THE ELEVENTH GANADHARA: PRABHAS

Up-pravartak Shri Amar Muni

IS THERE SALVATION?

Shri Mahavir Bhagavan said to the eleventh brahmin scholar named Prabhas--

Oh you Aayushman Prabhas (endowed with a long span of life)

You have found these two mutually contradictory vedic statements: Here the first statement prescribes the duty of carrying out the agnihotra throughout the life; and its fruit is only swarga (heaven) hence you feel that there can be no such thing as moksa Otherwise why should the veda shastra give such a precept of ceremonising agnihotra during the life-time? But 'Brahma' soul has been introduced to be in two forms, i.e. par and apar. The 'par' is pure, enlightened soul liberated from samsar. This expounds the existence of moksa So, you have entertained the doubt whether such a thing as moksa exists or not.

The Relationship between a Substance and its Existence:

Reasons disproving salvation:

1. First if you accept the existence of the pot, "The pot soul also is completely destroyed, then who has to acquire moksa?

2. Karma contact being in existence from times immemorial cannot be destroyed. Therefore how can there be an end to samsar and salvation?

3. What is jiva? Jivas are naraka's, birds, animals, etc. If they are destroyed, it is to be believed that jiva is destroyed. Then whose moksa--the salvation?

These are the proofs of salvation--

1. Even after a light is vanished, the minute tamas, particles of its dark soot are present in the atmosphere, and they can be experienced by the sense of smell. Therefore, there is no total destruction. In the same manner, even after the jivas samsar ends, there is not total destruction of it. If the soot is blown away by wind, or if clouds are scattered, do their pudgals thereby get totally destroyed? No. The moulds and modifications of pudgals are strange. That which is perceptible by a particular sense, after a little elapse of time becomes perceptible by another sense after a little elapse of time becomes perceptible by another sense. Salt which can be perceived by the eyes, when dissolved in water, cannot be seen by eyes, yet its changed form is perceivable by the sense of taste. In the same manner, after the attainment of salvation, the jiva changes its mould only but is not totally destroyed; and it can be only seen by means of kevaljnan.

2. Though gold and clay are bound together, they are separated by means of chemical process, and pure gold is obtained. In the same manner, by means of 'samyag darshan' (the right faith) etc. the soul becomes pure and liberated.

3. 'Narkas' the inhabitants of hell, animals and birds etc., are only the modifications of the soul, the soul remaining intact all through these modifications, because the jiva himself assumes such forms and modifications, just like a ring or the bangle is broken, gold is not destroyed, but it remains intact. In the same manner, when the modifications such as of a Narak, an animal, a bird, etc., are destroyed, the jiva is not destroyed.

Question: On account of the contact of karmas the jiva was a worldly being. After the destruction of karmas why should not the jiva be destroyed? When the cause is destroyed, the effect also must be destroyed. Just as when the lines of a picture on a paper are destroyed, the picture also is destroyed.

Answer: Jiva is not created by karmas, so that when karmas are destroyed jiva also should get destroyed. Karmas are in the form of a cover, or an attributive substance. Therefore, just as the sun is not destroyed even though the clouds covering the sun are scattered, or, just as the space occupied by a hollow pot is not destroyed, when the pot is destroyed likewise after karmas are destroyed, the jiva is not destroyed. This is essential that even after the karmas are destroyed, the modifications of the samsar born out of karma's contact such as narakatva, Tiryakatva (the forms of birds and animals etc. ) also get destroyed along with karmas, but the jiva continues to exist in its pure nature of jiva, i.e. without any worldy modification like a human being, an animal etc., and it now acquires the muktiparyaya or the modification called salvation.

The liberated soul is not destroyable because it is devoid of variations like the pure sky.

Question: At once it may not be destroyed, but in coming time why may it not be destroyed?

Answer: The soul is permanent like the sky because it is formless. Yet, like the sky it is not all pervasive because its attributes like knowledge and pleasure are observed only through the body. So the soul must be pervasive in the body. This has been proved. In the same manner, it is not always unbound, unliberated, because it gets bound by Punyakarma and Papakarma. Otherwise, what is the fruit of benevolence, charity and violence? In the same manner by the separation from karmas, the soul also is freed from bondages.

Why is it that the soul even in moksa is absolutely permanent? It is permanent in particular aspects because its knowledge-modification changes according to the subject- modification, so the soul also in accordance with change of knowledge gets changed; hence with respect to knowledge it is transient.

Question: The attachments and hatred which are the causes for samsar have been in existence from times immemorial, how can they be destroyed totally? Just as you yourself say that the knowledge-consciousness has been in existence from times immemorial and it cannot be destroyed.

Answer: In this world dharma is of two kinds

1. 'Sahabhu' (natural) and

2. 'upadhi-prayojya (directed by a Nimitta, created by a cause.

(a) The light in the sun is natural, and so it never perishes. If clouds spread, the sun is only covered that's all; but even if very dense and dark clouds appear and spread over the whole sky, a slight lustre remains, from which we find some peculiarity, in respect of day or night; and so we can know that it is a day, since it is different from night. In the soul knowledge-consciousness is natural dharma like that. (b)Sometimes, in the sphatik (a transparent stone ) such colours as red and yellow are observed, but they are directed attributes by others i.e. they are upadhi-prayojya (acquired). It is due to 'upadhi' i.e. red-yellow thing which is placed behind the sphatik. As soon as that thing is removed, there will not remain even a trace of redness or yellowness. In the same manner, in the soul attachment and hatred are not natural attributes, but are dharmas of this sort, viz. upadhi-impelled i.e. manifested by other causes. They burst out on account of the producer namely 'karma'. Therefore, soon after karmas slip away, they will not remain in the least; this is logically acceptable. If it is so when 'Virag' the feeling of indifference towards world and sensual objects, and 'upasham.' the control over 'kashayas' like anger, pride etc. When these two increase and attachments and hatred decrease, and thus when the highest level of 'Virag' and 'upasham' (pacification of kashayas and ignoble sentiments is reached. Why should there not be total absence of attachment and hatred?

Question: After once the attachments etc. are completely destroyed, what proof is there to say that they will not be created again?

Answer: The deterioration i.e. variations in a substance are of two kinds--'Nivartya'- irremovable (those variations that cannot be wiped out or removed). Gold by the heat of fire melts. This melting is to change gold into a liquid form and this liquid form is a 'nivartya- vikar' a removable variation, because as soon as heat disappears, this liquid- form disappears, and gold again comes into the solid form.

Wood burnt by fire becomes ash. This is called 'anivartya vikar' (unchangeable distortion), because this ash cannot again become wood. In the soul, attachments and hatred are nivartya vikaras (removeable changes). They are caused by karma-samyog (karma-contact) and as long as the karma-samyog exists, they too exist, and as soon as karma-contact is removed, they too are removed. Now in the salvation-state karma-contact, because of the absence there-of its causes like mithyatva etc., will never be created, and so attachments and hatred also will never be created.

(indian writing pg142 angie): I This Vedic statement says that 'there is such an individual who is bodyless, who is not touched by sorrows and joys viz. who is not congruent with pleasure and displeasure. This kind of individual is a bodyless liberated soul. This also proves the existence of 'moksa'. It should be remembered here that this Vedic statement should not be taken to mean that "when the body is totally destroyed, the soul also is totally destroyed, and then therefore the liked one and unliked one do not touch it. The statement should not be understood thus, because the word 'ashariri' is not merely expressive of absence; but just as the word 'abrahman' refers to a man other than a brahman the word 'agras' refers to a food of vegetable grains etc. different from cow's milk, the word 'ashariri', in the same manner, does not denote total absence, but it denotes an existence of a real substance. Otherwise, the statement should have contained such a word like (indian writing pg 143 angie): 'Sharir-Nash, the destruction of the body. If even the word like 'Abrahmans'--a 'Nay Tatpurusha Samas'--word also does not denote only the absence, the non-existence of a brahman, but denotes kshatriya etc., then what to talk of the word like 'Ashariri', a Bahuvrihi-Samas! The word 'Vasantum' clearly denotes the dwelling of some body. Thus the word 'asharir' clearly denotes an existent subject. If only absence had to be taken, the word 'Sant' would have been enough. But because word 'Vasant' is said, the word 'a- sharir' denotes the soul that is steady on the top of Lokant' (on top of Lokakash).

(indian writing pg 143 angie) In this word 'va vasantam' the word 'Va'(indian writing pg 143 angie) denotes (indian writing pg 143 angie) or it suggests that even the Vitarag jiva in the worldly state i.e., who is still in the body, is not touched by priya or apriya. Here if we take in (indian writing pg 143 gada) `Va-avsantam' having 'A' after 'Va' (with (indian writing pg 143 angie) after (indian writing pg 143 angie)" e.g. "Va-A-Vasantam" meaning one who does not exist anywhere" in other words "absolutely destroyed" that would be wrong. Because this absolute destruction will not be congruent with what is said above that the ~ 'A-sharir' is solely a Bhava Padarth (a real substance) quite opposite to the sheer absence- state) .