Jainworld
Jain World
Sub-Categories of Passions
About This Book (Translator's Prelude)
Peculiarity of Jainism
Introduction
Prologue
Nature of Mundane Existence
  Miseries of Mundane Existence and Bliss of Liberation 
  Exposition of False Belief Knowledge and Conduct
  Analytical study of different religions
  Refutation of False Deity-Preceptor-Religion
  X-ray of Jaina-misbelievers
  Nature of Sermons
  Nature of Liberation Path
  Nature of Noble Peaceful Death
  Rahasyapoorna Chitthi (Spiritual Letter)
  Glossary

Appendix II - RAHASYA-POORNA CHITTHEE

 

 

Question:  If there is nothing special in the process of knowing in Nirvikalpa state as compared to Savikalpa state then how is more happiness generated?

 

Answer:  One specialty is this that in Savikalpa state (rambling state of Upayoga) the knowledge was engaged in knowing several knowables, whereas in Nirvikalpa state (rainblemless state of Upayoga or concentration of thoughts) the knowledge (Upayoga) remains engrossed in knowing the soul only.  The second specialty is that the Upayoga which used to ramble in different thoughts, the same Upayoga is now engrossed in the nature of self-soul by merging its identity in it.

 

On evolution of such specialties, some such inexpressible unique bliss is experienced of which even a minutest part is not experienced in enjoying carnal pleasures; therefore, that bliss is called supersensory (Atteendriya).

 

Question:  Even if in the state of self-realization, the soul remains Paroksha (indirectly known) only, then how is self-realization described in the books to be Pratyaksha (directly known)? In the earlier quoted verse also, it is stated that Pachchkho an.uhavo jmha  how is it so?

 

Answer:  In the state of self-realization, the soul is Paroksha (known indirectly) only, the soul�s Pradeshas (spatial units) and shape are not visible, but by engrossment of Upayoga in the nature of the self-soul, the self-realization, which is evolved, is called direct self-realization (Swaanubhava Pratyaksha).  The true believer does not know the taste of self-realization by Agama-Anumana etc. Proksha Pramana (scripture-inference etc. form of indirect knowledge), rather he himself experiences the taste of sugarcane; there, the shape, etc. of sugar candy are Paroksha (indirect or not visible) but the taste experienced through the tongue is Pratyaksha (direct); similarly, in the state of self-realization the soul is Paroksha (indirect or not visible) but the taste experienced through pure dispositions ifs Pratyaksha (direct).

 

Or that which is like Pratyaksha (direct) only, is also called Pratyaksha (direct).  For example, people say- �We saw directly a particular person in dream or meditation�.  There, in fact, nothing is seen directly, but identical to direct, we really saw like Pratyaksha (directly seen); therefore; it is said to Pratyaksha.  Similarly, in the state of self-realization, the soul is really known like Pratyaksha; therefore, by this logic if we say that soul also is known directly, then there is no fault.  The statements are made in different ways; however, the statements should be understood in such a way that the point of view of Agama (aetiology scripture) and Adhyatma (metaphysics) is not contradicted.

 

Question:  Such realization (Anubhava) is evolved in which Gunasthana (stage of spiritual development)?

 

Answer:  It evolves even in fourth Gunasthana itself, but in the fourth Gunasthana it occurs again after long interval of time and in higher Gunasthanas it occurs with lesser interval of time.

 

Question: The self-realization is Nirvikalpa (rambleless concentration of thoughts-Upayoga), what difference lies in self-realization with respect to higher and lower Gunasthana?

 

Answer:  The difference lies in the degrees of engrossment of Upayoga.  For example, two persons are chanting the name (of Arhanta God, etc., say) and the thoughts of both are engaged in chanting the name, but greater concentration may be found in the case of one and lesser in the case of other.  Similarly, one should know here also.

 

Question:  It is stated that there is no Vikalpa (rambling of thoughts) in the state of Nirvikalpa-Anubhava (rambleless self-realization), but first type of Shukla Dhyana the state of pure concentration found in true monks prior to attainment of omniscience) is stated to be (Prathaktva-Vitarka-Vichara (different scriptural knowledge-shifting of Upayoga) and Prathaktva-Vitarka means shifting of  knowledge from one object to another or shifting of thoughts with regard to objects, words and activities.  How is it so?

 

Answer:  The statement is of two types- one is in the general (gross) form and the other is in specific (minute) form.  For example, from general point of view, the vow of complete celibacy is stated to be evolved even in the sixth Gunasthana and from specific (minute) point of view, the Maithuna Sanjnaa (feeling or desire of coition) is stated to be present upto the ninth Gunasthana; similarly, here in the state of self-realization rambleless state of thoughts, Nirvikalpta, is described from the general point of view.  And from the specific (minute) point of view Prathaktva-Vitarka-Vichara etc. (shifting of Upayoga etc.) and passions or emotional feelings, etc. are stated to be present upto the tenth Gunasthana.  There, the statement of such dispositions, which is known by self and others, should be known from general (gross) point of view and the statement of such dispositions, which even himself does not know and only the omniscient knows, should be known from minute (specific) point of view.  In Charannuyoga (ethics) etc. the prominence is that of general (gross form of) statement and in Karananuyoga (aetiology) the prominence is that of specific (minute) statement.  One should know such difference elsewhere also.

 

Thus, one should know the differentia of Nirvikalpa Anubhava (rambless self-realization).

 

Further, you have written three examples and a question based on them.  But the example is not applicable in all respects.  The example specifics one particular purpose, so here the second-day moon, water drop and a particle of fire (an ember)-these are parts only, and the full moon of plenilunar day, the ocean and fire-pit-these are complete forms.  Similarly, in the fourth Gunasthana, the attributes of soul like knowledge, etc. have manifested partially; in the thirteenth Gunasthana (in Arhanta state) the attributes of soul like knowledge, etc. are fully manifested.  And from quality point of view, the class of examples is one and the same.  Similarly, from the quality point of view, the category of attributes manifested in the state of vowless right believer and those manifested in the thirteenth Gunasthana is one and the same.

 

Further, your question was that- �If the class is one, then even the true believer of fourth Gunasthana might be knowing the soul directly as the omniscient (Kewali) knows directly all the knowables?

 

Answer:  One category is not from the point of view of directness, but is from the point of view of Samyag-jnana-right knowledge.  The true believer of fourth Gunasthana possesses right knowledge of the form of Mati & Shruta-jnana whereas in the thirteenth Gunasthana the right knowledge is of thing form of omniscience.  Further, the difference between �Partial� and �Full� is only this much that the possessor of Mati-Shruta jnana (true sensory & scriptural knowledge) knows somewhat successively, one after the other, the immaterial substance indirectly and even the material substance directly as well as indirectly; and the possessor of omniscience knows all substances wholly and simultaneously; the possessor of Mati-Shrutajnana knows; indirectly (Paroksha) whereas the omniscient knows directly (Pratyaksha), only this much difference is there.  And if the category be described to be the same in all respects, then it should be stated that as the omniscient (Kewali) knows indirectly (Paroksha) whereas the omniscient knows directly ramblelessly and simultaneously the purposeless knowables, similarly, he (the true believer of fourth Gunasthana) too would know; but this is not so.  Therefore, one should know the difference between direct and indirect (Pratyaksha and Paroksha).

In Ashta Sahasree also it is stated thus:-

 

Syadvad kaivlkshanai srvtatv prkashanai

Bhaid sakshadsakshach, havastvanyatman bhvant 

                                      ----105  Asht Sehsree Dashma Parichhod

           

Meaning:  Syadwad, i.e., Shrutajnana (scriptural knowledge) and Kewal Jnana (omniscience)-both are the illuminators of all kinds of Tattvas(substances with their attributes and modifications).  The specialty is only this much that Kewal Jnana (omniscience) is Pratyaksha (direct) and Shruta Jnana (scriptural knowledge) is Paroksha (indirect); but he substance remains the same, does not convert into the other.

 

Further, whatever you have written to be the differentia of Nischaya-Samyaktva (real right belief) and Vyavahara Samyaktva (conventional right belief) is true but this much should be known that in the case of a true believer, the internal real right belief is always existent in conventional right belief and at other times too; it is always in active form.

 

Further, your question is that- �Some coreligionist has raised a query that if the true believer knows the soul directly (Pratyaksha) then why would he not know the Karma-Vargana (karmic matter) directly?

 

The answer is that the soul is known directly by the Kewali (omniscient) only, whereas the Karma-Vargana is known by a clairvoyant also.

 

Further, you have state that the soul�s Pradeshas (spatial units) should be stated to be partially open similar to the moon of second-day?

 

Answer: This example is not from the point of view of Pradeshas (spatial units); this example is from the point of view of attributes.

 

Whatever questions you have raised about Pratyaksha-Apratyaksha (direct-indirect knowing process) etc. with respect to right belief (Samyaktva) and self-realization, I have tried to answer the same as per my knowledge; you should also check the same from Jinavani (omniscients� preachings) and from your own understanding and knowledge.

 

How much to write! That which is known cannot be fully written; on meeting face to face, further discussion is possible; but meeting depends on destiny; hence, benefit lies in continuously making effort for realization of the sentient nature of the (self) soul.

 

In the present times Adhyatma-Tattva (spiritual reality or truth) is in the Atma-Khyati, the Sanskrit commentary written by Amrit Chandra Acharya on Samyasara book and the discussion of Agama (aetiology) is in Gommatasara and also in other books.

 

All that is known cannot be put into words; therefore, you too should keep yourself engaged in the study of Adhyatma (metaphysics) and Agama (aetiology) books and keep engrossed in the bliss of self-soul.

 

And if you have come across some other special books, please write to me about the same.  The coreligionists need to have mutual discussions.   And I do not possess great intelligence but it is a great thing that I have an occasion for mutual exchange of ideas with brethren like you.

 

So  long as meeting does not materialize till then please continue writing the letters.  Dated Fagun Badi 5, Vikram year 1811. (March.......,1755 A.D.).

 

* THE END *
 

1* Here after describing Margana Samyaktva a space of 3 lines is left in the manuscript written by Pt. Todarmalji (author of this book) for describing the rest six Samyaktvas, but the same could not be written.