Adhyatmabindu

Author(s): Mitranandvijay, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 36

28
and strive for the attainment of the highest spiritual state wherein the pure spiritual nature attains its eternal stability by itself. There is no fall from this state once we have attained it. So, let us free ourselves from the karmic bondage as early as possible, having realised our own true spiritual nature (28). The realisation of the spiritual nature is the only means to cut off the roots of the trees of births. So, for the Realisation one should concentrate on soul. (29), The Realisation is not possible through karmakanda external religious practices). It could be attained through the force or power of pure knowledge. One should not vainly take recourse to karmakanda which mainly asks us to torment the body (30). If I have said, through ignorance, anything that goes against Jaina Āgamas then I request the learned to correct it. Intellect of a non-omniscient being is bound to err somewhere. (31). I, Harsavaradhana, have written these four dvatrimsikäs which expound Vivekakhyāti (32).
VYAVAHĀRANAYA AND NISCAYANAYA: A HISTORICAL SKETCH
The terms “vyovahāradršļi', 'vyavahāranaya', 'vyavahārasatya', 'saħvíti etc. employed in different schools of Indian philosophy are identical in meaning. Similarly, the terms 'niscayadtsti,' 'niscayanaya', 'paramarthasataya' etc. employed in different schools of Indian philosophy convey identical sense. The object of the former is empirical reality whereas that of the latter is transcendental or ultimate reality. This is the reason why the account of reality given by these two standpoints differs widely.
Let us trace the history of the idea conveyed by the couple niscayavyavahāra in Jaina thought. Distinction between these two standpoints is as old as Bhagavatī sūtra. Therein their distinction is brought out by an instance, We are told that vyavaharanaya grasps only the black colour in a black bee whereas niscayanaya grasps all the five colours in it. Here we should bear in mind that nisacayanaya does not contradict the knowledge had through vyavahāranaya, it simply asserts that whatever vyavahāranaya bas grasped is a partial truth. Thus according to the Bhagavatı account of this couple, vyavaharanaya grasps only that part of a thing, which is important from the standpoint of every day life whereas niscayanaya grasps all the aspects of a thing. This has led Jinabadra to declare in his Višeşāvasyakabhāsya that vyavahāranaya follows the viewpoint upheld by some one naya whereas niscayanaya follows the views upheld by all the nayas in their totality. This amounts to saying that vyavaharanaya is a naya while niscayanaya is a pramāna. At one place we are told by Ac. Jinabhadra that according to niscayanaya an act is done only when it is being done at present while according to vyavaharanaya it is done only when the process of doing it is over. As thus understood niscayanaya
1. Bhagavatisatra 18. 6. 630 2. gathā 3590