and from aspect
of Paryaya Drishti it appears to be different. This is same, is ‘Tat’ and this
is different, is ‘Atat’. For example the Manushya became Deva upon death. This
is same jiva is ‘Tat’ and this is different is ’Atat’. Sometimes difference of
‘Nitya-Anitya’ and ‘Tat-Atat’ is not realised and both appear same. But it is
not so. Nitya described his self established nature while Anitya described his
manifestation. But ‘Tat-Atat’ tells that on account of manifestation the form
which is produced every samaya , that form has both similarity and
dissimilarity dharmas. Similarity gives impression that it is same, and
dissimilarity causes impression that it is not same but different. The form
need not be absolutely similar or dissimilar. Another thing to be noted is that
as per Jain dharma in ‘Atat Drishti’ the dravya itself is different . The
dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava of Tat is same in trikaal. The
dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava of Atat is different at every samaya. Tat-atat also
are like the other three pairs relative to each other and not independent. Tat
is called bhava and Atat is called Abhava. They are called similar -dissimilar
also. All three are equivalent.
Narration of Tat-Atat from
aspect of ‘Nasti’ 309-325
Doubt
309. Shloka- The existent always remains in Dhruva form hence it is
present in all the samayas of entire kaal. Then why do you (Jains) say that
this existent is present at specific time and not at unspecific time?
Answer
310. Shloka- The answer to your doubt is that from aspect of existence
alone the existence is same, but from aspects of states of the existence, it is
different.
Doubt
311. Shloka- What is the difference between Tat-Atat and Nitya-Anitya since
both have same characteristics and same objective.
Bhavartha- Tat means that and Atat means not that. The meanings of Tat and Atat are
same as that of Nitya, Anitya. Then what is the purpose of telling both?
Answer
312. Shloka- This objection is not right since definitely there is a
difference between Nitya-Anitya and Tat-Atat Bhavas. In the Nitya-Anitya the
manifestations occurring at every moment are considered and there is no
consideration that the manifestation is
similar or dissimilar. While in Tat-Atat bhavas the consideration is that of
sameness or differentness of manifestation.
Doubt
313. Shloka – Entity is Nitya in some respect and Anitya in some respect,
with this alone the similarity and dissimilarity of manifestation gets
established then what is the purpose of considering the bhava and abhava of
Tat-Atat? This makes it unnecessarily complex.
Answer 314 to 321
314. Shloka- The doubt is not valid since if the bhava and abhava of
Tat-Atat is not considered then the substance becomes flawed. Without Tat-Atat,
by accepting substance to be Nitya-Anitya form, it does not ensure kriya and
its result.
315. Shloka- ‘ All entity is Nitya only’ if this
is accepted absolutely then in absence of Vikriya (activity) the cause and
effect both do not happen and predicate also does not get established.
316. Shloka- If the entity is accepted to be absolutely Anitya then it
would be transitory and being transitory it cannot have result of kriya nor any
predicates be there, nor any Tattva ( entity-dhruva ) be there.
317. Shloka- Without considering the bhava-abhava of Tat-Atat if the
substance is accepted as only Nitya-Anitya form only, then also the objective
is not established since without accepting Tat-Atat the generation of Vishesh
in substance cannot occur.
318. Shloka- If the manifesting entity is accepted to be Nitya-Anitya
form, then without consideration of Tat-Atat the desired result cannot be
established which is shown as follows-
319-320. Shloka- “ The manifesting entity is not same as earlier but is
absolutely different” – such doubt cannot be eliminated without accepting
‘Atat’ side. The second side in the manifesting entity can be “ this flame is
absolutely same as earlier” this too cannot be resolved without accepting ‘Atat’ side.
Bhavartha- In Tat and Atat the consideration is that the substance in some aspect is
same and another aspect is different. But in Nitya-Anitya this is not
considered. There only manifestation in Nitya-Anitya form is considered. It is
same or different is not issue. If the substance does not have Tat-Atat side and
only Nitya-anitya side is accepted then
definitely the above described doubts can occur. They cannot be resolved
without accepting Tat-Atat.
321. Shloka- Hence the entity like Nitya-Anitya is Tat-Atat form, this
should be accepted since without it the desired meaning cannot be established.
Doubt
322. Shloka- Let the manifestation be absolutely same or different, the
desired meaning of yours can be established by accepting the substance to be
manifesting in some respect.
Bhavartha- It is enough to accept the substance to be manifesting in some respect,
in that there is no necessity of consideration of Tat or Atat bhava (
similarity or dissimilarity)
Answer 323-325
323. Shloka- This doubt is not valid since entity would have two types of
manifestation only, either similar or dissimilar. If only similar form
manifestation is accepted in entity, then also the desired meaning is not
established. Just as the Nitya Ekant side is faulty, in the same way the
similar manifestation also is faulty and the desired meaning is not
established.
324. Shloka- If only dissimilar manifestation
alone is accepted then also desired meaning is not established. Like transitory
Ekant the non entity would be generated and entity would get destroyed.
325. Shloka- With the faults of the form of Nitya
Ekant and Anitya Ekant appearing in absolutely similar and absolutely
dissimilar manifestation sides, the questioner has been answered for
eliminating Tat-Atat sides, since being criminal against soul he has himself
been weakened. Now Acharya explains him-
326. Shloka- Accompanied with Tat bhava and Atat
bhava the manifestation of the substance which occurs by nature, its form is
now described with example.
Example of similar
manifestation
327. Shloka- Just as the gyan form manifestation of Jiva always remains
gyan form only and the gyan guna (gyan
family) is never trespassed. This is example of similar manifestation.
Example of Dissimilar
Manifestation
328. Shloka- Or the gyan of the same jiva in spite of manifesting in gyan
form does not remain the same since the existence of the same from paryaya
Drishti is not same in second samaya. This is example of Atat bhava.
329. Shloka- Another example is that although the divisions of kaal are
manifesting by nature, even then due to non trespassing of its own family, they
generate similarity sense in substance i.e. Tat bhava only.
330. Shloka- Or from aspect of Naya, the divisions of kaal generate sense
of dissimilarity i.e. Atat bhava since in them appearance of different forms
for 1,2,3, 4 samaya etc. is seen. Such appearance of different times is cause
for difference in substance.
Cause for appearance of
sameness
331. Shloka- In reality in the sense of ‘Atat’ i.e. this is not same, the
kriya, result and predicate are generated while in sense of ‘Tat’ i.e. it is same, the Tattva only is the
cause. Both things happen when Tat-Atat are considered relative .
Bhavartha- In any substance or quality the previous paryaya is cause form and next
paryaya is effect form. The change of paryaya of substance or quality is called
kriya. If considered from aspect of differentiation then the all three are
different. Kriya, cause and effect paryaya are different since the times of
previous paryaya and next paryaya are different. But if considered from dravya
Drishti then dravya or guna are indifferent since paryaya is not different from
substance. Hence in the undifferentiated state the kriya, cause and effect
appear the same.
Further clarification
332. Shloka- Similar to Asti-Nasti the Tat-Atat are also Vidhi-Nishedh
form. But both are not Tattva form from independent aspects but only relative to each other both
are Tattva form.
Bhavartha- Just as in the description of asti the entire substance is Vidhi form and
in consideration of Nasti the entire
substance is Nishedh form , in the same way for Tat-Atat also the entire
implied substance is Vidhi form and unimplied substance is Nishedh form. The
main thing is that Vidhi keeps expectations of Nishedh and vice versa. Nothing
is independent. In accepting total independence the arrangement of substances is not feasible since the nature
of substance is Vidhi-Nishedh dual form in certain aspects.
Bhavartha- In the Asti-Nasti pair the
independent Asti and independent Nasti was refuted and their mutual
relationship was described in 289-308, the same is applicable here for
Tat-Atat. The essence is that the Pradesh of Tat are not different from that of
Atat but both dharmas stay together in friendly form with mutual relationship
in same Pradesh. Total independence is false. Whichever is primary the entire
substance appears in same form with other dharma being minor.
333. Shloka- The elaboration of mutual relationship of Vidhi-Nishedh is as
follows- When ‘Tat’ form Vidhi is primary at that time the ‘Atat’ form Nishedh becomes secondary
since it is inseparable from Vidhi. In consideration of Vidhi entire substance
appears Vidhi form.
334. Shloka- In the same way from aspect of Paryayarthika naya, when
‘Atat’ is considered in Vidhi form then that becomes primary and ‘Tat’ becomes
secondary. In consideration of ‘Atat’ the substance is not considered as Tat
form but the entire substance is considered as Atat form. This is the essence
of mutual relationship of Vidhi Nishedh.
Bhavartha- In consideration of Tat the entire substance appears ‘That’ form. In
consideration of Atat the entire substance appears different form. In Praman
the substance which appears in Tat form, same appears in Atat form i.e. dual
dharma form. In Anubhaya consideration it appears to be neither Tat form nor
Atat form but single indivisible form.
Recognition of Ubhaya(dual)
- Anubhaya etc. Bhangs (combinations)
335. Shloka- The remaining narration in respect of Tat-Atat would be same
as that of Asti-Nasti pair which was described earlier and the procedure would
be applicable for Nitya-Anitya pair also.
Bhavartha- (1) The substance is intermingled with Tat-Atat both bhavas at the same
time. Observing the entire substance in Tat bhava form of similarity i.e.
substance is same only is one view. (2) Observing in Atat bhava form of
dissimilarity i.e. substance is always new, is second view. (3) Observing both
dharmas in mutual aspect i.e. the one which is same only is different – this is
third Praman Drishti. (4) Observing in indivisible form i.e. it is neither same
nor different – indivisible, indescribable – this is Shuddha Dravyarthika or
Anubhaya Drishti. (5) In the substance the Tat form is different and Atat form
is different, this is called ‘Vyasta’ Drishti. (6) The substance is both Tat
and Atat form together , it is known as ‘Samasta’ Drishti. (7) The substance is
being generated at every samaya , this is KramaVarty (sequential) Drishti (8)
The substance in trikaal is same this is Akramavarty (non sequential) Drishti.
So far it was applied as per the directive of author in
Nitya-Anitya Adhikar. Now further it is described as per procedure of
Asti-Nasti Adhikar.
(9) Just as the asti-nasti pair was applied upon
dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava, in the same way the Tat-Atat should be applied upon
dravya-kshetra-kaal-bhava . Its essence is that in Tat Drishti the foursome of dravya is Trikaal same form while
in Atat Drishti the foursome of dravya is different at every samaya. (10) Just
as Asti-Nasti was not applied on two dravyas and was applied on Samanya-Vishesh
, in the same way the Tat-Atat should not be applied on two dravyas and instead
applied on Samanya-Vishesh of same dravya. (11) Just as Asti-Nasti was seven
Bhang (combinations) form , in the same
way the Tat-Atat also should be seven Bhang (combinations) form. Such is the
directive of the author.
Note – With this the second intermediate Adhikar describing Tat-Atat pair in the
Maha Adhikar describing the Anekant form nature of substance is concluded.
Continued…..
