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
realization (Anubhava) is evolved in which Gunasthana (stage of spiritual
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.
self-realization is Nirvikalpa (rambleless concentration of thoughts-Upayoga),
what difference lies in self-realization with respect to higher and lower
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
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:-
kaivlkshanai srvtatv prkashanai
sakshadsakshach, havastvanyatman bhvant
----105 Asht Sehsree Dashma Parichhod
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
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
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.