Shri Amar Muni



The (sixth) brahmin by name Mandit came. The Bhagavan said to him, "You have the doubt whether the soul undergoes bondage and moksa or not? You have found two kinds of vedic statements"

(indian writing pg 109 angie)

The first statement means, "This all pervasive soul 'viguno' devoid of the three attributes- 'Satva' 'Rajas' 'Tamas' never comes into bondage; does not undergo transformation in the samsar; does not attain moksa; nor does cause deliverance of others" Whereas the second statement means, "There is no voidness of joys and sorrows in the soul possessing body. The soul becomes bound in the body. It also experiences the changes in joys and sorrows, and when it gets permanent deliverance from the body, then this botheration ends this series of entanglement ends". From this, you have entertained the doubt whether the soul should have bondages and moksa or not.

'Poorva Paksha' :-Opponent's view: His proposition 'Bondage and Moksa (deliverance) do not exist.

The soul has no bondage. In support of this theory, the idea arises, "Bondage means the binding of the soul with karmas" But the question is, "do the soul and karmas coexist or do they come successively?"

1) If the soul is first and karma next, then this cannot happen i.e., it is not logically possible because in that state either the soul might have taken birth without cause or the soul might have been in existence from times immemorial. But in the first alternative it is impossible, because without a cause an effect cannot be created. That which is created is preceded by a cause, and if it is created without a cause, then it may just perish without a cause, and perished after being created, how could it be visible at all?

1) If the soul is first and karma next, then this cannot existence without cause and how did they stick (cling) to the soul? If they cling thus, namely without the cause, then to the delivered souls they may cling!

2) If karmas are first and jiva next, even this cannot be possible because without a doer how can karmas be created at all? If they are created thus, then they might perish without any cause!

3) If you say that karmas and soul are created together then there are defects on both the sides. Moreover between these two there will not be possible even the logical link of doer and deed, just as between the left and right horn created at the same time, this relationship of a doer and a deed does not exist.

In this manner, the bondage of the soul and karma is not logically possible. If the soul is not at all in bondage consequently how can there be deliverance? If there is the union between karmas and the soul from times immemorial, then that union without a beginning would be ever-lasting which means the union cannot be destroyed. Hence deliverance (moksa) cannot be logically possible. Will the union between the soul and the sky, which is without beginning get ever destroyed? The implication is that the soul has neither bondage nor deliverance ( moksa ).

The Refuting View: Bondage and Deliverance (Moksa) do exist

1) The series of the body and the karmas is without a beginning like the series of the seed and the fruit. Without a cause, there can be no effect. Therefore this is to be accepted that karmas have been created by the causative soul in some previous body. That body has been formed by the causative karmas done previously... In this manner, the chain between karmas and body is infinite. But it should be remembered that karmas and the body are both causes and means, whereas the doer of karmas and body is the soul. For the soul to do karmas the body is the means: and to create the body karmas are the means. In this manner, karmas in series remain clung to the soul. Therefore the bondage on the soul is proved.

Question: If karmas exist, should they not be visible? If not visible how can their existence be believed in?

Answer Let the karmas be invisible and imperceptible by the senses, but their existence is inferred on the basis of their effect. Otherwise if we think in this manner, just because your intelligence is not visible, does it mean that it does not exist? Are you devoid of intelligence? There is no rule that a thing that is not visible does not exist.

2) There cannot be an end to an ever-existing phenomena. But this is not an absolute truth. That 'which is without a beginning cannot perish'. This kind of one-sided view is not sound (not established by an evidence). The series of karma- samyog (karma-binding) which is without a beginning, can come to an end. As for instance, if the seed is dried or if the fruit is burnt, its series of seed and fruit which has been running from the times immemorial and which is without a beginning comes to an end. If a son remains bachelor and observes celibacy throughout his life, his series of father and son, father and son, father and son running from the times immemorial, will come now to an end. If the hen dies before hatching eggs, or if the egg is destroyed, then its series ends, because it does not further continue. Therefore, though the series of the union between gold and clay has been in existence from the time of their existence, but by means of its burning in fire etc., the series of their union ends. In the same manner, by means of non-violence, self-restraint and austerities the union of soul with karma also ends, and deliverance (salvation, moksa) is attained. This-is a fact that--deliverance is possible only of the "bhauya jivas', but not of the 'abhauya jivas. 'Bhavyas' i.e. those souls that are worthy of salvation (eligible for attaining salvation).

What is Bhayatva? How?

Question: Why is it that some are bhavya souls and some are abhavya souls? If you say that this difference is like the difference between the inhabitants of hell and animals, then it becomes evident that the difference is caused by karmas.

Answer: No. There is a difference on account of nature. Though all the substances are equal being sat (real), yet by nature some substances are animate (conscious) and some are inanimate. This difference is from the times immemorial; and due to such varied nature of those substances, naturally some of them are animate and some are inanimate. In the same manner, though all souls are equal as regards conscience naturally some are bhavyas (worthy of salvation) and the others are abhavyas (unworthy of the salvation). This difference has been in existence from times immemorial. The series has no beginning. But when a bhavya soul achieves salvation, its bhavyatva is ended.

Question: If the eligibility (worthiness) of salvation bhavyatva like the soulhood is natural, then that is ever- existing. Why should it end or perish! Just as jivatva does not end, why should Bhavyatva end (be destroyed)?

Answer Though 'ghat-pragabhav' (i.e. true previous absent state of the pot before its birth) is without a beginning as soon as its effect the pot takes birth i.e. comes into existence, the 'ghat-pragabhav' i.e. the absent state is destroyed. In the same manner, as soon as the salvation as the effect of bhavyatva is attained, bhavyatva perishes. This is quite logical. Do not say that pragabhav is of an absence state and bhavyatva is of a non-absent state, hence how can the bhavyatva be compared to pragabhav?"

Because even pragabhav, when the pot is in the state of being created (namely, is in the process of creation) is in the form of a special combination of clay-pudgals (specially shaped clay-bulk) and pot is to some extent existent in that form. Though pragabhav in the form of previous absence is without a beginning, it can perish in the form of clay bulk. Bhavyatva being the eligibility of attaining salvation comes to an end immediately after salvation is attained, because a soul after attaining salvation is not eligible for salvation. The clay transformed into pot is not now called eligible for pot. Hence now the intended very effect is there, but not its eligibility.

As per anekdntvad, a pragabhava is not absolutely in the form of absent state only of a substance but it is also in the form of previous state of the effect. As for example, the pragabhava of a pot is not merely its previous absent state, but it is also in the form of a clay-bulk. So just when the form of the pot comes into existence their does not remain now the form of the clay-bulk i.e., bulk-form is destroyed, and pot-form has come into existence. Similarly when a bbavya jiva acquires salvation form, he loses the form of worthiness for salvation.

Why does not the Samsar become empty of Bhavya Souls?

Question: If the bhavya jivas go on attaining moksa, why should that day not come when the samsar should be totally empty of bhavyas just as when even one grain after the other is taken out from a store-house of grain a day comes when the store-house becomes totally empty of grains.

Answer No, the amount of bhavya jivas is infinite like time. Even though, time is exhausting second by second it does not come to an end. In the same manner, bhavya jiva cannot be exhausted even though at least one bhavya jiva attains moksa within every period of six months.

Question: Time is not limited whereas the bhavya jivas are limited. There is only a definite amount of bhavya jivas in this world. New bhavya jivas does not increase. So on the passing of infinite time all the bhavya jivas should attain moksa, and the world should be void of bhavya jivas.

Answer No, if you count from today, upto some future infinite point of time, then that time is limited only, owing to two extremes of time being fixed whereas the past time has no beginning and so it is limitless. Now you think over this, what work of 'being completely exhausted of bhavyas, has not happened in that limitless past time, how can it happen in the future limited time? Whenever this question is asked in the future, 'how many jivas have attained moksa till now the answer will be one and the same that "jivas, only in an infinitesimal part of the infinite number of one Nigod jivas, have attained moksa". Like the other statements of the omniscient, even this statement also has to be believed to be true, by having faith in him and on his words.

Question: Why are all the jivas not attaining moksa not styled as 'abhavya?

Answer The term 'bhavya' does not mean a jiva that will necessarily attain moksa, but it means a jiva who is worthy of (eligible for) attaining moksa. In other words, those jivas only are bhavyas who can attain moksa, if they obtain the means of moksa such as non-violence, austerities and self-restraint etc. They should not be called (termed) as 'Abhauyas' simply because they did not get these means. If the wood eligible to become an idol did not receive all other means required for the creation of an idol, then the idol will not be created. But simply because of such creation not happening in the absence of other means, wood will not be considered ineligible and unworthly for idol.

Question: If moksa is a created thing, then why should it not perish inasmuch as that which is created is destroyed?

Answer Just as 'Dhwamsa' (absence in the form of destruction) after being created does not get destroyed similarly moksa also does not get destroyed. Really speaking for moksa what is that thing to be created? Moksa salvation is simply nothing but the manifestation of the pure form of the soul. When a pot is broken, the 'ghataksa' (sky-part occupied by the pot) is destroyed, but on account of it, there is no additional increase in the sky. In this manner by the complete destruction of all the *karmas, the embodied soul does not continue to exist in that state; but the pure soul does exist and now there will never be new entrance of karmas in the pure soul which might be subject to destruction later.

After moksa is attained, even though the soul and karma- particles continue to exist in the universe yet in the delivered soul there being the absence of activities of the mind, body and voice, karma-particles are not ever captured in that case which can bind the delivered soul. So there never arises any bondage of karmas. In the same manner, when there is no seed of karmas, how can there be any sprout of rebirth? The soul is permanent in the form of dravya, but transient in the form of samsarik modification; and when just the samsarik modification ends, then and there the salvation, modification starts, viz. the soul gets created in the form of an imperishable salvation-modification (avinashi i.e. everlasting moksa paryay).

Thus the soul is both permanent and transient. Now you cannot say that because the soul is permanent and formless like sky so it should be pervasive (pervaded) everywhere. Because first, the soul is not absolutely permanent; and second, the soul is a doer, enjoyer and seer etc. By this its all- pervasiveness is negated. Therefore, after all the karmas are destroyed, just as the soul attains a new modification of perfection, so it attains now the modification of naturally rising upwards in the sky. Hence it can go upto the lokanta (the top of the Universe). If it might be all-pervasive, where is the question of going? After it reaches up the lokanta, then there will not be such causes of downfall as karmas, endeavour, attraction, repulsions, heavyness etc. Therefore, it can never fall in Samsar.

Question: Why is not the formless soul, like sky, devoid of total movement?

Answer As opposed to the sky, just as the soul possesses consciousness and the capacity for endeavouring as special dharmas or natures, in the same manner, the capacity to act and move is a special feature of the soul. Though in the physical actions, the soul possessing karmas is the cause, and along with the bodily activities, the soul is active. After all the karmas are destroyed, the soul on account of its previous endeavour, soon after the burden of its karmas is removed, attains an upward motion upto the Siddhashila But not beyond it. It is like the scoped gourd covered outwardly with clay lying at the bottom of water and coming up as soon as the clay-covering being washed down by water is removed, it acquires naturally an upward motion but only upto Siddhsihila Further, since in the AlokakaSa there is no Dharmastikaya which is a helping medium for motion, there will not be further movement. In the lokanta where the soul now stays for ever, during that stay karmik body and bodily actions do not exist. Therefore the soul does not possess at that level, actions like movement.

Question: What is the proof of the existence of aloka, dharma, adharma, etc.? (Aloka means the sky beyond the universe 'dharma' 'dharmastikaya' means a substance helping motion and 'adharma' means a substance helping rest, standing still.

Answer The word loka is a pure word with a clear etymological derivation. Its opposite is the 'aloka' just as inanimate is the opposite of animate.

Question: Can we believe that a pot, a cloth etc., also are 'aloka'?

Answer: No the opposite point of view should be in consonance with it. Just as when we say this is not a scholar; this statement of absence of a scholar is only with respect to a conscious nimate individual, not with respect to an inanimate pot. In this manner, the 'aloka' existing as a separate akas is proved by the existence of the 'lok' which is akas, and which is congruent with it. The dharmastikayaand the adharmastikaya are proved to be existent on the ground of differentiating lokakasa and alokakasa The dharmastikaya is a formless substance pervading only that much portion of akas (sky) which is called 'Lok' akas; and it helps souls and matter in the movement of going etc., Consequently souls and matter can move can go up to the edge of dharmastikaya and lok-akas. Now if there did not exist this substance like Dharmastikaya the jivas and the pudgals would have got scattered in the boundless akas. Consequently, how can bondage, moksa, joy, sorrow, roaming in samsar, be possible in the jivas? Like the water helping fish in the movement in the water, dharmastikaya remaining only in lokakas helps jivas and pudgals in the movement only in the lokakas. Just as the movement of fish is favoured by water, the movement of jiva and pudgals is favoured by dharmastikaya. From this, dharmastikaya is proved to exist. Similarly the standing or staying is favoured by 'adharmastikaya' just as an old or a sick man stands on a road supported by a stick, by this adharmastikaya is proved to exist.

The Existence of Moksa has no beginning

(It is existent from the Times Immemorial)

In moksa, infinite souls co-exist.

Question: From when did the possession of body start? From when did the existence of time start?

Answer: They have no beginning. They have been going on from times immemorial-infinite time.

Question: When did the process of attaining siddhatva (perfection) begin.

Answer It has no beginning. So uptil now infinite souls attaining siddhatva have reached to and stayed on siddhashila.

Question: How did they co-exist there in a limited area?

Answer: Even in the limited area, the radiance of thousands of lights get mingled and co-exist. When it is so, in that realm of perfection, infinite number of formless siddha-souls can co-exist. What wonder is there in this?

That soul which is devoid of three gunas--sattva-rajas-tamas, and Karma particles, and is pervasive through knowledge is not bound. This statement is made with reference to siddhas.

After being thus convinced of the truth by the Bhagavan's explanation, Mandit also became a disciple of the Bhagavan along with his three hundred and fifty pupils.