Shri Amar Muni
Shri Mahavir Bhagavan said to the eleventh brahmin
scholar named Prabhas--
Oh you Aayushman Prabhas (endowed with a long span of
You have found these two mutually contradictory vedic
statements: Here the first statement prescribes the duty of carrying out
the agnihotra throughout the life; and its fruit is only swarga (heaven)
hence you feel that there can be no such thing as moksa Otherwise why
should the veda shastra give such a precept of ceremonising agnihotra
during the life-time? But 'Brahma' soul has been introduced to be in two
forms, i.e. par and apar. The 'par' is pure, enlightened soul liberated
from samsar. This expounds the existence of moksa So, you have entertained
the doubt whether such a thing as moksa exists or not.
The Relationship between a Substance and its
Reasons disproving salvation:
1. First if you accept the existence of the pot, "The
pot soul also is completely destroyed, then who has to acquire moksa?
2. Karma contact being in existence from times
immemorial cannot be destroyed. Therefore how can there be an end to
samsar and salvation?
3. What is jiva? Jivas are naraka's, birds, animals,
etc. If they are destroyed, it is to be believed that jiva is destroyed.
Then whose moksa--the salvation?
These are the proofs of salvation--
1. Even after a light is vanished, the minute tamas,
particles of its dark soot are present in the atmosphere, and they can be
experienced by the sense of smell. Therefore, there is no total
destruction. In the same manner, even after the jivas samsar ends, there
is not total destruction of it. If the soot is blown away by wind, or if
clouds are scattered, do their pudgals thereby get totally destroyed? No.
The moulds and modifications of pudgals are strange. That which is
perceptible by a particular sense, after a little elapse of time becomes
perceptible by another sense after a little elapse of time becomes
perceptible by another sense. Salt which can be perceived by the eyes,
when dissolved in water, cannot be seen by eyes, yet its changed form is
perceivable by the sense of taste. In the same manner, after the
attainment of salvation, the jiva changes its mould only but is not
totally destroyed; and it can be only seen by means of kevaljnan.
2. Though gold and clay are bound together, they are
separated by means of chemical process, and pure gold is obtained. In the
same manner, by means of 'samyag darshan' (the right faith) etc. the soul
becomes pure and liberated.
3. 'Narkas' the inhabitants of hell, animals and birds
etc., are only the modifications of the soul, the soul remaining intact
all through these modifications, because the jiva himself assumes such
forms and modifications, just like a ring or the bangle is broken, gold is
not destroyed, but it remains intact. In the same manner, when the
modifications such as of a Narak, an animal, a bird, etc., are destroyed,
the jiva is not destroyed.
Question: On account of the contact of karmas the jiva
was a worldly being. After the destruction of karmas why should not the
jiva be destroyed? When the cause is destroyed, the effect also must be
destroyed. Just as when the lines of a picture on a paper are destroyed,
the picture also is destroyed.
Answer: Jiva is not created by karmas, so that when
karmas are destroyed jiva also should get destroyed. Karmas are in the
form of a cover, or an attributive substance. Therefore, just as the sun
is not destroyed even though the clouds covering the sun are scattered,
or, just as the space occupied by a hollow pot is not destroyed, when the
pot is destroyed likewise after karmas are destroyed, the jiva is not
destroyed. This is essential that even after the karmas are destroyed, the
modifications of the samsar born out of karma's contact such as narakatva,
Tiryakatva (the forms of birds and animals etc. ) also get destroyed along
with karmas, but the jiva continues to exist in its pure nature of jiva,
i.e. without any worldy modification like a human being, an animal etc.,
and it now acquires the muktiparyaya or the modification called salvation.
The liberated soul is not destroyable because it is
devoid of variations like the pure sky.
Question: At once it may not be destroyed, but in
coming time why may it not be destroyed?
Answer: The soul is permanent like the sky because it
is formless. Yet, like the sky it is not all pervasive because its
attributes like knowledge and pleasure are observed only through the body.
So the soul must be pervasive in the body. This has been proved. In the
same manner, it is not always unbound, unliberated, because it gets bound
by Punyakarma and Papakarma. Otherwise, what is the fruit of benevolence,
charity and violence? In the same manner by the separation from karmas,
the soul also is freed from bondages.
Why is it that the soul even in moksa is absolutely
permanent? It is permanent in particular aspects because its
knowledge-modification changes according to the subject- modification, so
the soul also in accordance with change of knowledge gets changed; hence
with respect to knowledge it is transient.
Question: The attachments and hatred which are the
causes for samsar have been in existence from times immemorial, how can
they be destroyed totally? Just as you yourself say that the
knowledge-consciousness has been in existence from times immemorial and it
cannot be destroyed.
Answer: In this world dharma is of two kinds
1. 'Sahabhu' (natural) and
2. 'upadhi-prayojya (directed by a Nimitta, created
by a cause.
(a) The light in the sun is natural, and so it never
perishes. If clouds spread, the sun is only covered that's all; but even
if very dense and dark clouds appear and spread over the whole sky, a
slight lustre remains, from which we find some peculiarity, in respect of
day or night; and so we can know that it is a day, since it is different
from night. In the soul knowledge-consciousness is natural dharma like
that. (b)Sometimes, in the sphatik (a transparent stone ) such colours as
red and yellow are observed, but they are directed attributes by others
i.e. they are upadhi-prayojya (acquired). It is due to 'upadhi' i.e.
red-yellow thing which is placed behind the sphatik. As soon as that thing
is removed, there will not remain even a trace of redness or yellowness.
In the same manner, in the soul attachment and hatred are not natural
attributes, but are dharmas of this sort, viz. upadhi-impelled i.e.
manifested by other causes. They burst out on account of the producer
namely 'karma'. Therefore, soon after karmas slip away, they will not
remain in the least; this is logically acceptable. If it is so when 'Virag'
the feeling of indifference towards world and sensual objects, and 'upasham.'
the control over 'kashayas' like anger, pride etc. When these two increase
and attachments and hatred decrease, and thus when the highest level of 'Virag'
and 'upasham' (pacification of kashayas and ignoble sentiments is reached.
Why should there not be total absence of attachment and hatred?
Question: After once the attachments etc. are
completely destroyed, what proof is there to say that they will not be
Answer: The deterioration i.e. variations in a
substance are of two kinds--'Nivartya'- irremovable (those variations that
cannot be wiped out or removed). Gold by the heat of fire melts. This
melting is to change gold into a liquid form and this liquid form is a 'nivartya-
vikar' a removable variation, because as soon as heat disappears, this
liquid- form disappears, and gold again comes into the solid form.
Wood burnt by fire becomes ash. This is called 'anivartya
vikar' (unchangeable distortion), because this ash cannot again become
wood. In the soul, attachments and hatred are nivartya vikaras (removeable
changes). They are caused by karma-samyog (karma-contact) and as long as
the karma-samyog exists, they too exist, and as soon as karma-contact is
removed, they too are removed. Now in the salvation-state karma-contact,
because of the absence there-of its causes like mithyatva etc., will never
be created, and so attachments and hatred also will never be created.
(indian writing pg142 angie): I This Vedic statement
says that 'there is such an individual who is bodyless, who is not touched
by sorrows and joys viz. who is not congruent with pleasure and
displeasure. This kind of individual is a bodyless liberated soul. This
also proves the existence of 'moksa'. It should be remembered here that
this Vedic statement should not be taken to mean that "when the body is
totally destroyed, the soul also is totally destroyed, and then therefore
the liked one and unliked one do not touch it. The statement should not be
understood thus, because the word 'ashariri' is not merely expressive of
absence; but just as the word 'abrahman' refers to a man other than a
brahman the word 'agras' refers to a food of vegetable grains etc.
different from cow's milk, the word 'ashariri', in the same manner, does
not denote total absence, but it denotes an existence of a real substance.
Otherwise, the statement should have contained such a word like (indian
writing pg 143 angie): 'Sharir-Nash, the destruction of the body. If even
the word like 'Abrahmans'--a 'Nay Tatpurusha Samas'--word also does not
denote only the absence, the non-existence of a brahman, but denotes
kshatriya etc., then what to talk of the word like 'Ashariri', a
Bahuvrihi-Samas! The word 'Vasantum' clearly denotes the dwelling of some
body. Thus the word 'asharir' clearly denotes an existent subject. If only
absence had to be taken, the word 'Sant' would have been enough. But
because word 'Vasant' is said, the word 'a- sharir' denotes the soul that
is steady on the top of Lokant' (on top of Lokakash).
(indian writing pg 143 angie) In this word 'va vasantam'
the word 'Va'(indian writing pg 143 angie) denotes (indian writing pg 143
angie) or it suggests that even the Vitarag jiva in the worldly state
i.e., who is still in the body, is not touched by priya or apriya. Here if
we take in (indian writing pg 143 gada) `Va-avsantam' having 'A' after 'Va'
(with (indian writing pg 143 angie) after (indian writing pg 143 angie)"
e.g. "Va-A-Vasantam" meaning one who does not exist anywhere" in other
words "absolutely destroyed" that would be wrong. Because this absolute
destruction will not be congruent with what is said above that the ~ 'A-sharir'
is solely a Bhava Padarth (a real substance) quite opposite to the sheer
absence- state) .