X-ray of Jaina-misbelievers

 

The true belief would be evolved only on forsaking both the contrary types of faiths. Then one would believe that these passional feelings are not natural dispositions of the soul but get evolved in the soul in the form of contrary dispositions due to the instrumentality of the karmas. On removal of the instrumental cause, 'soul's true nature remains as it is.  Therefore, one should make effort for uprooting them.

 

Here the question arises that "If these attachment, etc. impure dispositions are produced due to the instrumentality of karmas then how could these impure dispositions be eliminated in the continued rise of karmas? Therefore, making effort for their removal is useless.

 

Answer: In the accomplishment of one act several causes are required. In them, those causes which are consciously gathered, should be gathered and on meeting of those causes which cannot be consciously gathered but are met with on their own, the act gets accomplished. For example, for the birth of a son the conscious causes are marriage, etc. and the unconscious cause is the destiny.  Therefore, one who wishes to have a son should consciously get married and when fortune also favours, the son will be born.  Similarly, for uprooting impure dispositions, the conscious causes are pondering over and ascertaining the Tattvas and unconscious causes are the subsidence, etc. of Moha (deluding) karma. Therefore, one who wishes to eliminate one's impure dispositions should consciously ponder over and ascertain the Tattvas and when the subsidence, etc. of Moha (deluding) karma takes place, the impure dispositions get eliminated.

 

Question: As marriage, etc. are dependent on destiny, similarly, ascertaining of Tattvas (reality) too is dependent on Kshayopashama  etc. of the karmas, hence making efforts is useless.

 

Answer: You have got Kshayopashama of Jnanavarana karma (knowledge obscuring karma) so you can ascertain the Tattvas. Therefore, you are advised to make effort of engaging your knowledge there.  The irrational beings do not possess such Kshayopashama; so, how can they be preached?

 

Then he further says- " If fortune favors then only one's Upayoga (attentive consciousness) can get engrossed there. How would Upayoga be engrossed without such fortune?

 

Answer:  If your belief  be so then you should not make effort for any work anywhere.  You willfully engage yourself in eating-drinking and doing business, etc. and here you put up the excuse of the destiny.  This shows that your interest does not lie here and only due to pride you are putting up such false excuses.

 

In this way, such people should be known as false believers who, in spite of being absorbed in passional acts, believe, their soul to be free from them.

 

Further, there are people who although are having the bondage of karmas and Nokarmas (body, etc.), yet believe the soul to be free from bondage, but their bondage is clearly seen. The Jnanavarana, etc. karmas are seen obscuring the knowledge, etc. and according to their rise, etc., the conditions of the soul are seen changing through the medium of body.  How is then the bondage not there? If there be no bondage why should then the aspirants of liberation make efforts for destroying them?

 

Question: How is then the soul described in the Shastras as separate from and unbounded and untouched by karmas and Nokarmas?

 

Answer: The relationship are of several kinds.  From one identity relationship ( Tadatmya-Sambandha) point of view, the soul is described to be separate from Karmas and Nokarmas, etc., because the different substances do not become one by transforming (into one another) and it is from this point of view that the soul is described as unbounded and untouched.  But from the instrumental cause and effect relationship point of view, bondage the soul assuredly assumes different forms.  Therefore, believing the soul as having no bondage is false belief.

 

Someone may argue here that we do not want to ramble our attention in thoughts of bondage and liberation because in scripture (Yogasara) it is stated so:

 

Jayee baddhu mukku mun^.hi so banhiyahi n^.ibhantu

Sehaj saroovyu jyee ramhi to pavhi siv santu                       (87)

 

Meaning: "That Jiva who believes himself to be bonded or liberated he undoubtedly gets bonded".

 

Our answer to him is- "There are Jivas who always hold the modificational view point (Paryaya Drishti), believe only in the bonded- liberated states of the soul but do not know the intrinsic nature (Dravya-Swabhava) of the soul.  Such Jivas are preached to remember that those, who do not have belief in the intrinsic nature of the soul and believe only in the bonded -liberated states, are always bonded.  And if bondage- liberation be totally not there then why is it described that the Jiva gets bonded?  And why should one make efforts to destroy the bondage and get liberated?  And why should one exert for self realization? Therefore, one should believe that from substantial (Dravya-Drishti) point of view the soul holds one unchanged form and from modificational (Paryaya Drishti) point of view it assumes different states.

 

Thus, in various ways he holds perverse belief due to wrong understanding of Nishchaya-Naya (real standpoint) only.

 

In Jina Vani (omniscient Jina's preachings) different types of descriptions are found from different angles of different Nayas (standpoints) in different contexts.  But this person (misunderstanding Nischyas-Naya) holds misbelief by accepting as per his imagination such descriptions which are stated chiefly from realistic standpoint.

 

Moreover, in Jina's preachings, the path of liberation is described to be in the union of right belief, knowledge and conduct.  So, in his belief and knowledge he should hold the faith and knowledge of seven Tattvas but he does not think of them.  In this his conduct he should make effort for uprooting  attachment, etc. passions but he does not exert for it; and instead he remains contented by knowing the liberation path to consist in the pure realization of his own soul only.  For practicing the same he internally continuously thinks -"I am pure like Siddha god, I possess omniscience, etc., I am devoid of Dravya-karmas and No- karmas, I am full of beatitude, the miseries of birth-death, etc. are not in me".

 

So, here we ask him "If you contemplate in this way from the substantial (Dravya-Drishti) point of view, then the substance (soul) is a mass of all sorts of pure and impure modifications, why do you then contemplate the soul as pure only?  And if you contemplate from the modificational (Paryaya-drishti) point of view, then presently you are having impure modifications; how do you then believe yourself to be pure?

 

Further, if you believe yourself to be pure from the potentiality point of view then you should believe that "I am capable to become so".  Why do you believe "I am so"? Therefore, contemplating oneself to be in pure form is a fallacy.  Because, if you consider yourself to be like Siddha God then whose is this mundane state?  And if you possess omniscience, etc. (presently) then whose are these states of sensory knowledge, etc.?  And if you consider yourself to be devoid of Dravya-karma and No-karmas (body, etc.) then why is not the full manifestation of knowledge, etc. (in you)?  And if you are having beatitude then what else remains to be done? If you do not have the miseries of birth-death, etc. then why do you experience misery?  Therefore, believing the existence of some other states when other different states are found is fallacy.

 

Question: How is then the discourse of meditating on the pure soul given in the Shastras?

 

Answer: Purity of soul is described in Shastras from two angles -the substantial point of view and the modificational point of view.  There, from the substantial point of view the separateness from other non-self substances and inseparability from one's own intrinsic attributes (qualities) is termed as purity.  And from the modificational point of view the elimination of alienated (impure) dispositions is termed as purity.  So, in the meditation of soul's purity, the purity from the substantial point of view is admonished.  The same is described in the exposition of Samayasara:  Aish aivashaishadravyantrharvabhyao bhignatvainopasyaman shudh ityabhilapyatai This means that the soul is neither passionate (Pramatta) nor dispassionate (Apramatta).  So, this alone is described to be pure being adored to be as separate from the attributes of all other non-self substances. Further, in Samayasara itself it is stated so: Samastkakachkraprakriyoteern^.nirmalanubhootimatratvachchhaddh This means- " Such unpolluted realization is pure which is unaffected by all forms of cases (karakas) like doer (karta), deed (karma), etc. and is one is one with the indivisible knowledge form of self-soul".  Hence, you should know such meaning of the word "pure".  Similarly, one should know the meaning of the word Kewal (only) to be "That which is separate from the attributes and modifications of all other non-self things and is purely solely the self-soul". Similarly, you should grasp the true meanings of other words.

 

Believing oneself to be pure and omniscient from modificational standpoint, results in great perverseness; therefore, one should perceive oneself in both substance and modification forms.  From substance form point of view one should perceive the one general undivided identity and from the modification form point of view one should perceive the particular existing state of the self.

 

By meditating in the aforesaid manner only one becomes the true believer, because without perceiving the true nature how can one be called Samyagdrishti (true believer)?

 

 The Unrestrained conduct of Nischayaabhasi and Refutation of the same

 

Further, in the path of liberation, the faith-knowledge and conduct are to be directed towards uprooting the feeling of attachment, etc., but his attention is not on this, instead, emphasizing realization of pure self only, he neglects all other external means of liberation by believing himself a true believer.

 

He advocates study of the Shastras as useless, considers contemplation about substances, etc., spiritual stages (Guna-Sthanas), quest-places (Margana-Sthanas) and the three worlds (universe), etc. as Vikalpa (rambling of Upayoga attention); believes observing of penance to be useless exercise, treats observance of vows, etc., as falling in bondage and knowing the acts of worship, etc. as pious influx, describes them to be worth giving up; in this way, by discarding all sorts of external means, he lives indolently.

 

If studying of Shastras be useless then for the monks also meditation and study, only these two, are the main activities.  When they are not able to engage their Upayoga (attention); meditation then they engage it in study only, because no other act than these two is worthy of their attention.  Moreover, by knowing the intricacies of Tattvas in detail through study of Shastras, the right belief and knowledge become purer.  And so long as Upayoga remains engrossed there, passions remain feeble and it results in increase of passionlessness.  How could then such activities be believed as useless?