________________
361
But the Nishchaya (real standpoint) states the substacne as it is. How can it be named as Nishchaya if one believes oneself to be what he is not explicitly? His understanding should be known to be as fallacious as that of the Nishchayabhasi Jiva described earlier.
CHAPTER-VII
Or, otherwise he believes that "from this Naya the soul is like this and from that Naya the soul is like that." But the soul is only as itis; but he does not understand the objective of describing it through the Naya. For example, he believes that from Nishchaya point of view, the soul is like Siddha, possessed of omniscience, devoid of Dravyakarmas (karmic matter), Nokarma (body, etc.) and Bhavakarma (passional dispositions; and form Vyavahara Naya point of view, it is a mundane being, possessed of sensory knowledge, etc. with Dravya-karma, Nokarma & Bhavakarma. But such two natures of the one soul are not possible. How can it be possible for one substance only to be possessed of a particular quality and dispossessed of same quality? Therefore, believing so is a fallacy.
How is it then? As a king and a pauper both are similar from the manhood point of view, similarly, the Siddha (liberated soul) and the Sansari (mundane being) both are described to be similar from consciousness point of view. If similarity is believed to be from the viewpoint of omniscience, etc. then it is not so; in reality, the Sansari possesses sensory knowledge, etc. only and the Siddha possesses omniscience. But this much is certain that Sansari Jiva possesses sensory knowledge, etc. due to instrumentality of karmas; therefore, from the intrinsic nature point of view, if the potency of omniscience is stated to be in Sansari Jiva then it is not wrong. For example, the pauper possesses the potency of becoming a king; similarly, one should know about this potency also. Further, the Dravya-karmas and Nokarmas are the products of Pudgalas (matter-substance), so, from Nishchaya point of view, the Sansari Jiva also is devoid of them; but if (in the mundane state) the relationship is not accepted from the cause and effect point of view, which is not in Siddhas, then it is assuredly a fallacy. And the Bhavakarma (passional dispositions) is the disposition of soul and is so from the Nishchaya point of view, but it is produced due to the instrumental cause of karmas, therefore, from Vyavahara point of view it is stated to be the product of karmas. And like Siddha not accepting the presence of attachment, etc. passions
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
