________________
Meaning of two axiological Nayas The Ni caya Naya grasps the soul in its undefiled state of existence in contradistinction to the Vyavah ra Naya, which describes the self as bound, impure, and the like. No doubt, we are in the defiled form of existence from beginningless past, but the Ni caya Naya reminds us of our spiritual magnificence and glory. It prompts the sullied self to behold its spiritual heritage. It endeavors to infuse and instil into our minds the imperativeness of uddha Bh vas after abundantly showing us the empirical and evanescent character of ubha and A ubha Bh vas that bind the soul to mundane existence. It does not assert that the soul is at present perfect but simply affirms that the self 'ought' to attain the height illuminated by it. It has the force of 'ought' and not of 'is', but this force is valid for empirical selves. In the opening chapter of the Samayas ra kundakunda summarizes the implication of the aforementioned two Nayas by saying that every self has heard about, observed and experienced the worldly enjoyments and consequential bondage, but the nature of the highest self has never been comprehended. 22 Hence the former is Vyavah ra Naya, while the latter is called Ni caya Naya, which points to the potentiality of the empirical self to become pure and enjoys its unalloyed status. It is therefore averred that when the self has elevated itself to the domain of spiritual experience, the Vyavah ra Naya becomes false and the Ni caya Naya seen to be genuine. In other words, we achieve the right to renounce the Vyavah ra Naya only when we have accomplished the loftiest height of mystical experience. If we regard the Vyavah ra Naya as untruthful at a low stage, Punya, P pa, bondage, and the necessity to do strenuous effort to achieve liberation would be of no avail. It may be noted here that the falsity of the Vyavah ra Naya affects neither the existence of external objects nor the omniscience of the transcendental self, which reflects the differences of the world as they are. In explaining the nature of spiritual experience, Kundakunda affirms that the nature of spiritual experience surpasses all the conceptual points of view 123) whether Ni caya or Vyavah ra. The former represents the self as unbound and untouched by attachment and aversion. While the latter, as bound and touched by them, but he who transcends these verbal points of view is called Samayas ra, the terminus of spiritual journey. The self becomes pure consciousness, bliss and knowledge.
It may be noted here that like the Ni caya or Param rtha and Vyavah ra Nayas enunciated by Kundakunda, a kar c rya, the great exponent of the Advaita doctrine, makes use of the Param rthika and Vy vah rika view-points as the corner-stones of his philosophy. But the two differ widely. The Param rthika view as advocated by a jkara negates the Param rthika existence of other material and non-material objects of the world which, in the view of the Jaina, have their own independent existence. The Vyavah ra Naya of the Jains simply points to our slumbering state in the domain of spiritualism, and does not in the least touch the existential aspects of things. The Ni caya or Param rthika Naya simply serves to awaken the slumbering soul to attain its spiritual heritage. It does not pretend to annual the external things by mere spiritual outlook.
Doer and Deed: An Axiological Point of View We may discuss the philosophy of the doer and the deed from the axiological point of view. From the Ni caya point of view, the transcendental self is the doer and enjoyer of its own pure states. From the Vyavah ra point of view the empirical self is the doer and enjoyer of the impure states of self. This is the spiritual perspective of Anek nta. There is no denying the fact that the empirical self has been the doer of impure dispositions of attachment and aversion since an indeterminable past, so it is no doubt the author of these dispositions of attachment and aversion. But according to the Ni caya point of view, in whatever deeds the empirical self may get itself engaged in the world, they are not the author of these impure dispositions. The chief point of reference is the self in its pure nature. There is no contradiction in affirming that the enlightened self which had its true nature manifests the pure modes and thereby becomes the substantial agent of those modes, and in affirming that the ignorant self because of its erroneous identification with the alien nature develops impure dispositions, and thereby it is called their agent.25) Just as from gold only golden things can be produced, and from iron only iron things, so the enlightened self produces pure modifications and ignorant self produces impure ones. 26 When the ignorant self becomes enlightened, it starts generating pure modifications without any incongruity. Thus the self is simply the doer of its own states and not the doer of anything else whatsoever. The empirical self is the author of impure psychic states on account of its association with attachment and aversion. But if we advance a step further and reflect transcendentally, we arrive at the inevitable conclusion that the pure self cannot be the author of
Page 305 of 556
STUDY NOTES version 4.0
