Shri Amar Muni
Whereas, the pot that has already been created, now
does not exist in the four alternatives namely created, uncreated, both
and in the process of being created. Because 'Sva- dravya' the
self-substance has been created in the form of a pot; and 'Sva-paryaya
self modifications as round, red, large, light etc., has already been
created. So now what to talk of to be created. And the pardrvya (the other
substance) cannot emerge here in the form of a cloth or in the form of
non-self modification. In other words, it cannot assume another form;
otherwise it would be in another's form. The summary is this. The question
of creation regarding a pot that has already been created is useless.
Similarly, it is also useless to ask if a created thing is at present
uncreated? Or created-uncreated or in the process of being created. If we
put the same four questions about an object in the process of being
created, we would say that it is not created par-rup in the non-self form.
In this manner, the sky which is always existent, will not be created in
any one of the four forms. Thus the uncreated one also, the pot is always
existent in the form of Svadravya (own substance). So in that form it is
not to be created anew.
This is about a pot and the sky in the original
svadravya form or as regards modification they cannot be created in any of
the four alternative forms in their non-self modifications. Even that
which has been created in its own paryaya (self-modification) cannot be
created now in that 'Svaparyaya'; and can be created in an uncreated 'sva-
1) The productive causative aggregation can be logical
'Since all is void, there is nothing existent like such
things as causative substances'. This statement of yours is illogical and
is contradicted because at first it is clearly evident that this statement
has been produced by such substances as throat, lips and the palate etc.
When that is so, it is nonsense to say that there are no such things as
Question: This appears to be so because of Avidya=
false conception) illusion, because it has been said,
(indian writing pg 96 angie)
On account of severe sensuality, lust, dream, fear and
infatuation (Indian writing pg96 angie) and illusion, people see before
their eyes unreal thing and deem it sat like the thread-like illusory hair
Answer: If all causative aggregations notwithstanding
their being unreal, (asat) are perceived, why is it that the causative
aggregations of the tortoise-hair or the donkey horn are not perceived as
substances? They are not seen because they are unreal. Is that not so?
Therefore, whatever causative substances we see are real.
2) The causative aggregative substances (samagri) like
chest, the head, the throat etc., the speaker,
sentences comprising sounds, and the subject expressed. Are they existent
or not? If they are existent then how can you say that all is void? If
they are non-existent, then who heard "Sarvamsunyam" All voidness? In the
same manner, the meaning of 'mother' is one who has children; how can she
be barren? The utterance is that which is said how can it be devoid of
propounded subject matter?
3) Question: The speaker, the utterance etc., nothing
of them is real. Therefore, the propounded matter also is not real. In
this manner voidness of all cannot be propounded.
Answer: Not at all. Tell me whether the utterance of
such theory is true, or false. If true, then this itself is proved real.
If false, it being devoid of authenticity, the idea expressed by it namely
'sarvasunyata' is proved baseless.
4) If you say, "we have accepted this utterance of
whatever kind?" Is this acceptance true or false? Moreover in the
principle of sarvasunyata what are the acceptor, the acceptance and the
5) If all are unreal (asat), then the fixed particular
dealings and denotations will be lost or proved false or they will be
unauthentic, baseless, unproved and illogical. Why does oil emerge from
only such causative substances as the sesame? Why not from sand? Why is
not any effect produced from the sky-lotus? Why only between particular
substances are seen the relationship of cause and effect but not between
others? These particular occurrances are not possible to occur from void
substances, but from real substances with varied particular natures. Then
only they are possible to occur or be created.
6) At the same time to say that 'all are in the form of
causative aggregations, all are born of causative aggregations', is also
not proper. It is contradictory because the atoms are not created by
anything, still they are proved by the visible gross effect. Such is the
actual situation in fact. Otherwise to say that all are born out of
aggregations--and afterwards to say that "the atom is not born," is just
like saying "all utterance is untrue". This saying is refuted by your own
statement, because the atoms consist of the aggregates. If there are no
atoms at all as the basis, how could molecules etc., be created without
causative aggregations? If you consider that even atoms are created, then
the question arises--'from what basic substances are they created'?
Creation cannot take place out of void otherwise there will be no
particular condition and position there being no particularity in void.
7) The hind side of a thing being not visible is void
and is non-existent.
1) "The hind side of a thing cannot be seen hence it is
not existing. When there does not exist the hind side, there is nothing
like the front side. So the front side is also not existent". What kind of
inference is this? On the contrary on the vision of the fore side of it,
the hind side is proved.
Because there is a hind side, then only a certain part
called fore side is there. If there is no hind side, what is the meaning
of the fore side?
Therefore, when on the basis of the existence of the
fore side by the inference the existence of the hind side is logically
established, then by refuting it your proposition of the frontside goes
contradictory to your own statement. When you deny the hind side, your
statement--that there is a fore side--is refuted. The hind-side goes
parallel with the front side. To refute the hind side, would mean to
refute the front side and hence the statement of front side is self
2) You said that "because only the front side of the
object is visible, the object is not existent". In this statement, the
words, "visible" and "not existent" are contradictory. If you say that it
is visible out of illusion, then the question is why is it that front side
of the sky-flower is not visible?
3) If there is 'Sarwam sunyam' (total voidness) then
how can there be differences like modern and old, near and distant, front
and back? If you say that-the front, back and distant are denoted
according to the opponent's opinion--then the question arises: is there a
difference between "Own" opinion and "opponent's" opinion? Is there
anything like real opinion and void opinion? In the same manner if you
accept (treat) this difference as real, it means the repudiation of 'the
theory of total voidness. If it is not accepted and if still the dealing,
the denotation continues why do not such dealing and denotation prevail in
respect of 'sky-flowers' also?
4) If all things are unreal, why like the back side of
a thing the front side also is not invisible? Why are not all sides
invisible? Or why are not all sides visible or, why is it that the front
is seen but not the back?
5) In the things like sfatik etc., through the
transparent items the hind side also is visible. Since this much is
proved, consequently all did not remain void, hence your theory "all is
void" is not correct. It you say that even this is unreal, then for
proving the theory of 'sarva sunyava all voidness you have forwarded as
its reason back portion is invisible, but this reason is wrong. The reason
to be forwarded should be "all is invisible" but that is a contradiction.
Otherwise you could have said because the totality is invisible, so the
totality is unreal." Having trust on this "all unreal", if you walk on
closing your eyes, it is possible that you might proceed towards a wall or
a well and there you might fall into the well or dash against the wall.
6) "The hind side being invisible is not existent". If
you say so, at least you accept that the front is visible. Therefore at
least the existence of the senses (as the means of perceiving) and the
objects of the senses is proved. If even these are unreal then the
distinction between perceptible things and imperceptible things cannot be
7) Even invisible things are existing and are not
unreal. Even the doubt regarding unreal things "Are all unreal or real?"
itself is an existing real thing. If this doubt also is unreal, what about
the object of the doubt namely what about sarwasunyatva? If you say even
doubt is unreal, it means there is no doubt regarding the five elements.
If that is so, the five elements are proved to be real and existent. Now
you see that though the back portion is invisible, its existence is proved
by inference. In this world, the existence of many things is proved by
The Illustration of Invisible things proved to be
Existent by means of Inference
The wind is cognizable (is understandable) through
touch, sound, calmness, shaking etc., and as the possessor of the
qualities like coolness, movement etc. When we are touched by the cool
breezes of wind, we say, "the cool wind is blowing". The sound is visible
in the direction of the wind but not in the opposite direction. From this,
it is by inference established that the wind that is the resort of the
sound is blowing in that direction.
The sky is an established fact as the basis for the
earth and water. The earth has a basis because it has a form. Just as
earth is the base for water, the sky is the basis for the earth. The five
basic elements are proved by the bodies of the souls and their utility.
The five basic elements are evident as the support of
soul's body and their utility.
Vanaspatikaya (Vegetative Body):
Like the body of a human being even the vanaspati kaya
has birth, old age, life, death and growth. Even after it is cut, it has
similar physical creation of sprouting, cherishing desires, treatment
etc., hence it is proved to be a living thing. The existence of a soul in
vanaspati kaya is proved thus:
1) Touch me not sensitive Proved by its contraction
plant--Bashful at touch
2) Wood apple--a creeping proved by its dependence for
plant its safety on a hedge or a wall.
3) Shami, etc. proved by sleep, waking, and
4) Bakula, a perfumed plant proved by the attraction of
5) The Ashoka tree-- proved by the attraction of form
6) Kurubaru proved by the attraction of scent
7) Virahak proved by the attration of taste
8) Champa Tilak proved by the attraction of touch
The Prithvi kayajiva is like a muscular sprout.
It is proved by the growth of the sprouts of the same
species, after having been formerly cut. The dug out mountain, or mine,
gets filled up in the same form after many years. How can this happen
without a soul?
The apkayajiva, like a frog, coming out from dug out
earth by its natural manifestation, is proved animate. It is evidently
animate like a fish falling from the sky clouds etc. by their distortions.
The vayukaya jiva like bullock without other's
direction, makes irregular horizontal movement, so it has soul.
The agnikaya jiva. It is evident as animate from its
living on food (fuel) and increase with the availability of sufficient
food and by its consequent development.
In this manner, the elements like earth etc., are
different from the distortions of the sky like twilight and have form.
Therefore, they are jivakayas soul's bodies. If in the world there were no
souls possessing one sense, the (samsar) the world itself would have ended
because from times immemorial the process of souls attaining moksa
(salvation) is current. Yet there is no end to souls. If so, where were
all these souls staying? Here we should believe that they all were lying
in the 'ekendriya' bodies.
Where is Violence, Or Non Violence
Question: Then in this world pervaded with jivas, how
can non-violence be observed?
Answer The earth etc., which are destroyed by weapons
lack life; therefore in utilising them there is no violence. In the same
manner, even this is proper to be known that according to the 'Nischayinay'
there is no rule that "there is necessarily violence, if the jiva dies;
and necessarily non-violence where the jiva does not die." Even this is
not a rule that if jivas are less, there is non-voilence, and if jivas are
more there is violence", because those wicked people who have the evil
motive of killing a king etc., are violent though they do not kill them.
Likewise a doctor though he might give pain to a patient is necessarily
non- violent. The enlightened Munis who observe five 'samitis' (awareness
of sinlessness) and three 'Guptis' (mental-vocal- physical auspicious
activities accompanied with the restraint over inauspicious activities),
know the nature of jivas. Over and above they are always cautious and
careful in their concern for total non-violence to jivas, and always
pursue that objective. Now even if at any time violence might have been
committed by them under awareness of samitis-guptis, they are not violent.
On the contrary in any activity with non-cautious mental mood. even if
ajiva does not die, there is violence because of the absence of caution
and awareness for protection of jivas.
Therefore in fact the inauspicious mental attitude is
violence, just as Tandulia Matsyas etc., are bound by the karmas of
violence only on account of thoughts of violence, even though they are not
actually comitting violence. Who is this Tandulia Matsya! It is a very
small fish staying in the eye brow of a big gigantic fish. It sees that
"along with a big wave of water a lot of small fish enter the cave-like
open mouth of that very big fish lying in sleep": and it thinks "how lucky
this big fish is to have this big lot of fishes easily available directly
in mouth for devouring." Afterwards on returning the water wave out, those
small fishes are thrown out intact alive. Looking this the small Tandulia
fish thinks, "oh! how foolish this big fish is to leave up such a big lot
of fishes without eating them! If I were in its place, I would have eaten
all the fishes, and I would not have left off a single of them."
These thoughts of violence will be tantamout to actual
violence inasmuch as it binds the karmas of violence which send that jiva
Question: Is not violence the actual killing of the
Answer: There is anekantvad i.e., it may or may not be
violence. If the external killing of a jiva is a cause or an effect of
inauspicious conscience (mentality) it is no violence. If there is no
inauspicious mentality it is no violence. Just as on account of the purity
of the mental mood i.e., sanctity of the heart of one who is free from
moha ( insanity ).
Thus the five elements (bhutas) are real but not
unreal. Out of these, first four are having conciousness and the last one
Akash (Sky) does not possess conciousness.
The proposition, "the whole samsar is like a dream" is
to show to the Bhavya jivas the worthlessness of money, women, sons,
worldly objects etc. On hearing this they may leave off their blind
avarice and affections in them and get indifferent towards them and
consequently make efforts for salvation.
In this manner having been relieved of all his doubts
brahmin Vyakta with his 500) disciples accepted Charitra-dharma on the
spot at the hands of Bhagavan Mahavir.