Gandharavada

Author(s): Esther A Solomon
Publisher: Gujarat Vidyasabha
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/006739/1

Page #1

GANADHARAVĀDA
62
GUJARAT VIDYA SABHA, AHMEDABAD-1

www.fathelibrary.ole

Page #2

Research Series No. 62Sheth Bholabhai Jeshingbhai Institute of Learning and Research
GANADHARAVĀDA
Translation and Explanation
by
ESTHER A. SOLOMON
M.A., Ph.D. (Bombam), Reader in Sanskrit, School of Languages, Gujarat University, AHMEDABAD-9
GUJARAT VIDYA SABHA, AHMEDABAD - !

Page #3

"Published by
Hariprasad Gangashankar Shastri, Assistant Director, B. J. Institute of Learning and Research,
Gujarat Vidya Sabha, AHMEDABAD (India)
:
Price .
Price :
First Edition -- Copies 750
1966
Printed by A. M. Kapadia
(Grafo Corporation) 1879/1, Mujadi's Pole, Panchpatty, Kalupur,
Ahmedabad - 1 (India)

Page #4

PUBLISHER'S NOTE
Under the terms of the donation made by the trustees of the Sheth Punamrud Kallamchand Kotawala Charitable trust, this institution has been publishing works on the various aspects of Jainism.
The following works have already been published under the Research Series of this fund :1. Gujarat in the Jaina Agama Literature (in Gujarati)
by Dr. B. I. Sandesara, 1952. 2. Three Old Gujarati Works (in Gujarati)
Edited by Dr. Charlotte Krause, 1951. 3. Uttarādhyayana Sutra (Ch. 1-18) ---
with translation (in Gujarati)
by Dr. B. J. Sandesara, 1952. 4." Ganadhara vāda by Ācārya Jinabhadra with translation
(in Gujarati) based on Maladhari Hemacandra's commentary and Introduction
by Shri Dalsukh Malavania, 1952. 5. Yogašataka by Ilaribhadrasuri with translation and annota
tions (in Gujarati)
by Dr. Miss I. H. Jhaveri, 1956. 6. Mahāmätya Vastupala's Literary Circle aud its Contribution
to Sanskrit Literature
by Dr. B. J. Sandesara, 1957. 7. Yogašataka by Haribhadrasuri -- with translation and
annotations by Dr. I. H. Jhaveri - rendered into Hindi
by Shri S. M. Jain, 1959.
In its meeting held on 30th June, 1958, the Trust Executive Committee of this Institution resolved to entrust the work of preparing an English translation of Ganadharavada with Intro

Page #5

(iv)
duction and annotations to Dr. Miss E. A. Solomon, who accepted the work and completed it in 1961. The committee then resolved, in its meeting held on 16th December, 1961, to publish it under the P. K. Kotawala Trust.
Ganadhara vāda forms one of the outstanding sections of Višesā vašyaka-Bhāsya by Ācārya Jinabhadra, which is esteemed highly for the exposition of the Jaina Āgamas.
Dr. Miss E. A. Solomon, now a Reader in Sanskrit in the Language Department of the Gujarat University, has specialised herself in the various systems of Indian Philosophy. She has translated the gathās of the Ganadharavāda in the Višeşā vaśyakaBhāsya as well as their elucidation given in its commentary by Maladhāri Hemacandra, supplemented the translation with necessary annotations and given a studied Introduction on the subject.
We hope this publication will be useful to several readers interested in the Jaina system of philosophy. R. C. Marg,
Hariprasad G. Shastri Ahmedabad-9.
Asstt. Director, 28th February, 1966.
B. J. Institute of Learning & Research.

Page #6

PREFACE
The Ganadharavāda is an important Jaina text in Prakrit. [t is a part of the Višeşā vaśyakabhāşya (gāthās 1549–2024) of Jinabhadra and describes the controversies between Lord Mahavira ind Indrabhūti and other Brahmanical thinkers who after much intellectual discussion were convinced of the truth of Mahāvīra's teaching and joined him as his faithful and devoted disciples and preached his teachings and philosophical views. A number of philosophical topics come up for discussion here and different views and speculations about them are discussed; all other possible alternatives are explained and refuted, and the Jaina view is established. Thus the Gañadbaravāda gives an insight into a number of problems of Indian philosophy from different points of view.
When I was working as Assistant Director and Professor of Sanskrit and Ancient Indian Culture in the B. J. Institute of Learning and Research, Abmedabad, from 1958 to 1961, I was entrusted with the work of translating the Gañadharavada into English and providing an explanation based on Maladhari Hemacandra's Bịhadvștti on it. This work had already been done in Gujarati by Pt. Dalsukhbhai Malavania for the Gujarat Vidya Sabhā (the parent body of the B. J. Institute of Learning and Research) and his book had been published in 1952. Prof. Rasiklal Parikh, Director of the B. J. Institute, and Pt. Sukhlalji Sanghavi and others felt that it was desirable that a similar work be prepared in English also for the wider public of English-knowing readers.
This work is, as said above, based entirely on Maladhari Hemacandra's commentary on the Višeşāvasyakabhāșya. I have also consulted Jinabhadra's svopajña (auto--) commentary and Kotyācārya's commentary. I have derived much help from Pt. Malavania's work in Gujarati which has been the main source of information as regards different topics - historical or otherwise.

Page #7

(vi) Pt. Mala vania has been kind enough to permit me to include herein the text of the Gañadharavāda as edited by him. I here acknowledge my indebtedness and sense of gratitude to him.
I have also got much help in the notes to this work from Dr. Nathmal Tatia's 'Studies in Jaina Philosophy'. I am indebted to him for the exposition of certain topics of Jaina philosophy as also for the renderings of certain technical terms. Dr. Glasenapp's 'Doctrine of Karma in Jaina Philosophy' has been helpful in the treatment of karman. I have acknowledged my indebtedness to these and other authors in the foot-notes.'
Though I have derived much help from the works of the scholars mentioned above, I hold myself responsible for the treatment of the subject. Mine is an humble attempt to place this important Jaina work before the English-knowing readers. Owing to other preoccupations, I have not been able to work at this book at a stretch and this must have left many flaws for which I crave the indulgence of the scholarly world. :, I am highly thankful to revered Muni Śri Punyavijayaji for lending me a copy prepared from an old manuscript of the svopajña commentary of the Višeşā vaśyakabhāșya and also other books.' I find no words to express my sense of gratitude to my guru Prof. Rasiklal C. Parikh, revered Pt. Sukhlalji and the authorities of the B. J. Institute of Learning and Research for the opportunity they gave me to study this aspect of Indian philosophy by entrusting me with this work.
I thank the proprietors of the Grafo Corporation, Ahmedabad, for taking a keen interest in the printing of this work and" for their patience in the face of difficulties inherent in oriental typography.
E. A. Solomon
33, Nehru Nagar, Ahmedabad, 6 Gujarat, India, 19-6-266

Page #8

Introduction
What is this Ganadharavada ?
CONTENTS
Bhadrabahu
Jinabhadra and his Viseṣā vaśyakabhāṣya
Maladhari Hemacandra
Gaṇadharavada in the Viseṣavasyakabhāṣya The Ganadharas
Style
A Philosophical Essay on the Ganadharavada Reality of the Soul
Bondage and Emancipation of the Soul
Doctrine of Karman
Nature of Karma
Annihilation of Karma
Classification of Karma
Bandha, Sankrama, etc. of Karma
Leśyä
Notes
Guṇasthānas
Heaven, Hell
Realism vs Idealism
Soul in different darsanas
Corrigenda
Ganadharavada-Translation Ganadharavada - Explanation
Ganadharavada - Prakrit Text
Index

Pages
1-73
1-6
6-7
7-14
14-19
19-22
22-32
32-34
35-73
35-46
47-54
54-56
57-58
59
59-60
60-65
65
65-66
66-69
69-71
71-73
75
1-65
67-223
225-265
267-304 305-310

Page #9

Page #10

INTRODUCTION WHAT IS THIS GANADHARAVĀDA ?
Before we talk of the Gañadharavada proper, let us take a bird's eye view of the Jaina Canon, so that the Gañadharavāda may be properly located in the sacred literature of the Jainas, and its relation to the Jaina Canon shown. Flitherto, we have a detailed knowledge only of the Canon (Siddhanta or Agama) of the Svetambaras, as the Digambaras constituting the other important Jaina schism, refuse to accept this as the genuine Canon, though they also agree in regarding the 12 Angas (limbs' of the body of religion) as the first and most important part of the Canon which, they believe, is lost for ever. The Jaina Canon as it is recognised by the Svetāmbaras is classified as follows :
I. The 12 Angas: (i) Āyāra (Acāra), (ii) Süyagada (Sūtrakṛta), (iii) Thāna (Sthāna), (iv) Samavāya, (v) Bhagavati or Viyahapannatti (Vyakhya-prajñapti), (vi) Nāyādhammakahão (Jnātadharmakathāḥ), (vii) Uvāsagadasão (Upāsakadaśaḥ), (viii) Amtagadadazão (Antakțddaśāḥ), (ix) Aņuttarovavāiyadasão (Anuttaraupipātikada śāḥ), (x) Panhiavāgaraņāim ( Praśna-vyākaraṇāni), (xi) Vivāgasuyam (Vi çaka-śrutam), (xii) Ditthivaya (Drstivāda).
The twelfth - Ditthivāya — has been lost for ever. It is said to have originally consisted of 14 Puyvas (Purvas), the knowledge of which went on gradually decreasing till it ultimately disappeared. There is also a difference of opinion regarding the order of these Angas* and such other points; but we are not concerned with these here.
For a detailed discussion of the Jaina Canon, and especially for a discussion regarding the twelfth Anga which is lost for ever, see Weber's Sacred Literature of the Jainas (Translated by Dr. Herbert Weir Smyth - Indian Antiquary — Volumes xvii-xxi), S. B. E. Vol. xxii, xLv, Jaina Sutras (Jacobi's Introduction), and A History of the Canonical Literature of the Jainas - H. R. Kapadia. See also- A History of Indian Literature, Vol. II-Jaipa Literature - Maurice Winternity. G-1

Page #11

II. The 12 Uvamgas (Upangas, secondary limbs) corresponding to the 12 Angas-(i) Uvayāiya (Aupapātika), (ii) Rāyapaseņaiya (always translated by Rajapraśniya), (iii) Jivābhigama, (iv) Pannavaņā (Prajñāpanā), (v) Sūriyapannatti (Süryaprajñ upti), (vi) Jambuddivapannatti (Jambudvīpa-prajñapti), (vii) Camlapannatti (Candra-prajñapti), (viii) Niraya valiyão (Nirayā valikāḥ), (ix) Kappavadamsiyão (Kulpăvatamsikāḥ), (x) Pupphiyão (Puspikāḥ), (xi) Pupphacūlião (Puşpacūlikāḥ), (xii) Vanhidasão (Vrşnidasáh).
III The 10 Painnas (Praki:ņas, 'scattered pieces') – (1) Causarani (Catuḥśıranı), (ii) Āurapaccakklāņa (Ăturapratyakhyāna), (iii) Bhatta parinņā (Bhakta-parijñā), (iv) Samthāra (Samatāra), (v) Tamdula-veyaliya (Tandula-vaicārika), (vi) Camdāvijjhaya (Candrāvedhyaka), (vii) Devimdatthaya (Devendrastava),(viii) Ganivijjā (Gaņi-vidya), (ix) Mabāpaccakhāņa (Mabā pratyakhyāna), (x) Viratthava (Virastava).
IV The 6 Chesa-Suttas (Cheda Sūtras) — so called perhaps because they lay down a punishment, in cases of transgression of rules of monkish lise, corsisting in 'shortening' (cheda) the defaulting monk's seniority and his consequent degrading - (i) Nisiha (Nišitha), (ii) Mabånisīha (Mahānisītha), (iii) Vavabāra (Vyavabára), (iv) Ayāradasão (Ācāradaśah) or Da-asuyakkbandha (Daśāśrutaskhandha), (v) Kappa (Bịhat-kalpa), (vi) Pamica-kappa ( Panca-kalpa ). Instead of the last-mentioned, Jiyakappa (Jita kalp of Jinabhadra is also mentioned.
V The 4 Mula-suttas (Mula-sūtras --Root-sutras-Are they meant for those who are at the root i.e. beginning of their spiritual career? )--(i) Uttarajjhayana (Uttarādhyayana ), (ii) Āvassaya (Avaśyaka), (iii) Dasaveyā liya (Daśıvaikālika), (iv) Pimdinijjutti (Pinda-Niryukti). The third or fourth Mulasuttas are also sometimes given as Obanijjutti (Ogha-niryukti) and Pakkhiya-sutta (Päksika sutra), and sometimes Pimdanijjutti and Obanijjutti are classified under the Cheya-suttas.
(Nandi-sutra),
VI Individual texts (i) Nandi-sutta (ii) Anuyogadára (Annyogadrāra).

Page #12

3
It may be noted that with the exception of the Aigas, the lists and titles of the canonical texts are not always mentioned in the same way. The traditional number of books is mentioned in the Siddhanta, but the number varies in the enumeration at different places.
This śruta (scriptural literature) is classified in various ways, one way of classifying being that the canon is regarded as two-fold (i) Aiga-paviṭṭha (contained in the Aigas) and (ii) Ananga-pavittha (not belonging to the Angas). The angapaviṭṭha suya-nāņa (śruta-juana) has 12 subdivisions, each of which is known as an Aiga. Thus, it is identical with the dvadaśāngi which consists of 12 Angas-Ayāra, etc, and which is often referred to as 'duvalasanga ganipidaga' (dvadasanga ganipitaka) (Samavaya, 148). According to one definition, what is composed by the Ganadharas (leaders of groups, the best disciples, Indrabhuti and others) is Angapaviṭṭha, and what is composed by śruta-sthaviras (i e those well-versed in Thana and Samavaya; cf. Thana 3. 2. 159) is ananga-raviṭṭha. The Avassaya though anaiga-paviṭṭha is regarded as composed by a Ganadhara. We find such a view first in the Avasyaka Niryukti, and then it came to be recognised that even an ananga-paviṭṭha text might have been composed by a Ganadhara. This was later extended to other texts and even to the Purāņas and such other literature which were also stated to have been handed down in substance by the Ganadharas. That the Avasyaka was the first to be regarded as cne composed by a Ganadhara, can be accounted for by the repeated statement that the direct disciples of Lord Mahavira studied the Samaiya (Samayika) and other eleven Angas. Now the Samayika is the first chapter of the Avaśyaka sutra, and if it was placed first in the order of the texts prescribed for study, and even put before the Angas, there could be no opposition to its being claimed as composed by a Ganalhara. This also explains why it was the first anangapavittha text to receive this honour. This Avasyaka sutra has six chapters corresponding to the six Avasyakas i. e. six daily essential duties of a Jaina. The six sections are

Page #13

known as (i) Sāmā iya (sāmāyika) desisting from all evil, and equanimity of mind), (ii) Cauvīsattbava (eulogy of the twenty-four Tirthankaras), (iii) Vandaņaya (veneration of the teacher), (iv) paờikkamaņi (pratikramana) (confession and expiation), (v) kāussagga (kāyotsarga), (asceticism, indifference to the body), (vi) paccakkhāņa (renunciation of sensual pleasures, etc). According to Bhadrabāhu, the Sāmāyika stands at the head of all scriptural knowledge. Conduct or character is the very essence of scriptural knowledge, and emancipation that of conduct.* Thus the Sámāyika is shown to be related to the ultimate good-emancipation (moksa). Bhadrabābu has also pointed out that after Lord Mahāvīra attained omniscience, his first preaching was in essence the teaching of sāmāyika, and his Gañadbaraz, after their discussion with bim, sat at his feet and received instruction first of all regarding the sāmāyika. This explains why Jinabba lra thought it fit to compose bis encyclopaedic Višeşāvaśyaka containing 3606 verses as a commentary on the first chapter, Sāmāyika of the Āvašyakasūtra, along with its Niryukti (commentary) by Bhadrabāhu.
Bhadrabābu in his Niryukti by way of introduction to the Sāmāyika chapter gives a detailed account of how Lord Mahavira attained omniscience (kevala-jñāpa) He went to the Mahāsena-vana in Madhyamāpāvā where the gods had arranged a great assembly (sama vasarana) in honour of Lord Mabāvīra, the sovereign in the kingdom of religion (539-40). In the same city, a brahmin Somilārya was performing a sacrifice to participate in which learned men from far off regions had come. The gods were, however, rejoicing in the as embly in bonour of Mabăvira to the north of this sacrificial assembly, the people in which were under the impression that the gods being delighted at their performance were coming in the direction of the sacrifice. But they were surprised to find that the gods moved onwards towards the north. When they came to know of the honour done to Mahāvīra by the gods, Indrabhūti,
* See Āvaśyaka-niryukti, 93. § See Avaśyaka-niryukti 733-745.

Page #14

an arrogant Brahmin scholar, came to the samavasaraņa to challenge the omniscience of Mabāvīra, as he had full confidence that no one could be more learned than he. But seeing him come Mahāvīra addressed him by his name and family name (gotra) (598), and also told him of the doubt he barboured in his mind regarding the existence of the soul. Mabāvīra also explained that this was so because he did not know the true meaning of the Vedic texts which he promised to explain (600). When Indrabhūti's doubt was shattered and he was finally convinced, he along with his 500 pupils became a disciple of Mahāvīra (601). This very Indrabhūti became the chief disciple of Mahāvīra. Agnibhūti and ten other Brahmin pandits also one after the other came to Lord Mahāvīra, but when they were addressed by their name and gotra, and also toid of their doubt, they also became disciples along with their followers, and they too attained the status of chief disciples (602-641).
There are thus 42 verses (600-641) dealing with the episode of the Ganıdharas, from the point when Lord Mahavira disclosed Indrabhūti's doubt up to when the eleventh Prabhāsa b came a follower of Mahāvīra. Jinabhadra, wbile commenting on these in his Viśəşā vaśyaka Bhāşya has given us his invaluable Ganadharavāda (our present work), the number of verses (gātbās) for each Gañadhara in it being :-1-56; 2-35; 3-38; 4-79; 5-28; 6-58; 7-17; 8-16; 9-40; 10-19; 11-49. In the Avāśyaka Niryukti we find mentioned the names of the Gañadharas, the number of their followers, their doubt, their ignorance of the meaning of Vedic statements, and the promise of Mahā vīra that he would instruct them correctly. Jinabbadra like a true commentator with a literary fair has pounced upon this opportunity which gave ample scope for a discussion of the doubt and the true meaning of the Vedic texts and presented this in a dialectical pattern where each Pandita is given the chance to argue out his case or raise doubts, or these are anticipated by Mahā vīra. This makes the text all the more lively and interesting.

Page #15

6
Jinabhadra has himself commented upon his own Viseșăvasyaka Bhasya, but he could not complete his commentary on account of his death. He could comment only up to 1863 verses i. e. up to the account of the sixth ganadhara. This commentary has been recently discovered by Muni Śri Punyavijayaji; Acarya Kottarya completed the commentary (See his comm. on Gatha 1863). Another commentary on the Gaṇadharavada is by Kotyacarya, and a third by Maladhari Hemacandra. Of these the last is the most lucid and illuminating. Hence the incorporation of this commentary in the body of this text.
BHADRABAHU
Before we come to the main subject, Višesa vasyaka-bhāṣya, of which Ganadharavada is a part, and its author Jinabhadra, we may say a few words about Bhadrababu, the author of the Avasyaka-niryukti, an cpi ode in which is used by Jinabbadra as a peg to hang his philosophical dissertation on, for the purpose of propounding the Jaina system of philosophy.
In India the misfortune is that there are a number of persons known by the same name (e g. many Kalidasas) and the events of the life of one man are mixed up with those of another. Kalidasa may be represented as having died in the house of a courtesan in Ceylon ard also be said to have been familiar with Kashmir, or to have lived in the times of Vikramaditya and to have been present at the court of king Bhoja! What a mockery of historical facts! The same is the case with Bhadrababu Many Acaryas bearing the name Bhadrabāhu existed, and still all the niryuktis (commentaries) were ascribed to Bhadrababu who according to tradition was the last acarya to know all the 14 Purvas (old texts) but who, it is said, went to Nepal for yogic practice and so could impart the knowledge of only 10 Purvas to Sthulabhadra who went to him. His date may roughly be fixed at 170 B. C. But Muni

Page #16

7
Śri Punyavijayaji has come to the conclusion that the Niryaktis on Avaśyakasūtra and other sacred literature are not by the first Bhadrababu who knew the Pūrvas, but by another Bhadratăhu of the 6th century of Vikrama samvat.* Still, as noted by Da'sukhbhai Malavania,t we find several gathās from the Niryuktis of Bhadiabābu in the works of Kunda kunda and cthers who were definit: ly earlier than the 6th century. It is quite likely that there was an old corpus around wbich was built the structure of the Niryuktis that we have at present.
The Cheda sūtras were definitely the 'composition of Bhadrabāhu. So tbe following Niryuktis can be assigned to Bhadrabahu I[ – Avaśyaka, Daśavaikälika, Uttarādhyayapa, Acaránga, Sūtrak’tanga, Daśāśrutaskandha, Kalpa-Běhatkalpa, Vyavabāra, Suryaprajñapti, Rşibhāşita. Bhadrabābu has himself, in his Āvašyaka Niryukti (84-85), mentioned his plan to compose these. The last two are not extant. Uvasaggabara, a Prakrit Stotra also was composed by Bhadrabahu. Many other works are assigned to him, but it is doubtful whether they were bis.
JINABHADRA AND HIS VIŠEŞĀVAŚYAKA BHASYA :
Practically nothing is known of Jinabhadra though his writings occupy a place of importance in the development of thought, and in the bistory of Jaina literature. Still we can gather a few facts about him, though, of course, one must always accept that they cannot be regarded as absolutely certain.
* See Mahāvīra Jaina Vidyalaya, Silver Jubilee Volume (p. 185).
+ See Gañadhara Vāda (in Gujarati) Introduction, p. 13 footnote. We are highly indebted to tbis Introduction. In fact, it has been the main source of the information given here. Sri Malavania being a well-versed and open-minded scholar of Jaina philosopby and literature, one can easily find a fund of information in his writings which one can only quote, but hardly improve upon.

Page #17

A copy of the Višeşāvaśyaka Bhāşya was prepared in Śaka era 531 i. e. 609 A.D. and kept in a Jaina temple in Valabhi. This agrees with the popularity of Jainism in Western India in and after the 5th century, and also shows that Jinabhadra must have moved about in the vicinity of Valabhi. As said before, this Višeşā vaśyaka Bhāşya along with its commentary which remained incomplete, was the last work of Jinabhadra whose date, th refore, cannot be fixed as later than 590 AD. This is supported by a traditional view that Haribhadra died in the year 1055 of the Vira Nirvāņa era (i. e. after Maha vīra), and Jinabhadra is said to have been a prominent teacher for 65 years after that and died in 1120 of the Vira Nirvāņa era, that is to say, in Vikrama era 650 or 593 A D. Muni Śri Jinavijayaji holds on the ground of two gāthas found at the end of a copy of the Višeşāvaśyaka bhāșya discovered in Jesalmer that the bhāşya was composed in Vikrama era 666. But as Ści Malavania has pointed out the gathās can only mean that the copy was prepared in Saka era 531 (or Vikrama 666), and placed in a temple. This again agrees with our date, Vikrama samvat 650, for the death of Jirabhadra.
The găthās are : Pamca sată igatīsā saganivakalassa vattamānassa, to cetta-puņnimãe budhadiņa sātimmi nakkhatte; rajje ņu pālaņapare si [lai] ccammi narabarindammi, balabhīņagarie imam mahavi......mi jiņabhavaņe.
According to tradition, Jinabhadra lived 104 years, so be can be said to have lived between Vikrama 546-650 i.e. 489-593 AD. This also tallies with the fact that no writer later than 590 A.D. has been referred to in the works of Jinabbadra, while he has been quoted profusely in the Nandicūrņi of Jinadāsa which was composed in Vikrama 733, i.e. in 676 A.D.
As to bis personality, we find his qualities described by the commentator of his Jītakalpasūtra. Muni Sri Jinavijayaji has given us an extract of tbis in his Introduction to the Jitakalpasūtra. The then eminent śrutad baras (knowers of the

Page #18

9
sacred lore) honoured him highly and he was a great scholar of other śāstras also. He was highly learned in Palaeography, Mathematics, Prosody and Grammar. He was also wellversed in the scriptures of other schools. He was very earnest about the practice of the code of conduct laid down for monks and was at the head of all the Jain: monks...... No further information is available except that he saved the Mahanišitha sūtra which was eaten up by white ants.* Some Jaina icons were recently discovered in Akotā (earlier Ankottaka). Prof. Umakant Shah believes that these icons belong to about 550-600 A.D, and he has come to the conclusion that the Jinabhadra mentioned in the inscription found on two of these icons is no other than Jinabbadra, the author of the Višeşā vaśyaka-bhāşya, who must have installed these icons. The inscriptions found are 'Aum devadharmo'yam nivstikule Jinabhadra-Vācapācāryasya' and 'Auin nivștikule JinabhadraVacanācāryasya' from which it can be inferred that Jinabhadra belonged to the Nivști family and was called Vācanācārya. I
The following works are ascribed to Jinabhadra :(i) Višesā vaśyaka Bhāsya-Prakrit verse. (ii) Viseşā vaśyaka Bhāşya Vștti--author's own commentary
(Sanskrit prose), (iii) Bșhat-sangrabani-Prakrit verse, (iv) Břbat-ks-trasamāja—Prakrit verse, (v) Višeşaņavati-Prakrit verse, (vi) Jītakalpasūtra-Prakrit verse, (vii) Jitakalposūtrabhāsya--- Prakrit verse, (viii) Dhyana-śataka
Prakrit verse.
Bịhatsangrahaņi deals with human beings and hellish beings and geography and astronomy. In fact it gives us at a glance the relevant views regarding soul and world. Brhatkşetra-samāsa is like a geograpby of the universe. In the
* See Vividha Tirtha Kalpa (Mathurä-kalpa) (p 19) of Jinaprabha. This shows that Jinabhadra had also gone to Mathurā besides being associated with Valabbi.
See Jaina Satyaprakāśa, No. 196. G-2

Page #19

10
Vises navati, Jinabhalra has attempted to resolve the inconsistencies or apparent contradictions found in the Agamas.
Jitaka pa-sutra along with its bhāṣya by the author himself gives a detailed account of expiations (prayaścitta) of wrongs done. In fact, Jinabhadra has in his commentary given us the secret of the entire cheda-sastra concerned with punishment of wrongs done and the cutting off of the seniority of the offending monks and such other relevant matters. Dhyana sataka, though termed a century of verses, actually contains 105 Prakrit Gathas. This sataka has been assigned to Jinabhadra, though many have doubts regarding its authorship.
Jinabhadra's own vṛtti (commentary) on the Viseṣā vaśyakabhāṣya is his only work in Sanskrit. This commentary is very concise and gives hardly any such exposition as would make the text easily accessible to the common reader. It was because of this that Kotyācārya and Maladhari Hemacandra thought it fit to write detailed commentaries on the Viseṣavasyakabhasya. As said before, Jinabhadra could write his commentary only up to Ga. 1863, when probably death intervened. Koṭṭarya commented on the remaining Gathas- Nirmapya sastha-ganadharavaktavyam kila divamgataḥ pujyah; anuyogamarya(rga-)desika Jinabhadraganiksasramanaḥ; taneva pranipatyataḥ paramavi(va)sista-vivaranam kriyate Koṭṭaryavadiganina mandadhiya saktim anapekṣya (Ga. 1863).
The Visesavasyaka-thasya cccupies a unique place in the history of Jaina literature, esp. philosophical literature. A noteworthy feature of the Jaina system of thought is that unlike the Brahmanic thought or the Buddhist which have branched off into a number of schools, it has maintained its unity throughout its history; and whatever change we see is in the clarification and new orientation of its topics and problems which in essence remain what they were from the very beginning. We find them even in the earliest Agama literature, though scattered here and there. The greatest contribution of Jinabhadra is that he has systematically treated these different philosophical concepts even while making the plea of giving an

Page #20

11
easily accessible exposition of the Avaśyaka-Niryukti on which he was writing his Bhāşya (commentary). Another achievement : of his is that after the composition of this voluminous Bhāșya, the terminology of the Jaina system of thought assumed 'a stable form and became current as such. It must also be noted that in all respects Jinabhadra has made efforts to renistate the original Agamic position, though true to the Jaina anekāntavāda he keeps an open mind and is always prepared to accomodate the other view. We may take but one example. According to the original Jaina position, knowledge is the very essence of the soul, for only that knowledge which the soul has directly without the help of any external instrument is pratyakşa (direct), the rest is paroksa (indirect). Thus mati (sensuous) and śruta ( scriptural) knowledge were put under pa:o'ışa (indirect cognition) and the other three, a vadhi (visual intuition), manaḥ-paryāya (intuition of mental modes) and kevala (perfect knowledge) were classified under pratyakşa (direct or immediate knowledge).* But in order to b.ing their theory of knowledge in line with the theories of other systems of thought, the later Jaina thinkers regarded the knowledge produced by the senseorgans as prakyakşı. S Jinabhadra, a great upholder of the original position, designates the knowledge produced by the sense-organs and the mind as samysavahāra-pratyakşa (empirically direct and immediate knowledge ) Imdiyamıņo-bhavam jam tam samyavahara-paccakkham-Višeşá vyaśyaka Bh. 95).
A glance at the text of the Višeşà vaśyaka - bhāşya shows us that Jinabhadra has treated a number of topics and given them such a satisfactory and critical treatment that the relevant portions can very well serve the purpose of independent treatises.
But what is still more striking is that while the ratiocination and dialectical discussions of Buddhist logicians and philosophers pressed as it were the button and spread a flood of light in the form of precise philosophical thought illuminating a number of topics and problems lying in a latent * See Sthānānga sū. II 1.71; Tattvārtha sū, 1-9-12. § Anuyogadvara, pp. 194-5; Nandi sū, 4.

Page #21

12
form among the Jainas, Jinabhadra was one and perhaps the most prominent, of the Jaina philosophers who plunged headlong into this current of systematic dialectical thought and gave a clear-cut analysis of problems calling for uncommon insight.
We find references to controversies and divergent views even in the Vedas and the Upanişads and the Jaina Āgamas and the Buddhist Pitakas, and this sort of intelligent and thoughtful atmosphere persisted all along. But the period between the lifetime of Nägārjuna (2nd ceut A D.) and that of Dbarmakirti (650 A.D.) is outstanding as the period of fervent debating and discussions, wherein the canon of debate was established and each philosopher tried to argue out his case systematically and faithfully, at the same time making erery effort possible to appreciate and understand the opponent's view-point; what deserves all the more appreciation is the fact that they were prepared to bring about innovations in their own system of thought if this did not involve any gross contradiction of the basic tenets of their respective schools. Nāgārjuna, Vasubandhu, Dinnāga, and Dharmakirti were the principal Buddhist logicians of this period who did not hesitate to criticise, and try to improve upon, the definitions of their predecessors if this meant a greater clarification and better presentation of the Buddhist thought. It is needless to say that they attacked other schools severely, and these latter had in their turn to answer the objections raised against their view and thus had a chance to detect the weak points and loop-holes in their system; they could develop their system while interpreting the basic texts and the views of their predecessors in the light of the attacks of the rival party. Vatsyāyana and Uddyotakara of the Nyaya school and Prasastapāda of the Vaišeșika school and Sabara and Kumārila amongst the Mimāmsakas were very actively busy trying to answer their opponents even while setting their house in order. A careful stu ly of the philosophical works of the Brabmanical, Buddhist and Jaina schools would be very interesting from the point of view of their mutual influence and the internal development of thought.

Page #22

13
The Jaina philosophers were by no means quiet or inert in this period. It is quite likely that it was this atmosphere of controversy and debate that inspired Unāsyati to give a systematic treutment of the Jaina system of thought in bis Tattvarthasutra. But he merely stated the tenets and did not enter into any controversy, which only his commentators, Akalanka, Vidyānanda and others indulged in. It was, again, in this period that the Nyàyávatāra of Siddhasena Diva kara, the first systematic though brief manual of Jaina logic, was written, as also Sarmati Tarka by the same author, giving an exposition of the theory of Nayas (points of view or approach) which forms the very cornerstone of the Jaina system of thought with its catholicity of outlook accomodating the different approaches in the picture of the total reality. But we cannot say of Siddhasena or even of Samantabbadia that they have gone into the nicetics of thought; they have stated the brcad facts (f the Jaina system of thought. They cannot be given the status of worthy opponents cr rivals of Dinnāga or Kumārila or Uddyolakara. We find clear evidence of this spirit of rivalry only in the Aștasahasrī of Vidyānanda which is a commentary on the Aştašati of Akalanka, a commentary on the Aptamimamsa of Samantabhadra. But this is not true of Jinabhadra to whom we can accord the place of honour of being the first to have the grit to take up cudgels against the rival systems; as also against those of his own school who were apt in certain respects to bold views which did not represent the true spirit of the Agamas. A study of the Gañadharavada will illustrate this. He has given a thorough exposition in his Višeşa vasyakabhâsy, of the Jaina topics and also explained the Jaina position as regards logic and Non-absulutism. His reasoning is sound and appealing and we find later philosophers like Haribbadra (8th cent.) and Yaśovijaya (17th cent.) putting forth the same arguments - may be in a different garb.
It can be said of the Viśasāvaśyakablāşya that it gives us the very essence of the Jainā Agamas, as the Visuddhimagga of Buddhaghosa gives us the very sum and substance of the Buddhist Pițakas. What is more, Jinabhadra has subjected the

Page #23

14
Agamic statements of philosophy to thy test of reason and given us a philosophy based on reason, though he has always adhered to the spirit of the Agamas and resolved any apparent contradictions that may be found therein. In short, the Višeşā vaśyakabhāsya is a wonderful compendium of the Jaina system of thought.
ĀCĀRYA MALADHĀRĪ HEMACANDRA, THE AUTHOR OF VIŠEŞĀVAŚYAKABHĀŞYA VIVARAŅA (OR-BHASYABRHADVŔTTI)
The time of the rule of Siddharāja Jayasimba and Kumarapala was the golden period in the history of Gujaratboth politically and calturally. The contribution of Jaina monks is by no means small or negligible. Great Jaina teachers and preachers had associations with the political functionaries and thus bad their say in the political and cultural framework of the kingdom. We see this at its higbest in the influence Ācārya Hemacandra (Kalikālasarvajña—the omniscient of the Kali Age) wielded over Siddharāja and Kumāra pāla in the 12th cent.. Before Kalikā lasarvajña Hemacandra, Ācārya Devasūri Maladbāri and after him Hemacandra Maladhāri occupied a place of honour both in the kingdom and in the heart of King Siddharāja by virtue of their sincerity, morality and austerity. Kalikālasarvajña Hemacandra received the heritage of this prestige and honour and therefore could shine forth all the more easily in the period of the reign of Kumārapāla. It is noted by Padmadeva Sūri (in his Sadguru paddhati) and by Rājasekhara who belonged to the same line, in his Dvyáśrayavștti, that King Karņadeva conferred the title of 'Maladbāri' on Abhayadeva; this shows that Abhayadeva was respected even by Karṇadeva who ruled before Siddharāja. Siddharaja was highly devoted to Abhayadeva and we have a vivid account of the latter's personality and the respect paid to him by Siddharāja as given by Śricandra the grand-pupil of Abhayadeva, who was an eye-witness to all this. Maladhāri Hemacandra maintained all this and was equally honoured. Of course, this was mainly on account of the personal

Page #24

15
virtues of Maladhāri Hemacandra. But it may also partly have been due to the political connections of the early part of his life i. e. before his renunciation. As stated by Rājasekhara in his Dvyāśrayavștti in the prasasti (eulogy), he was a minister and had four wives. He gave up this life full of pomp and luxury, and was initiated under Maladhārī Abhayadeva. Grand details of the life of both the Maladhārīs are found in the prasasti of Mani Suvratacarita by Śricandrasūri.* Abhayasūri is described as tall and handsome and highly tolerant and patient. He · observed strenuously the code of conduct laid down for monks. When he foresaw that death was not far off he gradually decreased the quantity of his diet and finally took to fasting. Even then for many days he followed his daily routine of preaching, etc. and even went on foot to a rich man called Śrīyaka whose last wish was to see Abhayadevasūri. Abhayadeva died on the 47th day of his fasting. His funeral procession was a grand sight and people said, with eyes wide with astonishment, that one would certainly choose such a glorious death-however painful death might be. Even King Jayasimha watched the procession from his balcony.
Ācārya Maladhāri Hemacandra was a pupil of Abhayadevasūri. Tha account given by Hemacandra's pupil Sricandrasūri is illuminating. He was highly learned in many subjects and had about 50,000 books. His discourses in a sonorious voice were very popular and enlightened the people. Even King Jayasimha attended his discourses. Through this king, Hemacandra could achieve much for the uplift of the Jaina religion and community. Like his preceptor Abhayadeva, he also fasted for seven days before death came to him. King Siddharāja himself joined the funeral procession. He had three chief disciples (ganadhara) - Vijayasimba, Sricandra, Vibudhacandra - of whom Srīcandra officially succeeded him as a sūri on his seat.
Sricandra wrote his Munisuvratacarita a few years after the death of Maladhări Hemacandra and it was completed in
* See Catalogue of Works of the Pāțana Jaina Bhandāra (Gaekwad Series, p. 314).

Page #25

16
Vikram Samvat 1193. Vijayasimha wrote a BỊhadvștti (voluminous commentary) on Dharmopadeś imāla, and it was completed in Vikram Samvat 1191. In its prasasti we find personal accounts of his preceptor Hemacandra and grand-preceptor Abhayadeva. From this it appears that some years had passed after the death of Hemacandra.* It can be said that after the death of his preceptor. Abhayadeva in Samvat 1168, he succeeded him on his seat as Ācārya and occupied it till about 1180, for we do not find any reference to a date beyond 1177.
Works --(i) Āvaśyakatippaņa or Āvašyakavșttipiadesavyā'zbyánaka, (ii) Bandhaśata kavịtti, (iii) Anuyogadvāravștti, (iv) Upadešamāja-sutra, (v) Upadeśamalà vịtti, (vi) Jivasamāsavivarana, (vii) Bhavabbāvanāsūtra, (viii) Bhavabhāvanāvivarana, (ix) Nandītippaņa, (x) Višeşāvaśyaka-vivarana (also called Višeşāšsakabhāşya-brhadvștti).
Jivasamāsa-výtti was written in his own hand in Samvat 1164, as the prasasti itselt tells us. In Avaśyakatippaņa or Āvasyakavrttipradeśa-vyakhyānaka (because it is a commentary on parts of Haribhadra's Laghu vrtti on Avašyakasūtra), the author first gives the meaning of hard words and then the substance of the relevant passage. Bandhaśatakavịtti Vinayahitā is a commentary on a contury of stanzas (-really they are 106) called Bandhaśataka, dealing with karma in its details composed by Śivašarmasūri who himself says that the work is based on the Dșstivāda. Hemacandra's commentary is very lucid and easy and shows a thorough grasp of the subject. Anuyogadväravștti is a very lucid commentary on the Anuyogad vārasūtra which helps us to appreciate the very core of the Agamas. Though there was an earlier Prakrit commentary (cūrni) and also one in Sanskrit by Haribhadra (this being mostly by way of explanation of the Prakrit commentary), neither went far in
* Śri Hemacandra iti sūrirabhūd amuşya,
ģisyaḥ śiromaņir aśasamuniśvarāņāın; yasyadhunāpi caritāni saracchaśääka
cchāyojjvalāni vilasanti diśām mukheşu. (13) See Catalogue of Works of the Pāțaņa Bhandara, p. 313

Page #26

17
giving an easy interpretation of the original text. So Hemacandra's vrtti was a welcome addition, especially in view of its simple charming style. Upadeśamālāsūtra in 505 Prakrit gathas, also called Kusumamálā by the author himself, deals with charity, conduct (celebacy), etc and reveals the secret of religion to the curious reader. Upadeśamālāvivarana is a commentary in Sanskrit on the Upadeśamala. It is interspersed profusely with tales in Prakrit prose and verse to illustrate the basic virtues. Jivasamāsavivaraña is a commentary on Jivasamāsa by some early Acārya. In this work the fourteen guṇasthānas (stages of spiritual development) are discussed, and Hemacandra in his commentary besides clarifying a number of subtle points has given a thorough treatment of the jiva. Bhavabhāvanāsūtra in 531 Prakrit gatbās deals predominantly with bhayabhāvanā (contemplation on metempsychosis) of the twelve bhāvānas, though Hemacandra seizes the opportunity of referring briefly to the other bhāvanās also. Bhavabhāvanā vivaraņi is a lengthy commentary in Sanskrit on the above work by the author himself. It too like Upadešamālāvivarana is full of tales, but the author has very wisely given tales other than those related in the Upadeśamālāvivarana. The two trgether provide a very good collection of tales, espccially of those pertaining to the code of conduct in Jainism, though not without interest to others. This commentary was composed in Vikram Samvat 1170 as the author himself says at the end :
Saptatyadhikaikādaśavarşašatair Vikramad atikrāntaih;
nişpannā vrttie iyam Śrāvaņa - ravi- pañcamidivase. No copy of Nandițippaña has been found, nor is it referred to anywhere. Like the Avaśyaka-tippaņa it must have been a commentary on the Nandītīkā of Haribhadra, dealing with five kinds of knowledge. Hemacandra himself has referred to this work as one written by him at the end of the Višeşā vaśyakavivarana, his last work.
Višeşāvaśyaka-vivarana is a very popular commentary on . the Višeşā vaśyakabhāşya, which we have incorporated in the body of this work by way of interpretation of the gåthas of G-3

Page #27

18
nuns,
Viseṣāvasyaka-bhāṣya. It was completed in Vikram Samvat 1175, as the author himself says. We are, further, told that four monks-Abhayakumaragani, Dhanadevagani, Jinabhadragani and Vibudhacandramuni-and two Śrimahānanda and Śrīmahattară Viramati ganini, helped in the composition of this work. This commentary is the best and the most popular of all the commentaries on the Viseṣavasyakabhāṣya, and can be said to have eclipsed the others. It has captured the very spirit of the original text and laid it bare before the reader in all its purity, bringing out the unmanifest aspects in their fullness.
Hemacandra has, at the end of the Viseṣavasyaka-vivaraṇa, given us a brief sketch of his spiritual career as also an account of his works through an allegory. He says he was sunk deep in the ocean of life full of painful things like birth, old age, etc.; but a noble person placed him in a ship in the form of right intuition or faith, right knowledge and right conduct, so that he could reach without much difficulty the island of Auspicious Jewel (Šiva-ratna), Emancipation. The noble gentleman also gave him a jewel in the form of a good mind placed in a casket of good intention and told him that as long as he preserved this jewel, no harm would come to the ship which would reach its destination without any serious obstruction. But if he somehow parted with this jewel, the ship would be shattered. He also warned him that on account of this jewel, the soldier-pirates of King Delusion would pursue him, and they might even succeed in tearing off the sides of the casket of Good Intention. He also explained how, in the event of this calamity, the sides were to be replaced. Explaining all this the great soul sailed with him for some time and then disappeared. Coming to know of this, King Delusion, residing in the city of Imprudence (Pramada), cautioned his soldiers that their enemy had shown a soul plunged in mundane life the way to the island of Sivaratna (Auspicious Jewel) and the latter was journeying in that direction taking other like souls with him. They must pursue him before the latter brought an end to the

Page #28

drama of mundane life. King Delusion started sailing in his ship, Evil Intention, and his companions in his fleet of ships called Evil Disposition. They approached the ship our hero was sailing in and a battle followed between the Divine and the Demoniac Tendencies, The sides of the casket of Good Intention became worn out, and our hero decided to replace them by new ones in accordance with the advice of the good man. Consequently he created one after the other the planks in the form of the ten works mentioned above in the same order.
The great man was probably Hemacandra's preceptor and Hemacandra's goal in writing these works was to maintain and strengthen his pious resolution to attain emancipation and to be of help to others in reaching their goal. Looking to his works, and the fascination they have over the readers we can say that this was no tall claim. GAŅADHARAVĀDA-ITS LOCATION IN THE VIŠEŞĀVAŚYAKABHĀSYA
Višeşāvaśyakabhāşya is, as said before, a commentary on the Avaśyakaniryukti of Bhadrabāhu which in its turn is a commentary on the Avaśyaka-sūtra. Like Yāska, Bhadrabāhu also has given the etymological explanations of the technical words of the scriptures, in his case the Jaina Agamas, in his Niryuktis which are brief and give mostly the general tenor of the scriptural work commented upon besides giving such etymological explanations. In order to arrive at the relevant meaning of a word in a particular context he gives all possible meanings by the nikṣepa (aspect specified, e. g. name, concrete shape, present state, etc.) method and by setting aside the others recommends the one that is relevant, and gives his own comment, if he has to make any. Jinabhadra commenting on the Avaśyakaniryukti has seized the opprtunity to dilate upon the points touched upon by Bhadrabăhu or emerging from the latter's comment. We give here a very rapid survey of the Višeşā vašyakabhāsya so as to be able to point out the location of the Ganadharavada in it.
Every good work requires some sort of benediction (mangala); accordingly we have at the outset the explanation of mangala

Page #29

20
in the form of Nandi* i. e. five kinds of knowledge. Here we have a lengthy discussion on Jaina epistemology (1-1013). A number of topics such as the significance of sūtra, samhitā, etc. are treated here. It is also shown that of the five kinds of knowledge (mati, śruta, avadhi, manaḥ-parpāya, kevala), we are here concerned with śruta (scriptural knowledge), because it illuminates both itself and the rest.
Then after the exposition of a number of topics forming the base of the introduction, there is obeissance to all the Tirthankaras, and to Lord Mahāvīra in particular, as also to the Ganadbaras who gave us the first text of the scriptures from the teachings of Mahāvīra and to others who were responsible for the continuity of the texts and the scriptural tradition (1014-1068). Then after a mention of the Niryuktis written (-according to the Niryukti, proposed to be written) by Bhadrabāhu, the meaning of niryukti is given, and the origin of śruta and its growth is explained on the basis of its comparison with a tree, and so also the contribution of the Gañadharas and others to it. Sámāyika Adhyayana of the Āvaśyaka sūtra is put at the head of the scriptural texts composed by the Ganadbaras and it is explained that conduct (căritra) is the very essence of scriptural knowledge and emancipation that of conduct ( Tassavi sāro caraṇam sāro caraṇassa nivvāņam- Av. Nir. gā. 93, Višaşā vaśyaka. 1126); the relative importance of knowledge and action or caritra (conduct) (including tapas, austerity and samyama, restraint) is explained (1068-1346).
* Nandi=(Sanskrit) Năndi. There used to be a Nandi, benedictory stanza or stanzas at the beginning of every Sanskrit dramą which served as a mangala. As plays became popular the meaning of Nándi was extended to denote mangala, anything auspicious. It was so used even in Jaina works. Nandi also cime to mean knowledge which is mangala for the spiritual pursuit, and the scriptural text treating knowledge was also styled Nandīsūtra.
+ Višeşāvaśyakabhāṣja - Āgamodaya Samiti publication, Bombay, 1924.

Page #30

21
Then are given the synonyms of pravacana, sūtra and anuyoga (exposition) (1347-1387). After dealing with anuyoga and ananuyoga (non-anuyoga) along with their niksepas with illustrations, the difference between bhāṣā, vibhāṣā and vārttika, is explained and the qualifications of the teacher and the disciple are dealt with and illustrated. (1388–1483).
After this preliminary discussion, Jinabhadra following Bhadrabābu raises and answers a number of questions one. ought to grasp fully before one studies the Sāmāyika adhyayana. The points raised are worthy of forming the basis of the introduction of any modern work : (i) uddesa - a general statement of what is to be expounded (ii) nirdes --a particular statement of what is to be treated, (ii) nirgama -- origin of the Sāmāyika, (iv) kşetra -- place, (v) kala -- time, (vi) puruşa - from whom it was obtained, (vii) kāraṇa-cause, (viii) pratyaya-conviction (ix) laksaņa — definition, cbaracteristic, (x) naya-modes, points of view, (xi) samavatāra — the application of payas, (xii) anumatirecognition of the Sāmāyika by particular nayas and from the highest point of view, (xiii) kim - what is the Sāmāyika ? (xiv) its types, (xv) whose is it? (xvi) where? (xvii) wberein ? (xviii) how is it acquired ? (xix) how long does it endure ? (xx) how many acquire it at one time, (xxi) what is the perriod of its absence ? (xxii) period of non-absence or continuity ? (xxiii) for how many lives can it continue, (xxiv) how many times can it be aczepted, (xxv) what place it (soul who has acquired Så máyika) affects, (xxvi) nirukti — explanation of Sāmāyiką. (1481-2802).
Discussing the third point, nirgama, under the pretext of explaining how Mahāvīra could achieve the nirgama (coming out) from false belief, etc., the entire history of Jaina religion starting from before Rşubhadeva, and the life of Mabăvira is given in all its details, with special emphasis on the spiritual career, by Bhadrabahu, but Jinabhadra has not commented upon this portion, Jinabhadra starts in all earnest when he comes to the episode of Gañadhara Väda related above, which occurred

Page #31

22
after Lord Mahavira had attained omniscience as a result of his spiritual pursuit (1549-2024).
Many problems are discussed in connection with the 26 topics mentioned above, e. g. the doctrine of nayas, the problem of transmigration or mundane life and the causes that can lead to emancipation and the different branches in Jainism itself which tried to conceal the teaching of Mahavira or to twist it to yield another meaning (they are called nihnavas on account of this).* Then after explaining the twelfth point as to what Samayika (conduct, code of life) is acceptable to the different nayas, Jinabhadra comes to the thirteenth point and gives us a detailed discussion of Samayika (2633-2802). The remaining portion of the text of the Viseṣa vasyaka Bhasya gives, like the Avasyaka-Niryukti of which it is a commentary, an exposition of all the six adhyayanas (chapters) of the Avasyaka sūtra.
This brief account will give some idea of the encyclopaedic nature of the Viseṣavasyaka-bhāṣya which, as said before, can be regarded as a compendium of Jaina religion and philosophy. It can also be seen that as in the whole of the Mahabharata, the place of the Bhagavad Gita is unique, so also in the Viseṣavasyaka-bhāṣya, the Ganadharavada occupies a peculiar position and deals with all the main topics of Jaina philosophy and as such can hold its own independently, like the Gita, as a book worthy of being studied by all curious readers.
THE GANADHARAS
By way of an introduction to the philosophical questions of the Gaṇadharas we may give a brief account of their life, etc.
Very little information is obtained from the Agamas in connection with the Ganadharas. We find scattered the names and life span of the Ganadharas in the Samavayanga-sutra. § The Kalpasütrat states that Lord Mahavira had attached to him nine ganas (schools) and eleven ganadharas (chief disciples). *The interested reader is referred to Vi. Bhasya 2296-2620. § Samavayanga, 11, 74, 78, 92, etc. Kalpasūtra (Kalpalata), p. 215.

Page #32

23
In the exposition of this the names and gotras of the Ganadharas and also the following of each are given. It is stated that all the Ganadharas had knowledge of the twelve Angas and the fourteen Purvas. All of them were emancipated. All except Indrabhuti and Sudharman attained nirvana during the life-time of Lord Mahavira. The prezent host (sangha) of Śramanas is descended from the following of Sudharman. The line of the rest has been cut off. Arya Jambu was a disciple of Sudharman and Prabhava that of Jambu and so on. § This is all the information that we obtain in the Agamas concerning the Ganadharas.
It is said of Indrabhuti Gautama, the foremost disciple of Mahavira, that on the very night on which Mahavira attained nirvana his tie of affection binding him to Mahavira snapped off and he too attained nirvana. It is also found mentioned that Indrabhuti was the chief of the 14,000 disciples of Mahavira who had abandoned worldly life and become śramaņas (monks).* From this it is easy to derive that Indrabhuti was highly attached to Lord Mahavīra and that he did not attain the stage of omniscience during the life-time of Mahavira. Bhagavati sutra 14.7 corroborates this. In it, Lord Mahavira alludes to Indrabhūti's love and affection for himself and assures him that both would become alike (having the same end in view and residents of the same place) in all respects after becoming free from the human existence. The commentator Abhayadeva explains here that Indrabhuti was very much disappointed and sad that he had not achieved omniscience though his disciples had, and hence the assurance given by Mahāvīra.
From the questions posed by the Ganadharas it can be seen that they were very inquisitive by temperament and had a very powerful craving for knowledge. Not that they were ignorant or always doubting, but they kept on asking questions for more § Kalpasūtra, p. 217. Kalpasūtra, Su. 127. Kalpasūtra, Su. 134,
*

Page #33

24
and more clarification of philosophical problems and were not satisfied till they had arrived at a full solution of their doubts. Indrabhūti was the most curious among them. Whenever be had an occasion to hear the views of thinkers of other schools or to see something unusual he would at once rush to Mahāvīrā and inquire about it. I We find recorded certain episodes revealing Indrabhūti's ready-wittedness Hearing from Mahāvīra that Skandaka, a heretic (belonging to another school) had come, he went to receive him and foretold the reason of his coming to Mabāvīra and the doubts he entertained. This inspired in Skandaka great respect for, and faith in, Lord Mahāvīra. $ The teaching of a pramada (spiritual alertness) in Uttaradhyayana, 10 was imparted to Indrabhūti Gotama and indirectly to all. We find Indrabhūti carrying messages of Mahāvīra to others, e.g he conveys the Lord's message to Mabaśataka at the time of his confession on his death-bed, that he should expiate for the bitter though true words uttered by him to his wife Revati. We find descriptions of Indrabhūti's appearance and personality in several places He is described as baving a fair complexion, as bright, undergoing severe austerity, as a true celebate, as a knower of the fourteen Purvas, as capable of four kinds of knowledge (i. e. excluding kevala-jñāna, omniscience). * Most of the Agamas may be said to owe their existence to the questions of Indrabhūti.
Next to Indrabhūti, comes Sudharman from the point of view of information that can be collected, though we do not find any allusion to his personal life. What we are told is that he explained the Agama on being asked by Jambū. It is really surprising that though the present Jaina sangha is traced to Sudharman alone, and though the text of the Agamas is traditionally obtained from Sudharman, and though it is believed that Sudharman himself gave the text of certain
See Bhagavatī 2.5, 9.33 etc. $ Bhagavati Śataka 2.1. + Upāsakadašānga, 8. * See Bhagavatī, Šataka, 1.

Page #34

25
Agamas to Jambū, t we do not find any record in the Agamas of Sudharma having asked Mahāvira any question and of the latter's reply. Bhagavati Sūtra notes a few questions asked by Agnibhūti, Väyubhūti 1 and Mandiyaputta. * Arya Sudharman's description is exactly like that of Indrabhūti's.
But it may be noted that nowhere in the Agamas do we find any reference to the doubts of the gañadbaras and their questions as detailed in the Ganadharavāda. We find the first reference to these doubts of the respective gañadharas in a gāthā of the Āvaśyaka Niryukti :
Jive' kamme? tajjīva' bhūya* tārisaya' bandbamokkhe ya; devā? ņeraies yā puņng' paraloya'o nevvāne". - Avasyaka Niryukti, Gả 596(1) Does the soul exist or not? (2) Is there anything like karma, (3) Is the body the same as soul or is it different ? (4) Do the elements exist ? (5) Is the soul in the next world similar to that in this world ? (6) Are bondage and salvation real? (7) Are there gods ? (8) Are there hellish beings? (9) Are there punya (good) and papa (sin)? (10) Is there the otherworld ? (11) Is there anything like emancipation ?
The Āvaśyaka Niryukti gives us further details regarding the life, etc, of these gañadharas. They are given in the chart on the following four pages. S
We are told, as said above, in the Kalpa-sūtra that Lord Mahăvira had eleven gañadbaras, but the number of ganas (schools) was nine. This is accounted for by the fact that a school or gaṇa is constituted as a result of a difference in the wording of the text though in all cases the meaning of the text might remain unchanged. The ganıdbaras composed the Agamas on the basis of the instruction given by Mahāvīra. On
+ See introductory statements of Jñātädbarmakathānga, Anuttaropapātika, Vipāka, Nirayā valika
Bhagavati 3.1 * Bhagavati 3.3
$ See Avaśyaka Niryukti, gāthās 589-641. G-4

Page #35

No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Name
Indrabhūti
Agnibhūti
Vayubhūti
Vyakta
Sudharma
Mandika or Mandita
Father Mother Caste
Vasubhūti
""
Dhanamitra
Varuņi
Dhammi- Bhaddila
(Bhadrilă)
la (Dhar
mila)
Dhana
deva
Prthvi
Maurya-putra Maurya
Vijaya
devā
""
Brāh
mana
""
99
39
""
Gotra (Family)
name
Gautama
Bhāradvāja
Agnivaisyayana
Vasistha
Kasyapa
Professi- Place of
birth
on
Tea- Magadha cher Gobbara
39
""
""
""
""
""
THE GANADHARAS
Nakṣatra
at the time
of birth
,,
Jyeṣṭhā
Kollaga Sanni- Śravana
vesa
Period Period of life of life
as a
house
holder
Krttikā 46
Hasto
ttara
50
Svāti 42
50
50
Moriya
Sanni- Magha 53
vesa
Rohini 65
as one still involved in
worldly life
30
1241
10
12
42
14
14
26

Page #36

No.
Period of emancipated
life
Name
Line Total Follow
ollow..of life in ing of disciples
left years disciplesh
Knowledge of
Place of Sams. Samgha- Time of niryāna thāna * yanaf nirvana
Remarks
1
Indrabhūti
112
92
500
x
Raja gsha
Sama- Vajra- After 12Angas, catur- rsabha Maha- 14 asra nārāca vīra Pūrvas
Before i 1
Mahavīra
These three
were brothers
2
Agnibhūti
16
74
500i
X
i
29
3
Väyubhūti
18
70
500
x

Vyakta
18
| 80
500
x
Sudharma
8
100
500
Jambu
and others
After Maha
vira Before Mahavīra
6
/
Mandika or Mandita
1683
350
x
Children of
the same mother but of different fathers,
-
7
Maurya-putra
16
|
95
350
X
·
·
·

Page #37

No.
8
9
10
11
Name
Akampita Deva
Acalabhrātā
Metarya
Father Mother Caste
Prabhasa
Vasu
Datta
Jayanti
Nanda
Varunadeva
Bala Atibhadra
"
""
,,
35
Gotra (family)
name
Gautama
Harita
Kaundinya
,,
Professi- Place of
birth
on
97
""
""
Mithila
Kosala
THE GANADHARAS
Period
Nakṣatra
of life
at the time
as a
of birth
householder
Uttara ṣādhā
Mrgasiras
48
46
Vatsabhumi
-Tungiya Asvini 36
Sannivesa
Rajagṛha Pusya 16
Period of life
as one still
involved in worldly life
9
12
10
8
28

Page #38

(Continued)
Period of eman cipated
life
Place of
Line Total Follow- tion of life in ing of disciples years disciples
No.
Time of
Name
Know1 ledge of scrip
Sams- Samgha
1 thāna * yana +
Remarks
left
na *yana T
nirvana
nirvana
tures
8
Raja
!
Akampita
21 | 78 | 300
x
| Sama- Vajra- Before 12Angas, catur- rsabha Mahā- 14 asra nārāca vira Pūrvas
grha
9
Acalabhrātā!
14
72
300
*
!

Metārya
16
62
300
x
11
Prabhāsa
1640
300
x
* Sarnsthāna - See on the reverse.
+ Samghayana - See on the reverse.

Page #39

30
* Samsthāna (Prakrit - samthāņa) - Samtişthate anena rūpena pudgalātmakam vastv iti samsthānam-Utt. 1. a; akāravišeșe, mukhavșttyā pudgalaracanākāre - Ava. 4 a; atyadbhute racanā višese -A. Ma. 1 a; Više., Sa; akřtivišesāḥ samsthānāni tānica jīvājīvasambandhitvena dvidhā bhavanti.
Samsthāna, figure, excellent figure (akřtivišeşa).
Manonmānapramāṇāni anyūnāny apatiriktāni angopangāni ca yasmin śarīrasamsthāne tat samacaturasra-samsthānamAbhidhāna Rajendra Kośa.
Samacaturasra-samsthāna-well-built, uniform, well-proportioned figure.
† Samghayaņa (Sanskrit - sambanana), dovetailing of the joints, or the bones.
Asthi-sañcaye, vajra-rşabhādyupamāne upameye sakti-višeşeStha. 6, Thā. 3u; Tatra vajram kīlikä rşabhaḥ pariveștana-pattaḥ nārācaḥ ubhayato markatabandhaḥ, yatra dvayor asthnor ubbayato markațabandbena baddhayoh pattākstinā třtiyenāsthna pariveşțitayor upari tadasthitritayabbedikilikākāram vajranāmakam asthi bhavati tad vajca- rşabhanārācam prathamam.
Vajra-șşabba-nārāca is the best of the six types of the dovetailing of joints or bones.
Sambanyante — drąbïkriyante sarirapudgalā yena tat samhananam tac caʼsthinicayaḥ kilikādirūpāņām asthnam nicayo racanā višeşo 'sthinicayaḥ. Idam asthi-nicayātmakam samhananam audārikānge audārika - śarīra eva, nā’nyesu śarīreșu, teşām asthirahitatvāt- Abhidhāna Rajendra Kośa.

Page #40

31
account of difference of wording there were nine different texts (vácana) of the canon, though the gañadharas were eleven. Akampita and Acalabhrātā had altogether 600 disciples who followed one vācanā (text); so also Metārya and Prabhāsa had altogether 600 disciples who followed one vācană (text). Hence the total number of gaņas (schools) was nine though the number of gañadbaras was eleven.
The Āvaśyaka Niryukti relates the circumstances in. which Indrabhūti first met Lord Mahāvīra, and how he was converted to faith in Mabāvīra. He approached as a sceptic and scoffer and remained to worship. The other gañadharas did not come with a view to revile Mahāvīra, but out of inquisitiveness and a sense of awe. They also became the disciples of Maha vira. Though later commentators have written at length and with flourish about this episode, we do not get any new information from them. Jinabhadra, the author of the Višesā vaśyaka-bhāsya has seized this opportunity to give a digest containing the essential principles of Jaina philosophy. Imitating him, other commentators of the Avaśyaka Niryukti and the commentators of the Kalpasūtra have done the same and given an exposition of the Jaina philosophy.
Acārya Hemacandra has in his Trişastiśalākāpuruşacaritr given, on the basis of traditional accounts, further details regarding the life of Indrabhūti and even regarding his previous life. S Such episodes as are related here are based on the statement in the Bhagavati Sūtra where Mabāvīra says to Indrabhūti that their relation was nothing new, but continued from the previous life.
It is believed by all that Indrabhūti's intense attachment to Lord Mahavira came in the way of his omniscience. The moment that was removed by the physical death of Mahāvīra, he attained omniscience. Describing this incident Acārya Hemacandra says that Mabāvīra realised that Indrabhūti was
$ See. Trişaştiśalā kāpuruşacaritra 10.9.

Page #41

32
not attaining omniscience on account of his intense attachment to him. Hence knowing that he was to attain nirvāṇa on that very night, Mahāvira sent Indrabhūti to instruct Devašarman residing in a village not far away from the place. By the time he returned Mahāvīra had given up his worldly life and had attained nirvana. He was very sad and also intrigued as to why he was sent away when the end of Lord Mahāvīra was drawing near. But he at once realised that till then he was deep sunk in the mire of ignorance and attachment and that his love and attachment were coming in the way of his attaining ormniscience. He immediately attained omniscience.*
All such narratives are based on the statement in the Bhagavati Sūtra 14.7 that Indrabhūti Gautama was higly attached to Lord Mahāvīra and that their relationship persisted even from the previous birth, and that they would both be alike in the future.
STYLE:
The Bhagavadgită has a unique place in the Mahābhārata inasmuch as though it is perfectly set in the chain of the original story, it can be severed from it and can serve as a text-book of Indian thought. The place of the Gañadharavāda in the Višeşā vaśyakabhāsya is a similar one. Set in the original at the stage when after attaining omniscience (kevala-jñāna), Mahāvīra is honoured at a sama vasarana and even the gods come to pay their respects to him and Indrabhūti out of jealousy, and other ten Brāhmaṇas out of curiosity and even a sense of admiration approach Mahā vīra, each with a query in his mind, the Gañadharavāda can serve as an independent manual of Jaina philosophy. Like the Gītā or even the Upanişads, the Buddhist Pițakas and the Jaina Agamas, it is framed as a dialogue — between Mabā vira and the eleven gañadharas one after the other. This gives the writer a very good opportunity to pose questions and raise objections or anticipate objections from the opponent and thus make the whole affair very life-like
* Trişaştišalákāpuruşacaritra 10.13.

Page #42

33
and interesting. Philosophical instruction, especially for the mediocre, is best imparted in such a sugar-coated pill of philosophical controversy. Even in serious and difficult works on Indian philosophy we find that the author has always in view à rival thinker and he makes persistent efforts to drive his point home or clarify his view-point as against the objections the rival thinker could possibly raise or is likely to raise. This is the usual style of books on philosophy. This may be a reflection of the debates and controversies which must have been very common in the philosophical circles and in the social conditions of the past.
Unlike what we find in the Gītā, here in the Gañadharavāda, Mahāvīra knows the doubts of the sceptical Brāhmaṇas as also the reasoning which has led them to this doubt, so that these latter have actually nothing to relate. This is quite in agreement with the tenor of the incident wherein the omniscience (kevala-jñāna) of Mahāvīra is to be brought to the fore-ground. Nevertheless, it may be borne in mind, the discussion proceeds purely on the basis of reasoning and only when it has had full scope, does Mahāvīra appeal to Indrabhūti and others to accept his words as he is omniscient. Thus due importance is attached to reasoning and the disciples are, we may say, thereby taught and inspired to accept authoritative statements no doubt, but also to reason them out. We find a parallel to this in the Bhagavad Gitā where Krsna after imparting instruction reveals his cosmic form. There is a curious but welcome combination of reason and faith.
Another point that claims our attention is that the doubts of the Brahmin doubters are based on the authority of the Veda which at times seems to present contradictory statements. This is as it ought to be even though the Višeşā vašyaka Bhāşya is a Jaina work, because Indrabhūti and the other ten were originally Brāhmaṇas. But what is worth appreciating is that Mahavira is not made to brush aside the statements of the Veda as not acceptable to him. But with due respect to them he explains that the contradiction is only apparent. Thus G-5

Page #43

34
the Veda is explained through the Veda and there is no attempt to condemn or cavil at the scriptures of other schools. This is in the true spirit of the Anekānta vada (philosophy of nonabsolutism and synthesis) which is the very essence of the Jaina system of thought. The Jaina tenets are expounded independently and mostly no attempt is made to twist the original texts. Moreover, the prima-facie view (pūrva paksa) is given at length and then it is refuted, and even later on objections are anticipated. This must be appreciated in such an early work as the Višeşāvaśyakabháşya of Jinabhadra. We find this method at its best in such works as the Nyaya-mañjari of Jayanta, the Astasabasri of Vidyānanda and the like but one feels fully satisfied and even astonished to see it so well illustrated in the Višeşāvašyaka-bhāsya a comparatively early work, though it is by no means the only work of its type.
Maladhāri Hemacandra's exposition of the Višeşāvāșyakabhāsya is, one may say, an ideal commentary, explaining and clarifying all the difficult points in a lucid style.
The following brief exposition which may be called 'A Philosophical Essay on the Gañadharavāda' will give some idea of the of philosophical problems in the Gañadharavāda, as also of the method adopted by Maladhāri Hemacandra in their exposition.

Page #44

35 A PHILOSOPHICAL ESSAY ON THE GANADHARAVADA
In the Gañadharavāda which is a section of the Višeşāvaşyakabhāşya of Acārya Jinabbadra, this latter being a commentary on the Āvaśyaka Niryukti, we find a number of philosophical and religious problems discussed by way of a dialogue between Lord Mahāvira and the different gañadharas (leaders of groups) who came to him in a defiant mood or motivated by the craving for knowledge. The problems discussed. are as follows: (i) Existence of the soul; (ii) Existence of karman; (iii) Identity or otherwise of the soul and the body; (iv) Existence of bhūtas (real entities ); (v) Semblance between this life and the next one; (vi) Reality of bondage and salvation; (vii) Existence of gods; (viii) Existence of the denizens of hell; (ix) Punya (good) and Pāpa (evil); (x) Existence of the other-world (paraloka); (xi) Reality of Nirvāņa (emancipation).
We may consider these problems succinctly here. In doing so we shall link up the allied problems so as to make the exposition precise and systematic. Jinabhadra has, as in most works on Indian philosophy, given us a very faithful account of the opponent's view along with references to the scriptures he relies upon and then refuted the arguments of the opponents, added some to support his own view and finally given a fresh interpretation of the scriptural text cited by the opponent. The full significance of philosophical problems is brought out if we take into consideration the views of the main systems with regard to them. Hence we shall, in the course of this brief exposition, discuss the view of the main opponent and also refer to other views.
The first problem taken up in the Gañadharavada is that of the existence of the soul; connected with it is the third problem whether the soul has an independeut reality or is identical with the body. It would be proper to take these two problems together.

Page #45

36
The popular view-point is to believe in the existence of things that are perceptible to the senses and it is popularly accepted that there is no reason to believe in the existence of what is not perceptible to the senses. Inference can help only in those cases where a thing may not be perceived at the moment, but can be perceived if one wants to perceive it, e. g. fire on the mountain that is inferred from smoke. Again, inference is based on perception, for the vyapti (rule of invariable concomitance) cannot be arrived at without it. The soul or its relation to any linga (mark) has never been perceived and so inference cannot help us in inferring the existence of the soul. The Carvaka or Lokayata system of thought which had a popular appeal is an upholder of this point of view. Only that much exists as can be perceived by the senses; even the very wise arrive at ridiculous conclusions when they resort to inference or means of knowledge other than perception. As the story goes, a man made certain marks in the dust on the road just to test the intelligence and rational approach of the so-called wise, who actually fell a prey to this trick and inferred from the marks that a wolf had frequented the place. It is but natural that the soul should be denied according to this line of thought. Again we do not find anyone who has had the direct perception of the soul and hence whose words could be accepted as verbal testimony. Even the scriptures make conflicting statements. In Brh. Up. 2.4.12 we are told that the mass of consciousness itself arises from these material elements and follows them in destruction, and there is no
consciousness bhütebhyaḥ
after death (Vijñānaghana evaitebhyaḥ samutthaya tany eva'nu vinasyati, na ca pretya samjñā'sti). This seems to corroborate the Lokayata view that the soul or sentient-principle has no independent reality but is only an epiphenomenon of the material elements agregating in a certain proportion. Hence the allied view-point that the soul has no independent identity but is identical with the body, for consciousness is an attribute of the aggregate of the material elements, i. e. the body and there is the relation of identity between the attribute and what possesses it. The Buddha too has said that

Page #46

rūpa, etc. are not pudgala or the soul, implying thereby that no external object that is perceived is the soul or that there is nothing which can be regarded as the soul. But on the other hand we have innumerable scriptural passages which tell us of the existence of the soul. Hence the question as to its existence. We are also told to perform sacrifices, etc. for the attainment of heaven, etc. and charity, honesty, etc. are also popularly regarded as rewarding in future. These by no means yield the fruit during the existence of the body and are not even intended to do so. This means that there is some continuation of the personality even after the body perishes. Hence one cannot deny the soul outright. * What is the way out ?
* It may be noted that even the materalist Cārvākas do not deny the soul altogether, but regard it as an epiphenomenon of the elements earth, etc.. Keeping this in view, Uddyota kara has rightly pointed out that it can be said generally that no system of philosophy has doubted the existence of the soul The differences among the different systems are as regards the nature of the soul. Some regard the body as the soul, others the sense-organs, mind, intellect, or the aggregate and some regard the soul as an independent entity distinct from these (Nyāya-vārtika, p. 336). The story of Indra and Virocapa is interesting wherein we are told that Virocana propounded the view that the soul is identical with the body [Chandogya Up. 8.8; see also Taitt. Up. 2.1,2 wherein we are told that the puruṣa is constituted of anna (food)]. It is not possible to separate the soul from the body and show it as distinct from it, as one can draw the sword from the sheath; so the soul exists only so long as the body does and perishes along with it (See Sūtrakřtānga, 2.1.9; 2.1.10. King Pãesī of the Digha Nikāya, after a number of experiments comes to the conclusion that whatever energy there is is all due to the body and perishes with it). This view is known as the Tajjiva-taccharira-vāda --the doctrine that the soul is identical with the body. Unfortunately the works of the Bhūta-caitanyavādins (those who regarded sentiency as emerging from material elements) have

Page #47

38
The rejoinder to all such arguments is, according to the Jainas, that the apprehension of doubt and other knowledge is itself the jīva (soul). Knowledge is self-evident and jiva being of the nature of knowledge is also such and it is not necessary to resort to any means of valid knowledge. We have the 'I' notion with respect to all the three times (e. g. I did', 'I do', 'I shall do'), and it is self-evident to all, even to those who have no claim to rational investigation and knowledge of scriptures. This 'I' notion must refer to some real object and that is the soul. Moreover, there could be no questioning or doubting (“Do I exist or not?') if the doubter jiva did not exist. Doubt is an attribute and there must be something of which it is an attribute. The body cannot be this entity for it is corporeal and inanimate while knowledge is non-corporeal and of the nature of bodha (consciousness). Hence the soul must exist as a substrate of knowledge. If one were to doubt one's own existence, one would be sceptical about everything. The doubter cannot doubt at least his own existence. According to our prac ical experience the soul is known to all.
been lost; even the Bphaspati-sūtra in which the Lokāyata system was formulated has been irretrievably lost. But we find references to the materialistic view in the scriptures--Brahmanical Buddhist and Jaina (See Ch. Up. 4.3; Svet. Up. 1.2; Samannaphala-sutta, Dīgha-Nikaya, Sūtrakṣta nga, 1.1.1.7-8, etc.). Even within the different currents of thought we find development regarding the concept of the soul from a material principle to a sentient entity. (Cf. the use of words like bhūta, prāna, sattva, etc. for the soul in the Acāranga Sūtra).
The Buddhists are Anātmavādins (believers in non-soul) only in the sense that they do not recognise an independent permanent entity called the soul, but what other systems call 'atman' (self), they regard as an everchanging aggregate of rūpa (plıysical factors) and nama (phychical factors) comprising vedanā (sensation), samjñā (conceptual understanding), samskära (impression) and vijñāna (pure consciousness). The inclusion of vijñāna is significant. (See Milinda Pañha 2.4.298)..

Page #48

39
Even if no means of valid knowledge can acquaint us with a thing it does not fillow that it does not exist; e. g. ghosts, etc. The means of knowledge may not be able to operate with regard to the soul and yet the soul can be an existent entity. But in fact pramāṇas with regard to the existence of the soul are available. The qualities of the soul, viz. memory, desire to go, do, know, etc. and doubt, etc.—which are all particular forms of cognitionare established through self-apprehension. Therefore, the substrate of these qualities must also be known by perception, just as a jar is cognised by perception because its qualities, colour, etc. are cognised thereby. It cannot be argued that the soul docs not exist because it is not perceived, while the jar exists because it is perceived. The existence of the jar will have to be first established before this can be said. And by whatever argument the jar is established, that same will demonstrate the existence of the soul too. The soul must be existent as the substrate of the qualities, knɔwledge, etc.. Knowledge, etc. cannot reside in the body for the knower is different from the senses, because even when these latter do not operate there is the remembrance of what has been cognised by them.
We may at this stage discuss the point that consciousness cannot emerge from the body which is a conglomerate of material elements, though it will mean a slight digression from the present line of thought. Even if we take the opponent at his word that consciousness emerges from the conglomerate of the elements, earth, etc. it must be present to some extent, however slight in each of the elements severally, so as to become full and distinct on their coming together. But this is not true, for consciousness is not observed in the conglomerate. The conglomerate called body comprises not only the elements, but also the soul consciousness exists in this conglomerate it is not on account of the conglomeration of the elements but because it is an attribute of the soul. Consciousness is not found in a dead body and does not emerge even if any element thought to be missing in it is introduced into it. Green grass may be found when there is a conglomerate of earth and water, but this does not

Page #49

40
mean that it is a product of this conglomerate; similarly consciousness cannot be said to emerge from the conglomerate of the material clements, but is an attribute of the soul.
To return to our point, the soul is directly and fully perceptible to one who is free from all passions and whose knowledge is unobscured. Thus the soul is perceptible to all, though partially. Its knowledge can also be arrived at by inference and this helps us to conclude that others' bodies too have a soul associated with them as our body has. It is not absolutely necessary that the lingin (signified) should have been cognised previously as concomitant with the linga (mark) in order that we might be able to utilise inference. A spirit is generally never observed as making all sorts of gestures, and yet from certain gestures like laughing, screaming, etc. we infer the existence of a spirit in the body. Similarly we can employ a number of inferences to demonstrate the existence of the soul. To take but two instances :- The maker of the body must exist because it has a definite shape which has a beginning, like the jar which has a maker; or, The manipulator of the senses exists, because they are instruments, as the potter is the manipulator of staff, wheel, etc.. The soul is this maker, manipulator and so on, for the concept of God, according to the Jainas, does not stand the test of reasoning. The soul too, like the potter, etc, is, in a way, corporeal so long as it is in the transmigratory condition, for it is enveloped in the aggregate of the eightfold material karman. A newly-born child's knowledge or desire, etc must be preceded by another knowledge or desire, etc. respectively, because it is of the nature of knowledge or desire, .etc. These are attributes and so must have a substratum. The soul is this substratum and is thus distinct from the body and persists even when the previous body has perished
Moreover the very fact that there is a doubt about the soul establishes its existence, for there can be no doubt with regard to what is utterly non-existent. For instance, we have the doubtful cognition, “Is it a man or a post?"; man and post are both real. Error with regard to a thing or negation of a thing is possible only if the thing is real, When we say the ass's horn

Page #50

41
does not exist we only mean that the horn does not exist on the ass, but it does exist on a cow, etc.. We negate the jīva when we say non-jiva; therefore the counter-entity of non-jiva, viz. the jīva must be an existent entity. The rule is that if an entity denoted by an etymologically derived, uncompounded word is negated, this negation always implies the existence of the counter-entity. Jiva which can be etymologically derived and is uncompounded is negated by non-jīva; so there must be a real entity called the jīva. Not so Dittha (which cannot be etymologically explained) and khara-vişāņa (ass's horn, which is a compound). A word which is etymologically derivable and is uncompounded must refer to a real thing. 'Jiva' is one such word; so the entity ‘jiva' (soul) denoted by it must be an existent one. “Jiva' (soul) and 'deha' (body) have different sets of synonyms, and so must be distinct entities. Again, what is non-existent is not negated. If we negate the soul, it must be an existent entity. The soul cannot exist without a support; it is very easily seen that the body is this substratum, for we have marks of its residence in the body, viz. knowledge etc..
The Vedic passage 'Vijñānaghana evaitebhyaḥ...' should not be interpreted to mean that sentiency perishes with the body. Vijñāna in this passage means particular knowledge which is a sum total of jñāna (determinate knowledge), and darśana (indeterminate intuition). The soul is non-different from this vijñāna and being permeated by it, is called vijñāna-ghana. 'Eva' stresses that this is the very nature of the soul, otherwise it would not be inherently sentient, as happens in the case of the soul in the Nyaya-Vaišeşika. Particular knowledge (vijñāna) arises from the bhūtas (objects like jar, cloth, etc. which have assumed the form of knowables). These vijñānas are different modes of the jīva (soul) and hence it can be said that the jīva arises out of the knowables. When these objects are no longer perceived (on account of their being covered by something or on account of absent-mindedness, etc.) this particular knowledge does not arise; or when we leaving one object concentrate on another, that particular knowledge can G-6

Page #51

42
be said to hive perished on the destruction of that object in its apucity as a knowable, and hence that particular mode too of the soul can be said to have perished. But this should not be understood to main that the soul totally perishes. Such modes keep on arising anl perishing, but there is a continuity of consciousness which should not be lost sight of, and in respect of which the jiva is imperishable. In the Jaina view, every entity his the three-fold nature of origination (utpada), destruction (vyaya) and persistence (dhrauvya). The soul persists in the midst of this sort of origination and destruction. The soul is self-luminous (Cl. Brh. Up. 4.3.6); this self-luminosity is the same as jñānu (sentiency, knowledge) and this shows that this jñānanature of the soul is in no way dependent on the existence or non-existence of miterial objects; particular knowledge alone is thus dependent. Thus the existence of the soul as an inherently sentient, self-luminous entity persisting in the midst of change has been proved. The soul is doer and enjoyer and can experience pleasure-pain, bondage, transmigration, and emancipation. *
* The Nyāja-Vaišeșika system regards the soul as eternally unchanging and as the substrate of a number of qualities like knowledge, pleasure, etc. which are produced in it by its association with the body. Thus, the soul is not inherently conscious, but is capable of being conscious. The Sārnkhya-Yoga regards the soul as pure sentiency, quality less, unaffectel, absolutely unchanging, non-doer, non-enjoyer, merely a witness; all operations of knowledge, pleasure, pain, bondage, salvation, etc. are on account of its association with the buddhi (intellect! The Buddhist views will be discussed later; as also the Vedāntic. The Mimāmsā view seems to be very much like that of the Nyāya-Vaišeşika. The Vedāntic view of the soul is similar to that of the Säikhya-Yoga, only the soul is not absolutely independent as in the latter. . In all these systems the soul is entirely distinct and yirtually independent of God even if God is recognised. Only the Vedānta recognises God and regards the souls as illusory manifestations of God ( Sankara) or as real and in a way non

Page #52

43
As to the number of souls, the Vedāntins believe that there is but one Ultimate Entity, one sentient principle, Brahman, which is all-pervading. They claim to have the support of the scriptures. But the Jainas say that if the same soul were present in all bodies, it would have the same characteristics, which is not what we find. Every individual has his own pleasure, etc.. There are innumerably more miserable souls than there are happy ones in the universe. If they were all one, there would be nothing like happiness or pleasure for any one. But we do find one person happy as against others who are unhappy. This clearly shows that the souls are infinite in number. +
The souls are also not all-pervading (vibhu). The characteristics of the soul are found only within the expanse different manifestations or parts of God (Bhāskara, Rāmānuja, Nimbārku, Vallabha, Srikantha, and others) or as different from but as dependent on God (Madhva), or as inseparable from God (Vijñānabhikṣu). God though recognised in the Yoga system has no special significance in his relation with the souls. Nyaya " Vaiseșika recognises God as the creator of the world, in accordance with the karman of souls. In Vedānta, excepting the philosophy of Sankara, neither the souls nor God can be regarded as kūțastha-nitya or absolutely changing. Of course, in all the systems except the Buddhist, the souls are eternal entities. Sankara would agree from the point of view of lower knowledge, for from the esoteric point of view the souls are unreal and so there is no question of their being eternal or not.
+ The Upanişads recognise Brahman as the Absolute Principle and regard the inanimate world and soul as manifestations or modifications of the ultimate which is both immanent and transcendent. All the Vedāntic philosophers are of this view, except Sankara who interprets the Upanişads to mean that there is but one non-dual, absolute principle, and all else is unreal. All the systems of philosophy recognise an infinite number of souls. Even the Vijñānavādins recognise an infinite number of streams of consciousness.

Page #53

of the body and so can exist only in the body and be of the same size as the body. It is capable of expansion or contraction in accordance with the body it occupies. I
Mahavira holds that there is a relation of bhedābheda (identity in difference) between the basic substance and its modes (paryāyas) or attributes (gunas) as against the Nyāya-Vaišeșika who regards the substance and attributes as absolutely distinct but joined together by the relation of inherence (samavāya). On account of this the Nyåya-Vaišeșika can afford to hold that the soul is eternally unchanging (kūtastha-nitya) even when qualities like knowledge, pleasure, pain, attachment, dislike, effort, merit, demerit are produced in it or are destroyed (dissociated). The Jainas, on the other hand, true to their belief in the threefold nature, viz utpäda-vyaya-dhrauvya, regard the soul as pariņāmi-nitya (eternal in the midst of change). New paryayas of knowledge, pleasure, pain etc. are created in it, and they also perish; accordingly from the point of view of these paryāyas, the soul can be said to be originated or destroyed, while from the point of view of the basic substance (dravya) it remains eternal. Thus there is a constant change in the soul and yet it remains eternal.
The Buddhist theory of the soul-principle invités comparison here. As said above, the Pāli Pițakas say that what others regards as a soul is but an ever-changing aggregate of nama-rūpa. It is beginingless and endless as a stream of changing point-instants, but is not a permanent entity. This view is known as Pudgala-nairātmyavāda (Doctrine of the essencelessness of the soul). The Buddhists were condemned as
• The Nyāya-Vaišeşika, the Samkhya-Yoga, and Sankara regard the soul as all-pervading. The Vedāntic teachers other than Sankara, regard the soul as atomic (anu), their argument being that the soul is sternal and so can be either atomic or all-pervading. But it cannot be all-pervading as that would involve much confusion. The Buddhists have not said anything precisely as to the size of the citta (mind) or vijñāna (consciousness), but the hadayavatthu (heart) is said to be its locus in some Buddhist works (Visuddhimagga, 14. 60; 17. 163, etc).

Page #54

45
non-believers in soul, so a section of them viz. the Sammitiyas or Vätsiputriyas advanced the theory that there is an entity called the pudgala or soul. This view did not find favour, as it was regarded as being against the view of Buddha. The Sarvästi vädins, on the other hand, to hold their own against other currents of thought recognising a soul and thus justifying the doctrine of transmigration and bondage-salvation, gave the name of citta to nama (vedana, sainjñā, samskara, and vijñāna) and gave an analysis of it as divided into a number of parts. Even while accepting it as momentary, they established it as existing in all the three times by recognising its potency in the past and the future. This was equivalent to accepting Eternalism (Śāśvatavada) to which Buddha was very much opposed. The Sautrantikas, therefore, came forward to established it as momentary and existing in the present instant alone. The Madhyamikas realised that this was simply dialectics and this inspired them in the direction of Sunyavada or the doctrine of the essencelessness of things. Ultimately the Vijñanavādins established that streams of momentary consciousness, infinite in number, are the only reality, everything else being external projections of them. This gives us some idea as to how difficult it is to deny a persisting sentient entity. The Jainas as compared to others have a synthetic approach inasmuch as a harmony is established by them between both change and persistence. The Buddhists find it very difficult to explain bondage, transmigration, emancipation, memory, recognition, etc. on the basis of the theory that every point-instant is different from the preceding and the succeeding point-instants of nama or citta or vijñana, as no identity is recognised. It is also not possible to have the knowledge of the momentariness of all things in the some moment, for knowledge too is momentary. To avoid these difficulties, it would be more rational, according to the Jainas, to recognise a soul distinct from the body.
Knowledge is inherent in the soul, but does not shine because it is obscured by the veil of karman. Five kinds of knowledge can arise with the removal of the corresponding karma-veil, viz., mati (sensuous), śruta (scriptural), avadhi (visual intuition),

Page #55

46
inanaḥ-paryaya (intuition of mental modes) and kevala (pure and perfect knowledge). The soul in its pure state does not require any external help of the sense-organs, etc.; but these are helpful only in removing partially the karma-veil. Kevalajñāna is perfect and eternal, has an infinite number of things as its objects and persists in a pure condition eternally.
The soul though a real entity is not perceived because it is non-corporeal. That it is not perceived is no evidence of its being unreal. Charity, sacrifices, austerity, pursuit of knowledge, etc. can yield their fruit only if the soul is a real, persisting entity.
Souls can be classified as samsarin (worldly, transmigrating) and mukta (emancipated). The samsărin souls can again be saminaska (possessed of mind) and amanaska (devoid of mind) or trasa (dynamic) and sthăvara (stationary). Earth, water, and vegetation are sthāvara, and fire, wind air, those with two sense-organs, three-senses organs, etc. are trasa. Trasa souls are so called because they are capable of movement from one place to another and capable of effort to bring about pleasure and avoid pain. Fire and air are called trasa not because they possess this nature, but only because they resemble souls with two senseorgans, etc. with regard to movement. That is to say, trasa souls are of two kinds—labdhi-trasa (souls with two senses, etc.) and gati-trasa (air, fire). These latter are in reality sthāvara but are known as such on account of their having movement. Souls are again bhavya (those that can be emancipated) and abhavya (those that will never be emancipated).

Page #56

47
BONDAGE AND EMANCIPATION OF THE SOUL.
The question of bondage and emancipation, whether there is anything like bondage or emancipation is discussed in Ganadharavada, 6 and the nature of emancipation in Gaṇadharavada, 11.
There are conflicting statements in the scriptures which "Sa say: esa viguno vibhur na badhyate samsarati va, na mucyate mocayati va, na va esa bahyam abhyantaram va veda" [This soul is all-pervading and quality less. Neither is it bound nor does it transmigrate. It is not freed (from karman) nor does it free (karman); it knows neither the (external nor the internal]; and also "Na ha vai sasarī rasya priyapriyayor apahatir asti, aśarīram va vasantam priyapriye na sprśatah" (The embodied soul can never be free from pleasure and pain, while these do not affect the soul as it exists in an unembodied state). The former statement says that bondage and emancipation have no reality, whereas the latter statement implies their reality. Dialectical arguments also lead one to question them. If bondage means the union of the jiva (soul) with karman, has this union a beginning or is it beginningless? If it has a beginning, did the jiva exist first or karman? Or were they simultaneously produced? Bondage cannot be explained in the light of any of these. (i) Jiva cannot exist before karman, for like the ass's horn it would have no cause and so would be unproduced. What is produced without a cause should also perish without one. Even if jiva is beginningless, there cannot be its union with karman without a cause, for if this union were there without any cause, it would occur in the state of emancipation also. If the soul be thought to have no union with karman, it is ever emancipated; or in the absence of bondage, the question of emancipation does not arise at all. (ii) Kaiman cannot be there before jiva which is regarded as its karty (dcer, agent). If karma be produced without a cause, it would also perish without one.
2
*
This is the Samkhya and the Kevaladvaita view.

Page #57

48
(iii) If Jiva and karman were simultaneous, the drawbacks of both the above cases would be present and again, one could not be regarded as the kart; and the other as the effect. If the union of jīva and karman be regarded as beginningless, it would also be endless, and the soul would never be emancipated. Thus one feels like questioning the fact of bondage and emancipation.
All accept that bondage is the union of jīva and karman, for mere union of soul and matter cannot bring about bondage. There must be some attachment, etc., primary or secondary, on the part of the soul, for karman and bondage to arise. This attachment, etc. is caused by Avidyā (Nescience) - ignorance of the true nrture of things. One can, according to the Jainas. become free from this bondage by true knowledge (samyag-jñāna), faith (darśana ) and conduct (cărītra); (Samyagdarśana-jñānacăritraņi mokşamārgaḥ - Tattvartha-sū 1.1). # Avidy, leading to attachment, etc. inspires the soul to act with passion with respect to matter and this brings an unseen potency (adrșat, karman) in association with the soul, which yields the fruit of the past material physical act when it becomes ripe for fructification. The contact of soul and matter does not by itself bring about bondage, but when the soul on account of this
The Upanişads regard knowledge as the direct means to the attainment of emancipation; and regard action, devotion worship etc. as secondary. We find this very view in the Buddhist schools, the Nyāya-Vaišeşika, Sámkhya, Vedānta of Sankara and so on. Purva-Mīmāmsă holds that action can itself lead to moksa (emancipation) while the theistic thinkers holds that bhakti (devotion) is the most important and direct means leading to mokşa, and regard knowledge and action as subsidiary. Some Vedāntic school and the Saivaites believe in the samuccaya (combination) of knowledge and action as leading to moksa. The argument of Sankara and others who believe that jñāna (knowledge) alone leads to mokṣa is that Vidyā alone can destroy Avidyā, being its opposite and thus bring an end to bondage,

Page #58

49
karman takes a body unto itself, it is bound, and it is from this.bondage that the soul has to free itself. +
Now we may refute the arguments of the thinkers who are sceptical about bondage and emancipation. The chain of karmanbody -- karman-body-....is beginningless, so it is ridiculous to ask which was first. It is like the chain of seed and sprout related to each other by the cause-effect relationship. A particular body is the cause of a future karman, while being itself the effect of a past karman and so on ad infinitum. Thus karman is beginningless. 'Karman' comes from the root 'kr', 'to do', and what is done is itself a bondage. If karman be beginningless, bondage too should be beginningless. Now we must prove that the union of jiva and karman is beginningless. The cause-effect relationship does exist between body and karman, but neither would be produced without an agent, a doer, viz. the jīva. The jīva creates the body through the karman, and also karman through the instrumentality of the body. Thus the jiva is beginningless and its bondage also is beginningless.
The continuity of the union of jīva and karman though beginningless need not be endless. The seed-sprout chain though beginningless can come to an end if any individual seed or sprout perishes without having produced its effect. Similarly the union of jīva and karman, though it may have been handed down in a beginningless time, can be cut off by austerity, restraint, etc.. Again, such beginningless unions can be of two types--of the type of the union of jīva and ākāśa, and of the type of that of gold and soil. The former is beginningless and also endless; the latter is beginningless, but can be ended by being successful in separating the two. The bhavya souls who are capable of being emancipated have this type of union with karman, while the abhavya
+ The Idealist philosophers (Sankara, Vijñānavādins) do not recognise any material principle as real, but even they have to accept Brahman's association with the indescribable Māyā (principle of Illusion) or Avidyā (Nescience) as leading to bondage. G-7

Page #59

50
souls who can never be emancipated and are doomed to eternal bondage, have the former type of union with karman. (See gāthās 1820 ff).
Emancipation though caused by means is endless exactly like pradhvamsābhāva (posterior negation) of jar, which, it may it be noted, is not a non-entity, but is an assemblage of pudgala (matter) characterised by the destruction of jar. But, as a matter of fact, mokşa is not something artificial or brought about. As the destruction of jar means the existence of space alone, and no change is effected thereby in space which remains unaffected and eternal, so in emancipation, destruction of karman signifies the jīva existing by itself in its pure state; no change is brought about in it. Thus emancipation is eternal. The Jainas have no objection if mokṣa is regarded as, in a way, non-eternal, for according to them every entity is eternal from the point of view of the basic substance and non-eternal from that of its modes. When we refer to a thing as destroyed, or as originated, or as eternal, we have only one particular aspect of the thing prominently in view. The emancipated soul can be said to have perished from the point of view of its mundane state, but to persist from the point of view of its 'soulness', its upayoga (consious activity), etc; it can also be said to have perished from the point of view of the perfection of the first time-point and to have originated from the point of view of the perfection of the second time-point and to have persisted as substance. 1. The Buddhists believe that as the lamp is completely extinguished (nirvāņa), so the soul totally perishes in the state of nirvāņa or mokşa. But they are mistaken; even the lamp does not absolutely perish, it merely undergoes a change; it gives up its pariņāma (modification) as lamp and assumes that of darkness, as milk turns into curds. The lamp after extinction is not seen because it has undergone a transformation and become subtle. Things which are initially amenable to one sense-organ, after modification can be perceived by quite a different sense-organ or become imperceptible. Musk and camphor, to take an example, are substances perceivable by the sense of

Page #60

sight, but if blown off elsewhere by the wind, can be perceived only by the sense of smell, and if the distance be very great, it may not be perceived by any sense-organ. Similarly, everything merely undergoes a modification, but does not perish outright. The lamp, originally perceivable by the eyes can be perceived by the sense of smell when it is extinguished, so one cannot say that the lamp perishes absolutely in its state of extinction (nirvana). Similarly when the soul attains parinirvana, it attains another transformation of the form of unobscured perfect happiness. Absence of duḥkha (pain) is not bliss, and if a soul is just free from pain (which includes worldly pleasures also) in the state of mokşa (as Nyāya-Vaišeşika believes), it cannot be looked upon as experiencing happiness or bliss. The emancipated soul experiences natural perfect bliss free from a false sense of ego. The soul in the state of mokṣa has perfect knowledge, and is omniscient for all obstructions have been removed. In the absence of punya (merit) and păpa (demerit), which lead to misery directly or eventually, the soul is perfectly happy. Body, sense-organs, etc. are not required for the attainment of the perfection of knowledge, happiness, etc. for these are the very nature of the soul; and body, etc are helpful only when these are obstructed by the karma-veil, but are otherwise themselves a hindrance.*
* All systems of thought agree in holding that ignorance of the true state of things or the misconception of soul in non-soul, is the cause of bondage. Removal of ignorance and realisation of the true nature of things brings about mokşa (emancipation). Of course, the conception of reality is different in each system. This state of emancipation does not fall, as a matter of fact, within the scope of any of the empirical means of knowledge, it can only be directly realised. Yet worldly as we are, we have to resort to language to describe the indescribable. Though the descriptions and terminology may differ, the ultimate goal is the same in all the different systems, as Haribhadrasūri has pointed out. (Samsarātītatattvam tu param nirvāṇasamjñitam; tad dhy ekameva niyamåt sabdabhede' pi tattvataḥ;-Yogadşști-samuccaya, 129. Sadāśivaḥ param brahma

Page #61

52
The vedic passage 'Na ha vai sasarīrasya....' refers to the embodied state or bondage and the unembodied state or emancipation; even when we are told: 'Sa eşa viguno vibhur na badhyate', this is with reference to the emancipated soul which has no bondage, and should not be taken as referring to both the states. Hence there is no conflict so far as such scriptural statements are concerned. When the soul is referred to as siddhātmā tathateti ca; sabdais tad ucyate' nvarthad ekam evaivamadibhiḥ-Ibid. 130, Soḍaśaka, 16.1-4. So also Kundakunda, Bhavaprabhṛta, 149).
Yet the descriptions of the state of mokṣa (emancipation) differ. The Buddhists have used the simile of the extinction of a lamp (dipa-nirvana) to give an idea of moksa and hence the impression that mokṣa is for the Buddhists a state of utter extinction. But going deeper into their writings, we find nirvaṇa classified with the asamskṛta (uncompounded) entities and is said to be dhruva (permanent), subha (good), of the nature of happiness, uncaused, etc. (See Udana, 73, 80; Visuddhimagga, 16.71,74,90).
So mokṣa as a state of eternality (though as a continuum), pure sentiency, bliss is recognised by the Buddhists also. The Nyaya-Vaiseṣika regards substance and qualities as entirely distinct entities; qualities like knowledge, etc. are produced in the soul on account of its association with the body, etc.. When in the state of moksa, the soul is dissociated from the body, etc. it is also devoid of these qualities, and remains by itself. But the Nyaya-Vaiseṣika recognises omniscience, perfect bliss, etc. in God. The Samkhya-Yoga system regards the puruşa as pure sentience, which is always quality less, and it remains as such in the state of mokṣa, Atman in the Vedanta is sat-cit-ananda (existence-sentience-bliss). It may be noted that according to Sankara Vedanta alone the soul in its state of emancipation merges completely in the Absolute Brahman; in fact whatever individuality it had was due to Avidya, was an unreality; it merely realises its true nature in the state of mokṣa. All the other schools and systems recognise the distinct individuality of the soul even in the state of mokṣa.

Page #62

53
'embodied' or as 'unembodied', it can be easily seen that these epithets can refer to only an existent entity; hence the extinction of the soul cannot be thought of.
There is a scriptural statement: "Jaramaryam vaitat sarvam yad agnihotram"-One must perform agnihotra as long as one lives. The rite of agnihotra is the occasion for the slaughter of creatures, hence there is some fault in it also. If one has to perform the agnihotra as long as one lives, there is no scope for anything that brings about apavarga or emancipation. Can this mean that there is nothing like mokṣa (emancipation)? No; there is a 'va' in the statement which indicates that man should perform the agnihotra as long as he lives and he should also perform activities leading to mokṣa.
Once a soul becomes emancipated, there is no question of its being bound again or leading a mundane life all over again. The karma-matter is for ever dissociated from the soul; even though the karma-matter may be existing where the soul exists, the free soul will not be bound again, for the causes of bondagethe activities of mind, speech, and body, and perverse attitudeare absent.
As soon as a soul becomes emancipated, it being light on account of the removal of karmic matter flies up to the farthest extremity of the loka (cosmos, inhabited universe) in a single time-point, even as the castor-seed shoots upwards when its outer covering or sheath breaks off. The emancipated soul does not go beyond this abode of the siddhas (perfect beings), for beyond it is aloka and the dharmastikaya (the principle of motion which has spatial existence) that helps motion does not exist there."
The reading in the Sata. Br. (12.4.1.1) is:-"Etad vai jaramaryam sattvam yad agnihotram, jaraya và hy eva'sman mucyate mṛty una va.'
*Those who regard the soul as all-pervading or ubiquitous have not to consider the question of the place of the soul's residence after emancipation, for the all-pervading soul has no place where to go. Among the theistic philosophers of the Vedanta, the Vaisnavaites believe that the emancipated soul
goes

ܙ

Page #63

54
There are a number of steps on ascending which the soul attains perfect emancipation. They are the different stages of spiritual development (gunasthānas). This is comparable to the krama-mukti (gradual emancipation) of the Vedic current of thought or to the stages of yogacarya (yogic meditation) of the Buddhists. The soul may continue to be embodied even after it does not bind any new karman unto itself. This is what is known as jīvanmukti, as against videha-mukti (when it is free from the body).
[The Buddhists also have the concept of 'sopādisesa' and 'anupādisesa nirvāṇa',* upādi signifying the five skandhas ].
(For a detailed discussion regarding Jiva, see Gañadhara. vāda 1, 3, 6, 11).
THE DOCTRINE OF KARMAN
"The doctrine of Karman is the central dogma of the Indian religions. It means: every action, every word, every thought produces, besides its visible, an invisible transcendental effect-the Karman: every action produces, if one may so express it, certain potential energies, which under given conditions, are changing themselves into actual energies, forces which, either as reward or punishment, enter sooner or later into appearance." | The Gañadharavāda thus rightly assigns a place of importance to the discussion of the doctrine of karman. We find in Ganadharaváda 2 a lengthy discussion establishing the existence of karman. It be pointed out that karman figures prominently in Gañadhara vāda 5 dealing with the semblance between this world and the other world, and in Ganadharavāda 7,8 establishing the existence of gods and hellish beings, in Gañadharavāda, 9 to the world of Vişnu and enjoys the company of Vişnu. Nāgasena has said in the Milinda Pañha, that the pudgala (Buddhist word for soul) can realise nirvāṇa in whatever piace it is existing in.
* The concept of jīvanmukti is acceptable to all systems of philosophy and individual philosophers except Rāmānuja, Nimbārka, Madhva and Mandana and the like among the Sankaraites.
I'The Doctrine of Karma in Jaina Philosophy '—Dr. H. Glasenapp (Preface to the German edition p, xi).

Page #64

55
which concerns itself with the reality of punya (good) and papa (evil) and in Ganadharavada 10 which deals with the reality of the other-world. It is also referred to in other places.
Before we come to a detailed discussion of karma it would be more convenient to briefly trace its history. We cannot definitely say that the Vedic people never inquired into the diversity of existence on the human earth; but from what evidence we have we can say that their thought centred round the sacrifice which they performed for the propitiation of gods who in turn were supposed to give them the things they desired. After death,* a person went, according to them, to the world of Yama or Visnu or any other world of happiness if he was good and religious, and the irreligious people were said to be doomed to darkness, whatever that might have meant. Persons going to the world of happiness were supposed to be rejuvenated and to stay there eternally enjoying the fulness of life. In the Brahmanas, we have the inquiry whether life in that other-world is perpetual, and we find Naciketas asking Yama, in the Taittiriya Brahmana, how his actions could never be exhausted. This means that with the development of thought it struck the Vedic people, that if as a result of their good religious actions they could start a new happy life in heaven, that life could also come to an end, exactly as the things of this world are exhausted after they have been enjoyed. Again, they must have realised, especially as the science of sacrifice became more and more complicated and magic-like, that one does not always attain the fruit of sacrifice in this life and yet sacrifices could not have been be performed in vain. This also could have led the Vedic people to speculations about other lives wherein the fruits of actions could be enjoyed. But the act perishes, so how could it yield its result when it is itself not existent? It must be leaving behind some invisible effect (adṛṣta) -some potentiality which materialises at a later stage in the form of reward (or punishment if the original act was sinful). The doctrine of karma can be clearly seen in the Upanisads, though we find in the Upanisads other theories referred to as
*See Religion and Philosophy of the Veda, vol xxxii-A. B. Keith (Harvard Oriental Series).

Page #65

56
accounting for the world, viz. Kāla (time), Svabhāva (Nature), Niyati (Destiny), Yadịccha (Chance), Bhūta (Elements) or Purusa (Cosmic Man--jentient principle).* The absence of karma, here need not lead us to believe that it was not accepted at all. Karman refers to the individual directly while these attempt to explain the world as a whole.
A view gaining popularity and receiving more and more attention is that the doctrine of karma owes its existence to the indigenous people ----the pre-Aryans. That the souls of the dead inhabit plants, etc. is not an idle speculation of primitive people. While the doctrine of karma is not traced in the Vedic religion in the earliest stages, it can be seen to be firmly rooted in other schools of thought, like the Jaina and the Buddhist, especially the former and it is now recognised almost by all that these flourished independently of the Vedic current of thought. Another factor that supports this view is that belief in rebirth is not found in any of the other countries inhabited by the Aryans, and it is not also found in the Vedas. This means that the concept of rebirth and of karman was borrowed by the Aryans from the indigenous people and incorporated into their own way of thought. Morever, even the Upanişads speak of the origin of the world, wbile the Jainas and the Bauddhas hold that the world has no beginning, but is a beginningless and endless continuum. This also corroborates the view that these schools are not Aryan in origin. If we trace the history of the doctrine of karman we find that the Vedic school has not devoted as much thought to the concept of karman, as the Jainas or even the Buddhists. In a way it comes . into conflict with the Vedic idea of the omnipotence of God and they have always to explain this away, We find that Yājñavalkya in the Bșhad. Up. 3.2.13, takes Artabhāga to a quiet corner to discuss the problem of karma. Can this be a clue to the fact that the doctrine of karma was not yet so popular as to be discussed in the presence of all, who would find in it a revolution in ideas and even heresy ?
* See Svetāśvatara Up. 1.2.

Page #66

57
Nature of Karma :
The term 'karma' is used both in colloquial language and in the śāstras In popular usage it means 'work,' 'profession, vocation, etc. In śāstric language it has a number of meanings -- all action such as eating, drinking, trembling, shaking, jumping, moving, etc. whether it pertains to animate or to inanimate things. The ritualist Mimāmsists understand by the term the cult of Vedic rites — sacrifices, etc; it also refers in the Smptis to the duties of the varnas (castes) and äśramas (stages of life); and also to v ratas (vows), etc. and such other religious practices. By the way, we may note that karma in Grammar means the object of the subject's activity — the most desired of the subject. The Nyāya-Vaisesika system has a principle called karma (action). The Jainas use the word in a two-fold sense—the modification of the form of rāga (love), dveşa (hate), etc.—which is called kaşāya (passion) or bhava (psychic) karma. The other karma is the dravyakarma, its material counter-part; it consists of karmic matter which by virtue of the bhāva-karma clings to the soul. The action of the soul on account of such causes as perversity, passion, etc. is called karma. This definition applies to both spiritual or psychical (bhāva ) and material (dravya) karma, inasmuch as bhāva-karma is an effect of which the soul is both the doer as well as the material cause (upādāna-kāraņa); and jiva functions as an agent with regard to dravya-karma which is a modification of subtle karmic matter. Again dravya-karma is instrumental in the accumulation of bhāva-karma, and bhāvakarma in the accumulation of dravya-karma.* Bhāva-karma
* All the systems of philosophy which recognise re-birth have also to recognise some potentiality of actions which yields its fruit at a later stage-whatever be the name they give to itavidyā (-in Vedānta it almost corresponds to bhāva-karma, when avidyā means psychic obliqueness), vāsanā (predisposition in Buddhism and Yoga), aśaya (mental deposits-- in SamkhyaYoga), apūrva (potency in Pūrva Mimámsā). Adřsta (unseen), punya (merit), pāpa (sin), samskāra. (latent traces), dharma G -8

Page #67

58
and dra vya-karma are mutually related as cause and effect each of the other; and thus the stream of each is beginningless, though it may be possible to point out any one dravya-karma becoming the cause of a bhāva-karma and vice-versa; individually every karma has a beginning, but from the point of view of the continuum it is beginningless.
Cause of Karma bondage : tha Mithyātva (perversity), avirati (intense attachment, non
abstinence). kaşāya (passions) and yoga (vibrations) are regarded as the causes of karma. The two causes mentioned in works dealing with karma, are mostly kaşāya and yoga, or kaşāya is mentioned even alone. Kaşāya can be of many kinds, but it has been regarded as two-fold - rāga (love, attachment) and dveşa (hatred), which can be looked upon as including all the psychic variations. Ignorance by itself is not a bondage; it must be accompaniel by rāga or dveșa to have a binding effect. It is karma that is the essential bondage.
(merit), a dharma (demerit) are found in the terminology of almost all the darśanas in the sense of karma. The NyāyaVaišeșika regards adssta (dharma-adharma) as a quality produced in the soul by action of some kind - of body, speech or mind; it has a beginning. The Mimārsakas hold a similar view. The Sámkhya-Yoga and Vedānta regard the soul as absolutely pure and unchanging, and regard karma as an attribute of the · inanimate buddhi (intellect). The Jainas regard both spirit
and matter a3 capable of modification, and hence recognise both spiritual as well as material karmas. It may be noted that no System other than the Jaina recognises karma as two-fold, though characteristics of both the kinds may be found in their concept of karma. But the parallel evolution of spirit and matter is a peculiarity of the Jaina system of philosophy. Buddhists recognise a constant flux in the soul, as their vāsanā or karma is spiritual.

Page #68

59
Annihilation of Karma :
Karma can be annihilated and emancipation attained by (i) samyag-darśana, (true faith) (ii) samayag-jñāna (true knowledge), (iii) samyag-cāritra (true conduct), or to put it briefly by knowledge and action. In the other darśanas, jñāna alone is mostly regarded as the immediate cause of the annihilation of karma, and action etc. are regarded as causes indirectly as bringing about purity of the mind. Some regard knowledge and action as joint causes of the annihilation of karma. Bhakti (devotion), and yoga too are accorded this honour. On comparison, we find that samyak-caritra comprehends restraint of the mind, conquest of the sense-organs, purity of the citta (mind and even soul with the Buddhists and the Jainas), etc. and so does the same work as action and yoga. Samyag-darśana means faith, which is allied to bhakti. Samyag-jñāna is the path of knowledge. Classification of Karma :
The soul in its pure state possesses perfection of all sort; but its characteristic attributes are obscured in the defiled state of bondage. In the state of perfection, the soul has infinite knowledge, infinite intuition, and bliss and is free from delusion, delimited longevity, embodied existence, gradation of status and obstruction of energy. The karma matter obscures and obstructs these characteristics of the soul. The soul under the influence of kasăya (passion) and yoga (vibrations of body, vocal organ, mind) binds unto itself karmic matter; this is the state of bondage. A very fine simile is given for this : As a lamp by virtue of its heat draws up oil with its heat, and after doing so transforms it into its body (i.e. the glow or flame), so the soul-lamp with the qualities of attachment, etc. attracts, by the wick of its vibrations, material aggregates (skandha) and after having done so, transforms them into karman
"Uşmaguṇaḥ san dipaḥ sneham vartyā yathā samädatte, ådaya sariratayă pariņamayati că'pi tam sneham; tadvad rāgādiguṇaḥ svayoga vartyä "tmadipa adatte, skandhān adāya tathā pariņamyati tāmś ca karmatayā."

Page #69

60
Karman is classified into eight fundamentlal types and these are sub-classified into as many as 148 sub-types * — The eight main types are as follows:( i ) jñānāvaraṇa karman, which obscures knowledge, ( ii ) darśanā varaṇa karman, which obscures intuition, ( iii ) vedaniya-karman, which produces joy and grief, (iv) mohaniya-karman, which obstructs right belief (darsana).
and conduct (căritra), and is accordingly sub-classified into
darsana-mohaniya and caritra-mohanīya, ( v ) āyuşka-karman, which determines the duration of life,
and apparently obscures the immortality of the soul, ( vi ) nāma-karman, which gives the bodiless a body-of whatever
kind it be, (vii) gotra-karman, which determines status-racial, social, etc., (viii) antarāya-karman --- which obscures and obstructs the
infinite energy of the soul for resolution and enjoyment
of wealth, power, etc..
Of these eight types of karman, four viz. jñānävarana, darśanāvaraņa, mohaniya and antarāya are obscuring (ghātin), and the remaining four are non-obscuring (aghātin). Of the ghātin types again, some are completely obscuring' (sarva-ghatin) and others 'partially obscuring' (desa-ghātin). †
Karmans are also classified as sinful (pāpa, aśubha) and virtuous or auspicious (punya, śubha ). But whether punya or pāpa, karman is binding all the same, and has to be got rid of. I
* Cf. The Doctrine of Karman in Jaina philosophy-Dr. Glasenapp; also Studies in Jaina Philosophy, Ch IV-The Jaina Doctrine of Karma, pp. 220 ff.—Dr. Nathmal Tatia. Yoga recognises fruition of karman as three-fold—jāti (determining body), äyu (age) and bhoga (enjoyment, joy and grief and ignorance).
+ See The Doctrine of Karman, p. 20.
Yoga has divided karman into kļşna (black, inauspicious), śukla (white, auspicious), śukla-kļşna and aśukla-kysna (which are not binding). Bauddhas accept kusala karman. They have a somewhat detailed theory and classification of karma with reference to its fruition, etc.. See Milinda-pañha, 3.36; Abhidhammattha-sangaha 5.16-19.

Page #70

61
Besides this, the Jainas have discussed at length the duration (sthiti) of the different karmans with their sub-types, their intensity (rasa or anubhāga), space (pradeśa) of the soul occupied by karman, which bondage is called pradeśa-bandha, as against prakrti-bandha which is according to the nature and the type of the bondage, e. g. jñānāvaranīya, etc.. The space occupied by souls is densely filled up with karmic matter which pours from all sides into the souls which are engaged in activity (yoga). This pouring in is called asrava (influx) and continues till the soul is free from all activity. This ásrava (influx) varies directly as the measure of the activity of the soul. The karma-particles absorbed by the soul develop into the eight types of karman. * Bandha (bondage ) is the assimilation of karmic matter and its develop
ent into different types. This corresponds to kriyamāna karma of the other darśanas. Udaya (realisation) is the becoming manifest of the effects of the karmans ip due time, their ripening and fruition (vipā ka). This corresponds to prārabdha karman. Sattā is the existence in the state of potentiality of the karmans from the time of their assimilation till the time when they ripen or are annihilated. A detailed description is given of the bandhaudaya-sattā sthānas of the types of karman-as to which sub-type of a main type can exist side by side in bandha, or udaya or sattā. Udiraņā is the pre-mature realisation of the effect of karmans. The time during which a karman works, and its intensity are definite, but every karman can increase or decrease its effect. Increased realisation is called udvartană, and decreased realisation apavartanā. Under certain circumstances one karma-type can transform itself into another whether this latter is itself bound or not. This transformation of one karman into another is called sankrama. It can take place only between the sub-types of a main type, not between two main-types. Moreover, it is not possible between the four àyus-celestial, human, animal, infernal
* The Jaina works give very apt similes to explain thoroughly the nature, intensity, space-bondage, etc. of the soul. This would form an interesting study by itself.

Page #71

62
-, between darśana-mohaniya and caritra-mohaniya, nor between the different kinds of darśana-mohaniya karman.
Before we discuss further we may try to answer, as the author of the Višeşā vašyaka-bháşya has done, the question as to why karma should at all be accepted. Karman is not amenable to sense-perception; and further even in the Vedas we find conflicting statements. The Veda says that the Puruşa alone exists, and also that one becomes meritorious by meritorious action, and sinful by sinful action. Then why recognise karman at all? Yet there is some justification for the recognition of karman. Those who have an all-penetrating vision, it is said, can certainly have a direct knowledge of it. Anyhow, all can infer its existence from the experience of its effects. A garland gives pleasure to a man, but a dog is irritated by it. This peculiarity cannot be explained unless some unseen determining factor is posited. A newly born child has a body, sense-organs, etc. which must be preceded by another body, etc., otherwise their existence could not be accounted for. The body of the previous life cannot be this cause for in the interval between death in the previous life and birth in this one, the previous body has already perished, and unless the soul is associated with some body, its movement in the direction of one particular womb for re-birth would not be determined. It is the karmic body that accompanies the soul even at this stage. Moreover, we find in the world that people perform acts of charity, etc., for which they get no fruit in this life; again, at times we find good persons experiencing numerous difficulties, while the wicked are many a time happy. Children of the same parents are unlike one another. We come across a thousand such anomalies—there are insects, birds, animals, men; a few are rich, many poor. Why should all these differences be there? To explain all this one has to recognise karma, an unseen potency brought about by actions of beings. Karman is the cause of corporeal body, etc. and therefore it too is corporeal (mūrta); pleasure, pain are non-corporeal, but in the Jaina view they are modifications of soul which is their material cause (samavāyi-kāraņa), so this need not disturb the argument about the corporeality of karman

Page #72

63
which is but an instrumental cause. Karman is super-sensuous, subtle and internal because it clings closely to the individual soul. Even the soul in the worldly state becomes in a way corporeal on account of its association with corporeal karma. There may be many factors which can be regarded as responsible for, and as causes of the world-e. g. Time, Destiny, Chance, etc.. But it may be noted that even these cannot function without the aid of karman; without karman there would be chaos, and the motionless, inactive soul would not be able to take unto itself a body, or create one. Even God cannot be accepted as the creator of other beings, for God to be a creator must have a body, and karma alone could create this body of His, or another God would have to be posited for the creation of this body, and yet another God and so on. Jiva, along with karma, can alone create for itself body, etc..
The Vedic statements which teach the doctrine of nonduality are not meant to deny the existence of karma; they are only meant to make man humble and to get rid of his pride of caste, position, etc., for all souls are alike. On the other hand, there are positive statements in the Veda which recognise the existence of karman.
Karman has to be recognised as punya (meritorious) and påpa (sinful) to explain the experience of pleasure and pain. Again, acts of charity, etc. on the one hand, and of murder, etc. on the other must have their effects and these effects are nothing else but the transformations of the soul in the form of bhāva-karma - punya and pāpa — on the one hand, and assimilation of corporeal punya and pāpa karma on the other. Good action leads to punya karma and wicked action to păpa karma. The universe is full of pudgalas (matter-particles), but the soul attracts only such as are in accordance with its punya or pāpa and the type of bhāva-karma accumulated. Karmic matter is not by itself śubha (auspicious) or aśubha (inauspicious ); but as soon as the soul attracts it, it is converted into śubha or aśubha; even as the same food turns into milk in the case of a cow and poison in the case of a serpent. Karma whether punya or păpa is, as said above,

Page #73

64
bondage and should be subsided (upasama) and finlly annihilated (kşaya). The influx of fresh karma-particles can also be checked-this is termed dravya-samvara. This can be achieved by bhāva-samvara, viz. gupti (right regulation of the activity of body, speech, mind), samiti (carefulness in the smallest activit of life to avoid injury to others however insignificant they might be), anuprekşā or bhāvanā (reflection about the transitoriness of things and such other matters), parīşa ha (patient endurance of all troubles), and caritra (conduct). The annihilation of karma is called nirjarā.
The Vedic and the Buddhist thinkers hold that the fruit of karma can be transferred to another. The performance of śrāddhas, etc. in the case of the Vedic people is an evidence in point. The Bauddhas believe that the fruit of punya karma alone can be transferred to a section of pretas called paradattopaji vins, those who maintain themselves with what is given by others. The fruit of papa karma cannot be transferred at all. This distinction is attempted to be justified on the ground that păpa karmans are very few in number, and so cannot be transferred. * The Mahāyānists are prepared to give up even nirvana if they can help the miserable people of the world by transferring to them the fruit of their auspicious actions. This idea proved infectious and was willingly accepted by other religions, especially Vaisnavism. But the Jaina Āgamas do not give expression to any such view. Pretas are not recognised, and there is no question of transference of the fruit of karman, good or sinful; though we find certain ācāryas like Haribhadra expressing the wish that other souls get the fruit of the good actions performed by them.
We may now consider what is the range of the efficacy of karinan. All the systems of philosophy excepting the Cārvāka regard karman as a responsible factor in the determination of creation. Karman is regarded as an instrumental cause ( nimitta
* See Milindapañha 4.8.30-35; Kathā vatthu 7.6.3; Petavatthu and 'Buddhist Conception of Spirits '—Bimalcaran Law.

Page #74

65
kārana) in the creation or evolution of the world. + The Jainas hold that karmans determine the state of existence of the soul, i. e. its birth as man, god, hellish being, or lower animal, its pleasure, etc. and that it can explain the kind of body the soul builds unto itself. But inanimate creation other than this has its own laws. For example, karma does not function at all with respect to earth-quakes, etc., the presence of mountains, the formation and shape of clouds, etc..
Though the soul, even in the Jaina view is essentially pure and undefiled, yet true to their non-absolutistic view (Anekāntavāda) the Jainas believe that the existence of karma affects in a way the soul. Karmans according to their moral value are believed to colour the soul. This is called leśyā (coloration). The different leśyās are distinguished according to the colour they give to the soul: * (i) kļşņa, black, (ii) nila, dark; (iii) kāpota, grey, (iv) tejas, fiery-red, (v) padma, lotus-pink; (vi) śukla, white. S
. Again, from the state of complete dependence upon karman to the state of complete dissociation of the soul from it, fourteen stages called guṇasthānas (states of virtue) are recognised showing the gradual deliverance of the soul from the binding effect of
† Nyāya-Vaišeșika holds that karman determines rebirth of individual souls and also the creation of inanimate things as they subserve the purpose of sentient entities. So also the Sankhya-Yoga where karman is a modification of the insentient buddhi and functions on account of its association with the sentient soul. Even where God is recognised, this does not in any way detract from His omnipotence; only it saves Him from the charge of being unjust or even partial. The Bauddhas believe that karma does not help in determining the inanimate creation; and they hold that karman is not the only factor determining all the vedanās (sensations) it is only one of the eight factors such as the three humours, etc., The Buddha alone can say what particular vedanā is determined by any one of these factors. (See Milindapañha, 4.1.62).
* Compare Bharata's Nāțyaśāstra, VI. 42-43.
$ The nature of the leśyās is explained by tales. G-9

Page #75

66
karman. The gunasthanas are named according to the souls that possess these states of virtue. They are:
(1) mithya-drsti, the unbeliever. (2) sasvadana-samyagdṛṣṭi, the one who has only a taste of the true belief, (3) samyag-mithyadṛṣṭi (or miśra), the one who has a mixed belief, (4) avirata-samyagdṛṣṭi, the one who has true belief but has not yet self-control, (5) desavirata, the one who has partial self-control, (6) pramattasamyata, the one who has complete self-control, sometimes however brought into wavering through negligence, (7) apramattasamyata, one who has self-control without negligence, (8) apurvakarana (or nivṛtti-badara-samparaya), the one who practises the process called apurva-karana, in whom, however, the passions are still occurring in a gross form; (9) anivṛtti-badara-samparaya, the one who practises the process called anivṛtti-karana, in whom, however, the passions are still occurring in a gross form, (10) sükṣma-samparaya, the one in whom the passions still occur, only in a subtle form, (11) upaśānta-kaṣaya-vitaraga-chadmastha (or upasanta-moha), the one who has suppressed every passion, but who does not yet possess omniscience, (12) kṣīņa-kaṣāyavitaraga-chadmastha (or kṣina-moha), the one who has annihilated every passion, but does not yet possess omniscience, (13) sayogikevalin, the omniscient one who still practises an activity (yoga), (14) ayogi-kevalin, the omniscient without yoga.*
The gunasthanas are arranged in a logical order according as sinfulness or impurity decreases and purity increases. The order is by no means chronological, because the succession varies with each individual, because there is possiblity of relapses and because in the very nature of things, a direct transition from the first to the second stage is impossible, and also because the eleventh stage cannot be passed before the twelfth to fourteenth.
In Gaṇadharavada, 9, it is shown that punya (merit) and papa (sin) are both positive; one is not just the negation of the other, This can be seen from the fact that their fruits are different. The soul like all entities is of the nature origination-destruction-duration (utpada-vyaya-dhrauvya); *The Doctrine of Karma: pp. 68-9 -Glasenapp.
of

Page #76

67
so there is another world in which the soul persists after death and experiences the fruits of pāpa and punya which are in store. A person after death may be reborn as a denizen of hell, or of heaven, or as a human being or as a lower being. This means that hell and heaven exist and they are inhabited by beings. The existence of gods has to be believed in, though gods are not ordinarily seen by the human eye. They visit the earth on certain occasions, and bring prosperity to some human beings and ruin to others. It may be argued that we see men who are very happy and so can be looked upon as experiencing the fruit of punya, and so there is no reason to believe in a distinct world of happiness called heaven; so also in the case of hell. But, we find that on the earth, the highest happiness has a taint of pain --however slight it may be associated with it and the darkest cloud of suffering has a silver lining of happiness, however meagre it may be. Hence we are compelled to recognise the existence of heaven and hell, where those beings who do not deserve to experience any suffering or any delight whatsoever can reside. The Jainas recognise four classes (nikāya) of gods Bhavanapati, Vyantara, Jyotiska, and Vaimániká according to the place of residence assigned to them.* Seven Hells are recognised, one below the other — Ratnaprabha, Sarkarāprabhā, Válukāprabhā, Pankaprabhà, Dhūmaprabhā, Tamaḥprabhā, Mahātamah prabhā.t
All the schools of philosophy except the Cárváka have discussed the problem of life after death, to explain why all the fruits of actions performed are not attained in this very life, or why a good man is found to suffer and a wicked man is at times found to be happy. In the Vedas, as said before, we have the concept of the world of Yama, or of Vişņu, or of Varuņa meant for the good after their mundane life. The concept of hell is not found distinctly referred to in the Vedas, because, as scholars say, the Vedic people were very cheerful and optimistic by temperament, and did not entertain any dark thoughts. That even the gods
* For details see Tattvārthasūtra, 4. + For details see Tattvārthasūtra, 3.

Page #77

68
are not immortal, but have to come down to the mortal world is a thought very clearly reflected in the Brāhmaṇas. We find references to other worlds such as those of Pits (Manes), Gandharvas, Prajāpati, Brahmã in the section dealing with progressively higher and higher bliss in different worlds (Ananda valli — Bșh. Up. 4.3.33). We have also mention of Pitryana (Path of Fathers) and Devayāna (Path of Gods). Those who go along the Devayāna pass through the worlds of Agni, Váyu, Varuņa, Indra and Prajapati before they reach the world of Brahmă, from which if one is admitted after a proper test, there is no return (See Kausitaki Up. 1; Bșh. Up. 5.10.1; Chand. Up.4.15.5-6; 5.10.1-6). Pitšloka is the same as Candraloka (world of Moon) from which beings return and are born as birds, beasts, etc. according to their actions and attainment of knowledge. The Purāņas recognise a number of gods and also semi-divine beings and give detailed descriptions of their place of residence. These enjoy a very long life, but have to be reborn after their karman is exhausted. With regard to hellish beings, it appears from the Vedas, that the enemies of the Aryans, the indigenous people or whoever they might have been-Dasyu, Dāsa, or Asuras - came gradually to be looked upon as Rākşasas, demons, and the Vedic people constantly prayed for their destruction. In the Upanişads we have references to a world of darkness for sinners and the niggardly (cf. Išā. 3,9; Katha 1.1.3, etc). But there is no clarification as to the location, or as to whether any return is possible from them. We have as many as 7 or even 28 and even more hells referred to in works like the Bhāgavata, where beings endure the bitter fruits of their wicked actions for å very very long time, and then alone can they escape. Detailed descriptions are found of the tortures experienced in these hells, and such other points.
Buddha refused to enter into any discussion regarding life after death and such things beyond the reach of our vision and advised people instead to concern themselves with the removal of pain and the betterment of life on this earth. But as his teachings took the shape of a religion and of a philosophical

Page #78

69
system, his followers had to tackle such problems concerning life after death, hea ven, hell, etc; which gradually took the shape of the concepts of heaven, hell, and preta (dead, spirits, ghosts). The Bauddha Abhidhamma recognises three categories of being—belonging to the Kámāvacarabhūmi, Rūpāvacarabhūmi and Arūpā vacarabhūmi, of which there are many sub-divisions. Gods live in the Kamasugati portion of the first bhūmi and in the other bhūmis with their subdivisions. Hellish beings, lower beings, pretas, etc. live in the Apāyabhūmi of Kāmāyacara. * As to hells, we have eight hells enumerated in the Jātaka stories and each hell is said to have 16 sub-hells (upanaraka), so in all there are 128 hells (See Mahāvastu, 1.4). The tortures of hell are described in the Majjhima-Nikaya. +
Besides the denizens of heaven and hell, a class of beings called pretas (spirits, ghosts) are recognised by the Buddhists and we find interesting stories pertaining to them in the Petavatthu. These beings are born as pretas to experience the fruits of certain faults of theirs or even wicked actions, such as lack of faith while giving charity, etc, backbiting, stealing and murder. By doing good deads on this earth, people can help those pretas, who were their relatives in a previous life, by transferring their punya to them. These pretas manage to drag on existence by the food offerred to them by their human relatives on the occasion of festivals, etc; and become very unhappy if they are not remembered on such occasious. Different classes of pretas are recognised. I The Jainas do not believe, as said before, in the existence of pretas.
REALISM vs IDEALISM :
The Jainas are realists and pluralists. Their arguments against Nihilism are very succinctly given in Gañadharvāda, 4 which establishes the reality of the objective world. The arguments are all found together in that chapter and need not be dilated upon here.
* For details see: Abhidhammatthasangaha, 5. + See Balapaņdita-suttanta, 129. See.' Buddhist Conception of Spirits-Law.'

Page #79

70
Besides the soul, i. e. the jiva category, in the ajiva (non-soul) category are recognised dharma (principle of motion), adharma (principle of rest), akāśa (space) and pudgala (matter). Pudgala is either atomic or of the nature of an aggregate (skandha). Some add kāla (time) to these substances (dravyas) as also punya and pā pa. Another classification is given from the point of view of the soul's binding of karma and its gradual removal and ultimately annihilation and the attainment of emancipation. The principles thus recognised are: jīva, ajiva, asrava (influx of karma), bandha (bondage), samvara (check of karma), nirjarā (dissociation or purging off of karma), mokṣa (emancipation). We have discussed these in connection with karma.
We may briefly consider here the substances recognised by the Jainas. Of these jīva, puņya, pāpu have been discussed earlier. The ajiva substances are called astikaya in the sense that they occupy space. Pudgala is matter which consists of atoms without size and eternal. Matter may be gross or subtle (e. g. karmic matter). The atoms are eternal and have touch, taste, odour and colour; but are distinguished as those of earth, etc. owing to the predominant manifestation of one of these qualities. The conception of dharma and adharma is not the same as in the other systems of philosophy wherein they signify punya and pāpa. Dharma, in the Jaina system, is the principle of motion which cannot make the soul or matter move, and yet is indispensable for their movement, like water for swimming. Hence souls at the extremity of the loka (cosmos), up to where the liberated souls go, cannot go beyond, for there is no dharma. Adharma similarly is a pervasive entity helping souls and pudgalas to keep themselves at rest, otherwise they would be always moving. Akāśa is the subtle entity which pervades the loka as also the aloka. Ākāśa is not mere negation; but is a positive entity which helps things to interpenetrate it. Kala (Time) is believed to consist of innumerable particles which never mix with one another. Kāla does not bring about change of qualities in things, but helps the action of transformation of qualities in them. Time viewed from the point of view of its divisions--moments, hours, etc. is called

Page #80

samaya. The unit of samaya is the time required by an atom to traverse one pradeśa (unit of space) by a slow movement.
Unlike the Vedāntins who believe in an eternally unchanging (kūțastha) entity, and the Buddhists who recognise only a flux, and regard the opposite as unreal, the Jainas hold that every substance has three aspects — utpāda (origination), vyaya (destruction) and dhrauvya (permanence). New qualities are being produced in it, some old ones perish, and yet certain aspects remain permanently in it. Thus if a lump of gold is transformed into a necklace, it perishes as a lump of gold, is born as a necklace, but persists as gold. Paryayas (modes) change, but the dravya (basic substance) persists. Every substance again is existent in its own form, but non-existent in another (para-rūpa); exclusion or negation of other's form is an integral part of the nature of a thing. All this is in accordance with the Jaina doctrine of Anekantavāda (Doctrine of Non-Absolutism) and its presentation by the Saptabhangi (statement of seven alternatives) and the Theory of Nayas (stand-points) evolved by them to explain that there is some truth in all the systems of philosophy, but it is not the absolute or ultimate truth, which can be attained only by a full view of the different aspects of a thing. SOUL IN DIFFERENT DARŠANAS
As pointed out by Pt. Sukhlalji Sanghavi,* we can broadly classify the different conceptions of the soul as follows: (i) Bhūtacaitanyavāda, (ii) jiva or sentient principle as an independent entity, (iii) independent jīva which is also in a way dependent, being identical with or a part of the absolute principle. In the Gañadharavăda, the first Gañadhara Indrabbūti doubts the very existence of the soul and Mahāvīra convinces him that the soul does exist. The third Gañadhara Vayubhūti's question is about the nature of the soul. Can the soul not be regarded as identical with the body ?
Unfortunataly the works of the Bhūtacaitanyavādins have been lost and all our knowledge of them is derived from their * Bhāratiya Tattvavidyā, p. 50

Page #81

was
view quoted as the purva-paksa (prima-facie view) in the works of the rival systems of philosophy. In the period of the formulation of systems, the system of Bhutacaitanya formulated in the Bṛhaspati-sutra which also is lost. The view put forth by Indrabhuti is known among tha systems of Indian philosophy as the Carvaka or the Bhautika (Materialist) darśana (system). Even the materialist Carvākas do not deny the soul altogether, but regard it is an epiphenomenon of the elements earth, etc.. Keeping this in view, Uddyotakara has rightly pointed out that it can be said generally that no system of philosophy has doubted the existence of the soul. The differences among the different systems are as regards the nature of the soul. Some regard the body as the soul, others the sense-organs, mind, intellect or the aggregate and some regard the soul as an independent entity distinct from these. In the Upanisads we find recorded the views of thinkers who regarded water, air*, etc. as the ultimate principles and the Svet. Up. § inquiring into the cause of the world refers to the view which regards 'elements' as the cause. Those whose power of reasoning was even more developed regarded ākāśa (ether), asat (non-being) or sat (being) as the ultimate cause of the world. In the Jaina Agamas we find the view noted that jiva arises out of the five. material elements and in the Bauddha Pitakas we find cited the view of Ajita Kesakambalin that the purusa (self) arises out of the four elements. § This shows that there was a time. when thinkers looked upon the sentient principle as an effect or as arising out of the elements. This materialistic view is known as Lokayata (prevalent amongst the people).
72
When thinkers turned inward in search of the ultimate principle of existence or the motivating force of existence they
See Nyaya-vārtika, p. 336. Brḥ Up. 5.5.1
* Chandogya Up. 4.3. § Svet. Up. 1.2 Sutrakṛtānga 1.1.1.7-8.

Page #82

73
alighted on the prāņa (vital breath) and then progressively arrived at the conception of the ātman (self) or even Brahman (Absolute). This development of the conception of the soul is corroborated by the use of words like bhūta, prāņa, sattva, etc. for the soult in the Ācārānga Sūtra. Thus, whereas on the one hand we have the Non-dualism of insentient principle (anātmādvaita), on the other hand we find the doctrine of Non-dualism of sentient principle (ātmādvaita). Along with these we find the currents of Dualism or even Pluralism. From the point of view of the division into sentient and insentient principles, the Samkhyas, the followers of the Yoga, the Jainas, and the Nyaya-Vaiśesikas are dualists, but they recognise a plurality of souls as also of insentient principles and so are, as a matter of fact, pluralists. The Buddhists are regarded as Anātmavādins only in the sense that they do not recognise an independent permanent entity called the soul, but what the other systems term 'atman' (self) they regard as an ever-changing aggregate of vedanā (sensation), samjñā (conceptual understanding), samskāra impression) and vijñāna (pure consciousness) -- or nāma (psychical factor) as they call this aggregate. The Buddhists are thus Pluralists.
The Vijñānavādins do not recognise any external object but only ideas or consciousness and thus they are Vijñānādvatins. But even they hold that there are an infinite number of such streams of point-instants of consciousness (→ to put it in the terminology of other darśanas, infinite souls) with their own bondage, and pursuit of the path leading to emancipation. The Samkhya recognises an infinite number of independent souls which are of the nature of pure unchanging consciousness. The Vedāntins admit an infinite number of souls which they interrelate in one way or the other with God--the Supreme Self. The Vedānta of the Sankara tradition alone recognises one ultimate, absolutely unchanging sentient principle, all else being unreal.
* Samaññaphalasutta, Digha Nikaya
† Chandogya Up. 1.11.5; 4.3.3; 3.15.4. G-10

Page #83

Page #84

CORRIGENDA
Page
line
6
11
6
8 F. N.*
10 33
12
13
13
34
16
Read
for Introduction Kottārya
Kottārya Kotyācārya
Kotyācārya Sthānānga
Sthānanga cent.
ceut Višeşā vaśyaka Višesā vaśyaka Jaina
Jainā Dharmopadesamalā Dharmopadešamāla adşsta
adạşat Translation and Explanation according
accoding tortoise
tortorise attributes
altributes samanyato
sāmánya todevoid
devoid link
void
25 26
34
68
the
thc
100 115 130 134 135 142 150 156 157 163 184 200 208
18
doctrine kāraṇam fæces statements subtracting itself did point on
doctrive kāraram faces statements subtractiny Itself
3 17
do
25
paint
11,12
an
off
10 33
208
24
215 217 258
krosas engrossed pleasure There
of kośas ingrossed pleasurer Therere
34
12

Page #85

Page #86

GANADHARAVĀDA - TRANSLATION AND EXPLANATION

Page #87

Page #88

TRANSLATION

Page #89

Page #90

GAŅADHARA 1 – INDRABHŪTI
EXISTENCE OF THE SOUL
(1549) (Indrabhūti), you have a doubt as to the existence of) the soul, because it is not directly perceived as the jar is: and nothing that is utterly imperceptible exists in the world e.g. the sky-flower.
(1550) (Your argument is:) And it cannot be known by inference, because that too depends on perception. We can infer on the basis of the memory of the relationship of the mark (linga, reason, probans) with that whose mark it is (lingin, probandum)- (the relation) which has been cognised earlier.
(1551) One has never cognised the relation between the soul and its mark, so that on seeing the mark again, one might remember it and thus have correct knowledge regarding the (existence of the) soul.
(1552) It cannot even be known through verbal testimony, for verbal testimony is not in essence) different from inference. And the soul has not been perceived by any one so that his statement could be accepted as verbal testimony.
(1553) Moreover the scriptures make statements which conflict with one another. Hence too it is but proper that one should have a doubt. (Thus, 0 Indrabhūti), you believe that the soul is beyond the scope of all the means of knowledge.
(1554) Gautama ! The soul is perceived. The cognition of the type of doubt, etc. (that you have), that itself is the soul ( because it is of the nature of knowledge). And what is directly perceived does not need to be established (by any other means of knowledge), e.g., (sensations of) pleasure and pain in one's own body.

Page #91

(1555) 'I did', 'I do', 'I shall do'. - From this notion of 'l' (it can be seen that) the soul is directly known as there is a reference to activity of all the three times (past, present, future).
(1556) (If the soul were non-existent) how could there be the notion of 'I', and (if 'I' refers to 'soul') how could there be the doubt 'Do I exist or not?' And if the doubt is there, to what could this notion of 'I' be regarded as properly referring ? (If you do not accept the soul, you will have to point out the object of this notion of 'I', or the notion would not be there at all).
(1557) If the doubter (one who has the doubt) himself does not exist, who would have the doubt, "Do I exist or do I not exist ? "? Or Gautama, if he doubts his own nature, what thing (in the world) will he not suspect (i.e. be sceptical about) ? (He will doubt the existence of exerything).
(1558) The attribute (doubt, memory, etc.) is directly known and hence the (soul) possessing the attribute is (i.e. should be regarded as) directly known like the jar; because the jar which possesses the attributes is known when the attributes (colour, etc.) are known.
(1559) Is the thing possessing the attributes different from or identical with them? If it is identical it follows verily that the substance (possessing the attributes) — the soul --- is directly known when there is the knowledge of only the attributes (doubt, memory, etc.).
(1560) If it is different (from the attributes), then (all) substances possessing attributes e.g. jar, etc.) would not be perceptible when only the attributes are known, so why this inquiry about the soul (alone) ?
(1561) Now you may argue : The thing possessing attributes does exist, and it is not something different from the body; knowledge, etc. are found in the body and therefore it is but

Page #92

proper that the body should be the possessor of these attributes (and therefore capable of being known when the attributes are known).
(1562) (The reply is): (The attributes) knowledge, etc. cannot belong to the body as it is corporeal, etc., like the jar. Therefore that to which the attributes knowledge, etc. belong must be something over and above the body, viz. the soul.
(1563) Thus this soul is partially perceived by you (but) it is wholly perceived by me because my knowledge is unobscured. Accept this as you accept (the veracity of my knowledge (of your doubt).
(1564) In the same way, by inference kuow that the soul exists in another's body (too). (The soul in another's body too) is of the nature of consciousness, because it is actuated towards something that it likes and is repelled from what is dislikes, as one's own soul is.
(1565) As to what you have argued (lit. what you bola) that the probandum (that which is signified by the mark) has not been cognised formerly along with the mark (linga, probans) as the horn is not cognised along with the hare, and hence it cannot be inferred from the mark,
(1566) This is not conclusive as the apparition though not perceived previously along with its marks is inferred (as existent) in the body on the perception of the marks (i.e. symptoms) of (possession by) the spirit (e. g. laughing, weeping, singing, etc.).
(1567) (Reasoning to prove the existence of the soul): The body has a maker because it has a certain specific shape, like the jar. There is a (controller) of the sense-organs, because they are instruments, just as a potter is of the staff, etc.
(1568) There is the relation of the instrument of grasping and the thing grasped between sense-organs and objects. Therefore there must verily be a grasper; just as in the world (i. e.

Page #93

our ordinary experience) the blacksmith is the grasper of (i. e. one who handles) the pair of tongs and pieces of iron.
(1569) Body, etc. must have an enjoyer, since they are fit to be enjoyed as man is the enjoyer of food. Body, etc. must have a lord (owner) since they are of the nature of an aggregate and for such other reasons (e. g. since they are corporeal, visible, etc), just as there is a lord of the house.
(1570) This maker, (controller, grasper, and so forth) is the soul. If you argue that this is just the opposite of what was to be established or these lingas are of the type called viruddha (contradictory, proving just the opposite of what is to be proved) because there is the contingency of the enjoyer-controller, etc) being corporeal, (visible, of the nature of an aggregate and so forth), then this is no defect in the transmigratory soul (-being enveloped in karma, it can be said to be corporeal).
(1571) O Gentle one! (even) in your view the soul does exist, because you have a doubt regarding it, just as the post and the man exist. O Gautama, that concerning which there is a doubt must exist there or elsewhere (i. e. somewhere).
(1572) (Indrabhūti:) If this is so it comes to this that the ass should have a horn. (Reply) It may not be on the ass itself, but it does exist elsewhere. This holds good of erroneous cognition too.
(1573) The counter-entity (vipaksa) of non-soul exists because it (the soul) has been negatel, as jar, the counterentity of non-jar exists. As in the case of 'The jar does not exist', this statement does not exist establishes the existence of the soul. (If a thing does not exist it cannot be negated).
(1574) It is established that what does not exist is not negated, for there is the denial of conjunction, etc. (inherence, universal, particular). But the quartet of conjunction etc. also is certainly present in other entities.

Page #94

(1575-6) This word 'jīva' (soul) has a meaning, (i. e. denotes a real object) because it is pure (uncompounded) like the word ‘ghata' (jar). That denotation by which it is meaningful, is the soul. If it is argued that its denotation is 'body', (the reply is) that it is not so, because (the two sets) of synonyms (of jīva and deha) are different. (We do not find a synonym of one given as a synonym of the other). (Soul and body are different) also because the soul is said to have the attributes, knowledge, etc. but not the body.
(1577) The statement, The soul exists' is true, since it is my statement, like other statements (of mine); or because it is the statement of one who is omniscient, like the statement of persons recognised by you as omniscient.
(1578) (My statement is) true and unquestionable since there are not fear, likes, dislikes, delusion (i. e. because it is not actuated by any of these). My statement is definitely true like the statement of an arbiter who is in the know of facts.
(1579) If you argue, “How can you be regarded omniscient?” (the reply is:) Because I can tear all doubts (to pieces) (i. e. can dispel all doubts). Ask me whatever you do not know, so that you may be convinced (about my omniscience).
(1580) Thus accept, O Gautama, the soul which has conscious activity for its mark (characteristic) as establishel by all means of knowledge. It is of different types-samsarin, tara, sthāvara, trasa, etc.
(1581) Moreover, O Gautams, if the same soul were to be present in all bodies, like space, then it would have the same mark, characteristic) in (all) bodies, but the soul is not found to be such.
(1582) The souls in the world are many, like jar, etc., because of difference of characteristics, etc. And if there were but one soul there would be no pleasure, pain, bondage, emancipation (since one and the same soul cannot experience both pleasure and pain, bondage and emancipation at the same time).

Page #95

(1583) Because the soul has conscious activity as its characteristic mark and since this conscious activity is different in each body according to its grades of higher and lower, therefore the souls are infinite in number.
(1584) If there be but one soul, there would be no emancipation, etc as in the case of ether, owing to its ubiquitous character. It would not be the doer (or agent), enjoyer, thinker and it would not be transmigratory, like ether.
(1585) If there be but one soul, it would not be happy, because to a very great extent it would be afflicted, like one who is healthy (or unburt) in respect of (only a small) part of his body. And because it would be bound to a very great extent it would not be emancipated like one only a part of whose body is free (not fettered).
(1586) The soul is only of the size of the body, because it is here that its attributes are found, as is true of the jar; or because it is not cognised elsewhere, (it does not exist outside the body) as cloth does not exist in the jar which is different from it.
(1587) Therefore, (the attributes of being) doer, enjoyer, bound, emancipated, happy, miserable, and transinigratory can properly hold good of those that are many in number and limited in dimension.
(1588-90) And, Gautama, you do not know the (true) meaning of these words of the Veda, viz. "The mass of consciousness itself rising from the elements’, (so) (you believe) that as the wine-spirit rises from constituents of wine so the soul of the nature of consciousness only rises from the aggregate of elements and again perishes after them (i.e- when they perish). And there is no after-life consciousness that in the previous life one had a particular name, was of a particular class (deva, näraka, or any such). The import is that the soul does not pass from one existence (life) to another.

Page #96

(1591-2) Gautama, believing this to be the meaning of the words you regard the soul as non-existent; however, in other sentences the soul is said to be existent, and the fruit of rites such as Agnihotra, etc. is spoken of. Hence you have a doubt regarding the existence of the) soul. But do not entertain (this doubt). This is not what the words mean. Listen to the (true) meaning of the words.
(1593) 'Mass of consciousness' (vijñāna-ghana) means that . it is identical with (or non-different from) consciousness, is permeated all over by it. 'It rises from the elements' means it rises in its aspects of cognition of jar', etc (which are its different modes).
(1594) 'It perishes after these very elements as they perish' means when the conscious activity (of the soul) is fixed on another object, these gradually perish in their aspect as knowables (and as a consequence of this the modes of the soul in the form of 'cognition of jar" etc. also perish, and the soul can be said to bave perished from this point of view).
(1595) From the point of view of the conscious activity in the form of the previous cognition and of the following cognition, the soul can be (said to be) characterised by destruction and origination respectively. From the point of view of the continuum of consciousness (in general) it is a mass of consciousness (and) imperishable.
(1596) And no awareness of the previous cognition exists because the conscious activity is fixed on the present object. This soul has been referrel to by the Vedas by the expression 'mass of consciousness'.
(1597) Even thus one may have the notion that knowledge is an attribute of material elements, because it exists only when they exist. (But) it is not so, since even in their absence, there is knowledge in general) as pointed out in the Vedic tradition,
(1598) “When the sun sets, when the moon sets, when fire and speech have faded away, with what is this Puruşa (self) luminous ? ” It has (thus) been stated to be self-luminous.

Page #97

(1599) (Knowledge is not the attribute of a (material object) because it exists in its absence and does not exist even when it exists, as cloth is different (from jar) because of its being the reverse when the jar is existent or not. (It does not necessarily exist when the jar is present; it may be absent too; and it may be present when the jar is not there).
(1600-1)You do not know the meaning of these words of the Veda or rather of all (Vedic statements). What could 'meaning' be! - Is it word or knowledge or difference of things i.e. particular object) or universal or substance or action, or quality ? This doubt of yours is not proper. That a thing has this attribute alone and not another-such a determination does not stand to reason.
(1602) There are two kinds of modes (paryāya) - sva (own) and para (alien). Everything is verily constituted of everything (according to sva-para - paryaya i.e. if we take a compre. hensive view), or everything is different from everything else and exclusive in character according as what is meant to be expressed.
(1603) Therefore it stands to reason that according to the intent the meaning of a word can be general or particular (-it need not be exclusively one). From the point of view of the mode, a thing can be omniform (universal, general).
(1604) When the Śramaņa's (Indrabhūti's) doubt was set at nought by the Jina, free from old age and death, he became a monk along with his 500 followers (pupils).
(1605) Henceforth, in the discussion of Karina. etc, what is common (to this and the other topics discussed) should be linked up there. I shall state only the distinctive points briefly.

Page #98

GANADHARA 2 – AGNIBHUTI
KARMAN
(1606) Hearing that he (Indrabhūti) had become a monk, a second one came indignant. “I shall go, defeat that Sramana and bring him (Indrabhūti).
(1607) I think he has been cheated by tricks of debate-- chala (quibble) etc; or he (Mahā vira) may be a magician. (sorcerer). Who knows what actually happened ? Now his doings will be found out
(1608) If he is able to go to the end of any of my theses (i. e. is able to answer any of my views-pakşu-thoroughly) I shall become his pupil.” Thus saying he approached the Jina.
(1609) The Jina free from birth, old age and death and omniscient and all-seeing, accosted bim (Agnibhūti) by his name and gotia (family--name).
(1610) Are you thinking (i.e. is this your problem), 'Does karma exist or does it not ??? This is your doubt. You do not know the meaning of the words of the Veda (and hence your doubt). This is what they mean.
(1611) You have a doubt regarding karmy. You believe that it is beyond the scope of knowledge. But you perceive the fruit (of karma) in the form of experience (or sensation-pleasure, pain). Hence inference can be the means of knowledge for you (for establishing karma).
(1612) The cause of pleasure, pain exists as they are effects, as seed is the cause of the sprout. It may be argued that à visible cause (can give rise to pleasure and pain). But this is not proper as there is incompatibility.

Page #99

10
(1613) That difference (which we observe) in the fruit in two cases where the means are similar, that cannot be without a cause. This difference (or particularity of the fruits), O Gautama, is an effect as the jar is (and must have a cause). Karma is this cause.
(1614) The body of a child must be preceded by another body because it is possessed of sense-organs, etc; as the body of a youthful person is preceded by the child's body; karma is, in this case, that preceding (body) (karma-body, kármaņa-sarira).
(1615-6) As every action must have a fruit, there must be the fruit of charity, etc., as there is of agriculture. If one were to think that mental serenity (manah-prasāda-mental tranquillity) etc. is the fruit of charity, etc; then (our reply is) that it too being as much an activity (must have a fruit), and karma is regarded as that fruit of its. (This can be known) because the fruit of the nature of pleasure and pain results from it again.
(1617) If some one thinks that only the act of charity, etc., is the fruit of mental operations, this is not true, because it (act of charity, etc.), shculd be known to be the cause (of the latter) as a lump of clay is (known to be the cause) of a jar.
(1618) (Agnibhūti —- ) Even according to your (argument and illustrations), action which has a visible fruit should not (be supposed) to have karma as its fruit. It (action) has a (visible thing) alone as its fruit as the slaughtering of a beast has meat as its fruit (result) (i.e. people slaughter a beast for its meat and not with any other invisible motive in- view).
(1619) Mostly the world of beings is seen to undertake activities with a tangible fruit and not even an infinitesimal part of them is seen to be interested (in activities) with an unseen invisible fruit.
(1620) (Mahā vīra - ) Gentle one! just because souls are mostly known to take up activities with tangible results, even so know these very activities to have an unseen fruit also,

Page #100

(1621) Otherwise, being free from the unseen, all of them would be liberated without any effort on their part). And it would be the performance of actions with an unseen in view which would be festered with afflictions.
(1622-3) Because there are very many beings experiencing the undesired fruit (i. e. one not intended by them) and because no one here performs knowingly or deliberately an activity which has an unseen, undesired fruit, therefore know that all activity has invariably an unseen fruit. That activity has a seen (i.e. tangible) fruit casually (not invariably) can also be explained on the basis of the unseen (karma). .
(1624) Or, karma has already been established (-see 1613) on the basis of (the particularity of the fruit) being an effect and hence requiring a cause), just as atoms are the cause of a jar. It (karma) is the (unseen) fruit of activities and is different from them.
(1625) If one were to say that it would be thus corporeal, (the reply is that) it is certainly corporeal, because its effect (body, etc.) is corporeal; as (we find here that the jar being corporeal, the atoms (of earth-the cause of the jar) are corporeal.
(1626) It is to be so regarded because in conjunction with it there is experience of pleasure, and rise of sensation (pain), and because it is made strong by an external agency and because it undergoes modification.
(1627) Like food, like fire, like the strengthening of a jar by oil, etc., like milk - these respectively are the illustrations that make us acquainted with the corporeal nature of karma.
(1628) If it is thought that because it undergoes modification' is an unproven (asiddha) reason (this is not so) because its modificatory character is established from that of its effect, as the modificatory nature of milk is from that of its effect) curds.

Page #101

12
(1629) (Objection) What objection is there if there be (a variety of conditions of pain, pleasure, etc.) in the case of transmigratory beings (without karma), just as there is a variety of modifications of clouds, etc. even without karma?
(1630) (Reply) Even then in what way is the case of karma different ? Just as variety is established in external aggregates of matter, so there can be variety in karma-matter joined to the souls.
(1631) If the variety of external (aggregates of matter) be accepted, much more would it be true of karma joined to the souls; as is true of designs (or compositions, constructions) designed by artists.
(1632) (Objection) If the body itself (be regarded as assuming a variety of shapes), why should karma be imagined (at all) ? (Reply) Karma too is verily body only — more subtle, internal; then why not (accept variety in karma) ?
(1633) (Objection) What do we lose by not accepting it (karma-body)? (Reply) A person who is completely divested of his gross body, could not take up (another) body and thus there would be an end to transmigration (without karma).
(1634) There would be (thus) the contingency of the emancipation of all or the transmigration of all without any cause; Or those who have been freed from birth (transmigratory existence) would (baye to) transmigrate again and no one would have, therefore, any faith in the teachings regarding emancipation).
(1635) (Objection) How could there be (any) relation of the corporeal (karma) with the non-corporeal soul? (Reply) Gentle one, (it is possible) just like the (relation) of jar with the sky (ether), or of substance with action.
(1636) Or as the body is perceived to be in relation with the soul, so the karma-body remains associated with the soul (as it passes to) another existence (birth).

Page #102

13
(1637) How can a corporeal thing influence favourably or unfavourably a non-corporeal one? (Reply) As consciousness etc. are influenced by the drinking of wine, (use of) herbs, etc.
(1638) Or, the transmigratory soul is not absolutely and utterly non-corporeal, because it has assumed the form of the transformation of the beginningless stream of karma.
(1639) O Gautama! The streain (of karma) is beginningless because body and karma are related to each other as cause and effect, as the seed and the sprout are.
(1640) If karma were not there, O Gautama, Agnihotra, etc. enjoined by the Veda on one who desires heaven would lose their purpose, as also the fruit of charity etc. that is (well known) to the world.
(1641) If not wanting (to accept) karma, you regard the pure soul, God, (or Avyakta, Kala i.e. Time, Niyati i.e. Destiny, Chance, etc.) as the creator of the. body, etc., that is not proper,
(1642) because that has 110 means (whereby to create) or is inactive or is non-corporeal and so on. (It it is argued that God can be regarded as having a body, the reply is- -) there will be the same difficulty as regards the creation of God's body or there will be regressus ad infinitum.
(1643) Or if on the basis of the Vedic statements regarding 'mass of consciousness', etc. (you doubt karma and) regard Naturesvabhava as the instrumental factor in creation) the situation would be fraught with difficulties. Moreover, Gautama, this is what the words (of the Veda) mean.
(1644) When the Jina (victor) free from old age and death, removed the Śramana's doubt, he became a monk along with his five hundred disciples (followers).

Page #103

GAŅADHARA 3 – VĀYUBHŪTI
(1645) Hearing that those two had become monks, a third (Vāyubhūti) approaches the Jina (victor) thinking, “I shall go, bow down and having bowed down wait upon him.
(1646) Indrabhūti and Agnibhūti have become his pupils. The three worlds pay their respects to him. That blessed one must be approached.
(1657) I shall have my sins removed by approaching him, bowing to him and waiting upon him. Or I shall go to the Jina, disclose my doubt (to him) and have it dispelled.
(1648) The Jina who was free from birth, old age, death, and was omniscient and all-seer accosted him (Vāyubhūti) by his name and gotra.
(Váyubhūti was so overawed by the extraordinary knowledge and personality of Mahá vīra that he could not utter a word. Mahāvīra himself said: ]
(1649) You have a doubt whether the soul and body are one (or are different) and yet you do not ask anything. You do not know the meaning of the words of the Veda. This is what they mean. . (1650) Your doubt is that consciousness emerges out of the aggregate of the elements, Earth, etc. Though not perceived in each severally, it is verily (perceived) in the aggregate like wine-spirit.
(1651) As (wine - ) spirit though not perceived in the constituents of wine severally, emerges in the aggregate and with the passage of time is destroyed, such is the case with consciousness with respect to the aggregate of elements.

Page #104

15
(1652) If consciousness is not existent in each (element) severally, it cannot originate in the aggregate as oil cannot originate in the aggregate of particles of sand. As regards the constituents of wine, it is not true that it is absolutely non-existent in them severally.
(1653) As the constituents of wine even severally can turn the mind (cause a reeling sensation) or satisfy the appetite or quench thirst and so on, so there could be consciousness in the aggregate of the elements (only) if it existed in the elements severally.
(1654) If it (wine-spirit) is utterly non-existent in all severally, why should there be the insistence regarding these (very) constituents or on the aggregate of these; it should then be found in (the aggregate of) others also.
(1655) Consciousness exists in each of the elements because it is perceived in the aggregate as wine-spirit (the power to intoxicate) is perceived in (each of) the constituents of wine. If one should have this reasoning (in view), (the reply is that) the hetu (probans -- viz. because it is perceived in the aggregate) is not admissible (is unreal).
(1656) (Vāyubhūti-) This is verily contradictory to senseperception (that even though consciousness is found to be existent in the aggregate of the elements, you say that it does not belong to it).- (Mahā vira--) Gautama, it is not so, for there is an inference (to set aside this perception). And you yourself contradict direct perception (by saying) that consciousness exists in each of the elements.
(1657) Consciousness belongs to something distinct from the elements and the sense-organs because there is remembrance later on of what has been cognised by them, as it belongs to a man who remembers what was cognised through the five windows

Page #105

16
(1658) Consciousness belongs to something different from the sense-organs, because there is remembrance even when they stop functioning and there is non-cognition even when they are functioning, as it belongs to one who cognises through the five windows.
(1659) He who perceiving an object by one organ, reacts to it by another, is certainly different (or distinct) from them, as the man who perceives an object through the window in the east and reacts (acts upon it) through another is different from them.
(1660) It must be regarded as being over and above (i. e. distinct from) organs, because it remembers what has been cognised by all the sense-organs, as a man cognising all the cognisables (colour, etc.) is different from the five who have knowledge severally of the cognisables.
(1661) The knowledge of a child (must be) preceded by another knowledge, because it is knowledge, as the knowledge of a youth is preceded by that of a child and that is over and above the body.
(1662) The first desire for breast-feeding must be preceded by another desire for nourishment because it is an experience, like a desire of the present and that is over and above the body.
(1663) The body of a child imust be preceded by another body, because it has sense-organs, etc., as a youth's body is preceded by (that of) a child. He, to whom the body belongs, is the embodied one (Jiva, Atman).
(1664) The pleasure, etc. of a child must be preceded by other pleasure, pain, etc., like the pleasure of the present, because it is of the nature of experience and the soul is the possessor of this experience.

Page #106

17
(1665)* ( Gautama, the stream is beginningless, because body and karma are related to each other as cause and effect, as the seed and the sprout are.
(1666) Hence, because of the relation of instrumental cause and effect between karma and body, accept a doer (agent) over and above these, like the potter with respect to stick and jar. (And that agent or doer is the Atman or soul).
(1667,-8,-9,-70 same as Gāthās 1567-1570. In Gäthä 1567, the reading is ‘dehassatthi vihāyā”).
(1671) The one who remembers the (previous) birth (i.e. existence) could not have perished, because there is remembrance, as the one who remembers what happened in childhood, or as the man who remembers in a foreign country what happened in his own country (cannot be said to have perished).
(1672) If you believe that even though momentary it does remember by virtue of the stream of (point-instants of) consciousness, still the stream of (point-instants of) conciousness is established as other than the body.
(1673) And knowledge is not absolutely momentary because there is remembrance of what was previously cognised. What is momentary does not remember what happened in the past like one who dies immediately after birth.
(1674) For him who regards consciousness as one (i.e. without another to help it), as having one object and as momentary, the knowledge of all momentary objects (i.e. the momentariness of all objects) can never be possible.
(1675) How possibly will that which is confined to its own object and which perishes immediately after its origination, cognise momentariness, (essencelessness, painfulness), etc. which pertain to the objects of a great number of cognitions.
*Same as Gathā 1639 and Gātha 1813.

Page #107

18
(1676) If it is argued that by the inference from oneself and one's own objects one can know the momentary nature of all things, that is not so, because inference can work only when the (very) existence, etc. of these (i.e. the subject—all things) is established.
(1677) If it is argued that) the impression can cognise it, this is verily possible (only) when the impressor and the impressed exist together, but not when that perishes immediately after origination.
(1678-9) If consciousness be accepted as momentary, there would be these and other difficulties — simultaneous origination of many cognitions, or one cognition having many objects or lasting character of consciousness, or setting aside of dependent origination. But (there is) no (such difficulty) with respect to the soul (accepted as) of the nature of consciousness (vijñānamaya), persisting (lasting), produced, and destroyed.
(1680) It has different kinds of perception -- momentary as also persisting in other times (or moments), produced as a result of the destruction-cum-subsidence of its covering (obscuring karma) of different kinds.
(1681) The stream of these (cognitions) is eternal. That (knowledge) which arises on the complete destruction of all obscurations (karmans) is said to be perfect and pure (kevala).
Being perfect and pure it is infinite and not admitting of • difference.
(1682-3) (Vāyubhūti — ) If it (soul) is other than the body, why is it not seen entering or leaving (the body) ?
(Mahāvīra - ) Non-perception is said to be two-fold — that of a non-existent thing, e.g. of ass's horn, and of even the existent on account of its being distant, etc.; there is nonperception of the soul to which karma is attached because of non-corporeality and subtlety.

Page #108

19
(1684) Or if the soul be non-distinct from the body, the Agnihotra, etc. enjoined by the Veda on one desirous of heaven would be purposeless and the fruit of (acts of) charity, etc. (as known) to the world (would be repudiated).
(1685) You do not know the meaning of the expression of the Veda, viz ‘Mass of consciousness', etc. and so you regard the soul as identical with the body. This is what the words mean.
(1686) When the śramaņa’s doubt was dispelled by the Jina (victor) free from old age and death, he became a monk along with his 500 followers.

Page #109

GANADHARA 4- - VYAKTA
(1687) Hearing that they had become monks, Vyakta came to the Jina. (He was thinking to himself), "I shall go, bow down to him and wait upon him".
-
(1688) The Jina - free from birth, old age, and death and omniscient and all-seeing, addressed him (Vyakta) (as Vyakta Bharadvaja, i.e.) by his name and gotra.
1689) (Mahavira) You are thinking, 'Do the elements (and things in general) exist or not?' This is your doubt. You do not know the (true) meaning of the Vedic statements. This is what they mean.
(1690) You have a doubt regarding the elements that they may be like dreams (dream-objects) or like magic (illusory like objects projected by magical power); for when scrutinised they are never found to stand the test of reason.
(1691) You think that if there could be a doubt regarding elements, etc., then what to say of soul, etc.! You, suspecting everything to be void, regard the world as illusory (comparable to dream and magic-objects).
(1692) (Your reasoning is), O Vyakta, that things being relative, like long-short, are established not by themselves, nor by others, nor by both, nor by something other than both these.
(1693) Are existence and jar one or different? (In any case) there would be the contigency of everything being identical (one) and such other difficulties. Hence things are indefinable or utterly void.
(1694) Neither a produced, nor a non-produced, nor a both-produced-and-non-produced thing nor that which is being

Page #110

21
produced, is (can be) produced, as there would be the contingency of regressus ad infinitum, or utter non-being, or both. Hence the Void alone (stands to reason).
(1695) The effect is not perceived in the constituents of the complement of causes and conditions severally but only when the full complement is together. (What does not exist in the constituents severally cannot be found in their aggregate; hence there can be nothing like an effect). When there is (thus) sheer non-existence of all, the causal complement (too) does not exist.
(1696) (Of any thing) the hinder part is not seen and the immediately nearest part is subtle. There being (thus) the non-perception of both, there is the non-perception of all things, and hence there is (but) Void.
(1697) O Vyakta, entertain no doubt; doubt would not (even) arise with respect to what is non-existent as it does not in the case of a sky-flower or an ass's horn. It is possible only in the case of (existent things like) post, man.
(1698) What is that peculiarity as a result of which, even when everything is non-existent, there is a doubt with respect to post, man, but not with respect to sky-flower, etc? Why should the reverse not be found (doubt as regards sky-flower, and absence of it with respect to post, man)?
(1699) Things are known to us by Perception, Inference or Verbal Testimony. How can there be doubt when all these sources of valid knowledge and their objects do not exist?
(1700) For doubt, etc. are modes of knowledge and that is connected with (i.e. based upon, dependent on) the knowable; if (as you say) there is the non-existence of all knowables, you should not have any doubt whatsoever.
(1701) Therefore, O gentle one, as you have a doubt with respect to these things, they do exist, like post, man. If you regard the example unreal (because the existence of
as

Page #111

22
post, man has not been established), then there should be absence of doubt (also).
(1702) If it is argued that a doubt can arise even when nothing is existent, as it does in a dream, (the reply is) it is not so. In a dream it is caused by memory, etc.; there is not utter non-existence there (too).
(1703) Experienced things, perceived things, things much thought about (or worried about), things heard of, disorder of humours, (influence of some) deity, marshy land, merit, demerit - these are the causes of a dream; but not non-existence (of things).
(1704) Dream is positive existence, because it is of the nature of knowledge, like the knowledge of jar. Or, it is brought about by the instrumental causes mentioned above and so is positively existent as the jar is.
(1705-6) And if everything were non-existent, how could there have been such empirical utterances as 'This is dreain, (that) non-dream, true, false; Gandharva-city, Pataliputra; literally true, figurative; effect, cause; what is to be established, what establishes; doer; speaker, statement, what is to be stated; another's stand-point and one's own stand-point'?
(1707) Or how could these have been determined as certain features — stability (or solidity of earth), fluidity (of water), heat (of tejas), movement (of wind), colourlessness (of ether); and how could it be determined that sound, etc. are knowables, and that organs of hearing etc. are the instruments of knowledge ?
(1708) And if there is but Void, why is there not the same position for all (all as dream or as non-dream, etc,) or or just the opposite position, or non-cognition of everything ? And how can you say that (knowledge of) Void is true or that knowledge of objects as existent is false.
(1709) And how could there be the notion of own, other, both; and how could objects be non-established mutually ? If it is

Page #112

23
said that this statement is made from the opponent's point of view, how can one distinguish between one's own view and that of another?
(1710) Would you have the knowledge of 'long' and 'short' simultaneously or successively? If simultaneously, where is the question of one depending on the other ? If successively on what did the earlier knowledge depend ?
(1711) Or, on what does the very first cognition (knowledge) of a newly born child depend? Or what mutual dependence could there be between two things alike in all respects, cognised simultaneously e. g. the two eyes?
(1712) Why (do you say that) on the basis of 'short' we have knowledge of 'long'? Why does not knowledge of 'longo depend on 'long' or on 'sky-flower'? Or why does not knowledge (of long - short, etc.) with regard to sky-flower take place in dependence on 'sky-flower'?
(1713) Or what have you to do with relativity (or dependence) itself ? If it be argued that it is the ‘own nature' itself, then svabhāva means sva (one's own), bhāva (existence), and that cannot hold good of a barren woman's son.
(1714) Particular knowledge or mere expression as to 'long', or 'short may take place on account of relativity, but never existence and the other attributes (colour, taste, etc.).
(1715) Otherwise, in the event of their being the absence or non-existence of 'short there would be the utter destruction of 'long'. But this does not happen. 'Hence existence, etc. of jar, etc. are not dependent or relative.
(1716) Even this dependence (relativity) is not without reference to the act of dependence, that which has dependence and that on which it depends. If all these are (admitted as being) existent, there can verily be no Voidness.

Page #113

24
(1717) Some things are intrinsically established, some are extrinsically established, some are established in both the ways and some are eternally established; e.g. cloud, jar, man, ether (respectively). This is to be considered as from the empirical stand-point.
(1718) But again from the real stand-point, everything is self-established by only the use of the external instrumental factors. For even when the instrumental factors are present, non-being (e.g. ass's horn) is not established, (as it is not self-established), (that is to say it does not become ‘being', as it has essence of its own).
(1719) Once the jar is admitted as existent, the discussion whether existence and jar are one or different is (but) a discussion of modes only; otherwise why should it not be held with respect to ass's horn?
(1720) Even if jar and Void are are different, () gentle one, what is this void over and above the jar ? If they are one, the jar alone is there. The Void is not an attribute of jar.
(1721) If knowledge and expression (Everything is void) on the one hand and the speaker (Nihilist) are one, then its existence is established. If they are different, how can one who is deficient in knowledge and speech say this ?
(1722) The existence of jar is an attribute of the jar and so is non-different from it, but is different from cloth, etc. When one says "(jar) exists' how does it necessarily mean "The jar alone (exists)'?
(1723) Or how can there be the contingency of everything being jar viz. 'whatever exists is jar'. Or when it is said 'jar exists', how can the existence of all be obstructed. (The other things cannot be prevented from existing).
(1724) Therefore when it is said 'exists' it refers to both jar and non-jar, but when 'jar' is mentioned it means that the

Page #114

25
jar necessarily exists; as 'Tree' gives us knowledge of 'mango' and ‘non-mango', but ‘mango' means that it is necessarily a tree, (not a non-tree).
(1725) What is it that you regard as 'produced', when what is produced, not produced or both has been proved to be non-produced ? If even (then) (it is argued that) the produced is not produced, why is this not contemplated with respect to 'sky-flower'?
(1726) If it is utterly non-produced, how is it that it is apprehended after its birth or is not apprehended before its birth and is, again, not apprehended when it perishes after some time.
(1727) As the statement of ‘Void' even though non-produced in all respects is (somehow accepted as) produced, so are all things (regarded as produced). If even what is produced is (regarded as) non-produced, by what will the void be illuminated (propounded)?
(1728) The effect - produced, non-produced, producednon-produced, being produced - is here produced accoding to what is intended to be conveyed, and in certain cases is not at all produced.
(1729) As possessed of colour, the jar is the produced that is produced; from the point of view of figure, it as nonproduced is produced; from the point of view of both (i. e. colour and figure) it as produced non-produced is produced, and for the moment it as being produced is produced.
(1730) The jar formerly made can in no way be produced as a jar, or as of alien modes, or in both ways (as jar and as alien modes), and even as being produced it can in no way be produced as cloth.
(1731) Hence the eternal ether, etc. cannot be produced in any of these ways (produced, non-produced, both, being produced), O gentle one. This should be understood from the

Page #115

26
point of view of the basic substance. But on a consideration of the modes all the alternatives can be resorted to.
(1732) You said, "Everything is made by the causal apparatus and it does not exist (as everything is non-existent)." This statement is, in fact, contradictory. Why is the apparatus giving rise to the hair of the tortorise not directly perceived (while that of the jar is -- when all things are equally non-existent)?
(1733) The speaker is equipped with the apparatus (tongue, lips, palate, etc.). If such a speaker and his statement exist how can you say that there is void ? If they do not exist, in the absence of the statement (and the speaker) by whom was the statement made and by whom was it heard ?
. (1734) “Because the speaker and the statement do not exist, even so the things to be expressed do not exist. Therefore there is the void”. Is this statement true or false ?
(1735) If it is true, then non-existence is not there (for at least the statement exists); if it is false, it is not authoritative or valid. If it is argued, "It is accepted by us (whatever it be)", this is not consistent with the view that there is non-existence (of all).
(1736) Why is oil not obtained from sand (which can as well be) the causal apparatus (when everything is on a par being equally non-existent) and why does it exist in sesamum? Or why does not everything result from the causal apparatus of sky-flowers ?
(1737) It is not an absolute rule that everything is produced out of the causal apparatus as the atom is devoid of space-point. If that too were possessed of space-point, that (would be called) the atom where gradation stopped (i.e. the smallest possible entity would be called an atom).
(1738) (It it is said that as the atom does not arise out of the causal apparatus it does not exist at all, then the

Page #116

statements that) everything is seen to arise out of the causal apparatus and that atoms do not exist are mutually contradictory. And, if atoms do not exist, did everything arise out of sky-flowers?
27
(1739) That the fore-part of a thing is seen and that it does not exist are contradictory. Even while everything is nonexistent. why is that (fore-part) of ass's horn not seen?
(1740) 'As the hind-part is not perceived, the fore-part too does not exist' what sort of an Inference is this of yours? Why do you not argue that the existence of the hind part is established on the perception of the fore-part ?
-
(1741) When everything is non-existent, how can there be this division into a number of parts-fore, hind and middle. If it be said that it is from another's point of view, how can there be this specification as to one's own view and another's view?
(1742) If this distinction of fore, hind and middle parts is admitted, there can be no Void. Even it they are not admitted, there can be no as such distinctions as in the case of the ass's horn.
(1743) When everything is non-existent, how is it that the fore part is perceived and not the hind part? Why is there not the non-cognition of all, or just the opposite (perception of hind part and non-perception of fore part)?
(1744) The hind-part of crystals, etc. can be perceived, so they are certainly existent. If (it is said that) they too are not existent, then 'because the hind part is not seen' is no Reason at all.

(1745) Why do you not say, 'Because nothing is perceived? If this latter be accepted, there would be the fault of giving up what was formerly accepted and contradicting direct perception (and it would not be justified).

Page #117

28
(1746) If it be thought that the hind and the middle parts do not exist for they are not perceived, then you will come to a fix where you will have to accept the existence of sense-organs and their objects, or give up the reason because it is nonperceived'.
(1747) Even what is non-perceived may be existent; e. g. your cognition of the nature of doubt, etc. If it does not, what is the Void and whose and by whom is it apprehended ? .
(1748) It is not proper for you to have a doubt with respect to Earth, Water, Fire which are perceptible; you may have it with respect to Air and Ether, though that too is not proper, as their is an Inference (to prove their existence).
(1749) Touch, etc produced by some unseen factor must have a substratum since they are qualities, as jar is the substratum of the quality colour. That which is the substratum of these is Air.
(1750) Earth, etc. must have a receptacle (support), as jar is of water, for they are corporeal. ( Vyakta, that which is the support of the elements is, clearly, Ether.
(1751) O Gentle one, accept these (five elements) which are established by the means of valid knowledge -- Perception, etc. They are characterised by the soul and a number of uses as the support, etc. of the body.
(1752) If it is asked as to how they can be said to have a soul (the reply is)- The four up to Air (i.e. Earth, Water, Fire, Air) (have a soul) because (of the cognition) of its mark. The Ether being non-corporeal is merely a support but has not a soul.
(1753) Trees are animate since they have, like women, birth, old age, life, death, healing of a wound, food, longing during pregnancy, and disease, cure, etc.
(1754–5) The Sprsta-prarodikas (shy plant) (are animate) for they contract the moment they are touched, like small insects

Page #118

29
(or worms). O Vyakte, masses of creapers are animate for they move (to trees) for support. Sami, stc. are admitted to be animate on account of sleeping, waking, contracting, etc. Bakula, etc. (are animate) for they enjoy seasonally their respective object, sound, etc,
(1756) Cluster of trees, coral, lavaņa, upala, etc, as long as they are firmly rooted (are animate), since sprouts of the same type are found to spring up (even when they are cut off), like flesh coming up (in piles).
(1757) Water is said to be (animate) like a frog since it springs up naturally when the ground is dug; or because, like fish, it transforms itself naturally as clouds and falls from the sky.
(1758) Air (is animate), since it like the bull without being goaded by anyone moves about in the directions horizontally and irregularly. Fire is animate since increase and change are seen in it by its beings fed (fuelled).
(1759) The elements up to Air are bodies of the corporeal class different from the changes of clouds. They are soulless or having a soul according as they are struck by a weapon or not.
(1760-1) O Gentle one, many souls attain salvation and there is no possibility of new ones being born. The inhabited universe is of limited dimension. For those who do not admit souls with one sense, there would be an end of wordly life altogether (there would be no soul in the world). But because this is not desired, it is established that there is an infinite number of souls and that they have the elements as their support (i.e. they are embodied).
(1762) (Vyakta --) (If the earth etc.) were so crowded with souls, their could be no Ahimsa (Non-injury). (Mahavira —) It is not so since it has been said that what is struck by a weapon is soul-less. There cannot be Himsā simply because (the universe) is crowded by souls.

Page #119

30
(1763-4) Simply by killing one does not become harmful, and one who does not kill is not necessarly innocent. And it is not that one could be innocent if there were few souls and harmful (only) because there were very many.
Even when not killing one is known to be harmful on account of evil designs, like a hunter (or a butcher). Even when injuring one is not injurious on account of good intentions, as for instance a doctor.
(1765) Being equipped with the five samitis (self-regulations) and the three guptis (self-controls) a wise man is non-injurious (non-killer), not otherwise. It (sin of injury) may accrue to him or may not through obstruction (injury) to souls.
(1766) It is the evil motive that is Injury. In certain cases it depends on the external agency and in certain others it does not, since the external agency is inconclusive (not absolutely necessary).
(1767) Injury to the soul is regarded as Injury if it is the cause of an evil result or if it has an evil motive. For whom this is not the instrumental factor, it is not injury even when it (i.e. injury to the soul) is there.
(1768) As sound, etc. do not result in passions for a person free from infatuation owing to the purity of his intentions, so even injury to the soul is not Injury for one with a pure mind.
(1769) When the śramana's (Vyakta’s) doubt was set at nought by the Jina, free from old age and death, he became a monk along with his 500 followers (pupils).

Page #120

GANADHARVA 5
(1770) Sudharman, hearing that they had become monks, came to the Jina (thinking) 'I shall go, bow down to him and wait upon him.
(1771) The Jina who was free from birth, old age, death and was all-knowing and all-seeing, accosted him (Sudharman) by his name and gotra.
SUDHARMAN
(1772) You are thinking as to whether one will be in another life also as he is in this life. You do not know the meaning of the words of the Veda. This is what they
mean.
(1773) You believe that the effect is similar to the cause, as the sprout is to the seed. It is not proper (or right) that (on the basis of this) you know everything in the other worldly life as similar to that in this.
*(1774) Śara springs out of Śriga, and Bhutṛṇaka springs out of it if it is besmeared with sarsapa (mustard). Durva grass is produced out of the conjunction of the hair of kine and the hair of sheep (i. e. wool).
(1775) As thus in the science pertaining to Medicine of Trees (Botany) and pertaining to Yoni (source of birth) (Biology) birth is observed from dissimilar things, therefore, O Sudharman, this rule (like cause, like effect) is not absolute.
*
(1776) Or even as it is accepted that the effect is like the cause, even so know the soul to be of different modification from one life to another.
Sara Śriga

-a sort of reed or grass, Saccharum Sara. - a kind of medicinal or poisonous plant. Bhütṛṇa -a species of grass.

Page #121

32
(1777) Karma is the seed of the sprout in the form of worldly life, and as that is said to be of different varieties, the varieties of the sprout of worldly life result from the variety in the cause.
(1778 If karma is admitted and if it is admitted to be of different varieties on account of variety in its cause, then know, O gentle one, its fruit also to be of different varieties for the transmigratory being.
(1779) Transmigratoriness (is of different varieties) because it is the fruit of karma (of different varieties); as here in the world there is fruit of different varieties of actions which are correspondingly of different varieties.
odification of karma is of different varieties as it is the modification of Matter like the external (modifications of Matter). The diversity of karma, again, is due to the diversity of its cause.
(1781) Or, even if the other-worldly life is admitted as similar to this life here in this (world), even so accept the fruit of karman in the other-worldly life to be similar to that in this-worldly life.
(1782) What does this amount to ? Men perform here different kinds of actions. If they are the enjoyers of their fruits, then it is but proper that there should be the same position in the other world too.
(1783) If it be said that action yields fruits in this world and not in the other world, then there will be no similarity whatsoever. There will be the contingency of attaining the fruit of what has not been performed or loss of what has been done, or the non-existence of karman.
(1784) And in the absence of karman, whence could there be another life, or similarity in its absence? And if another life be (looked upon as being) without a cause, then destruction also would be such.

Page #122

33
(1785) if it be argued: "What wrong is there if (the other world is there) just naturally as the effect, jar, etc. befitting the cause emerges just naturally?"
(1786) Could this Nature be a thing or non-causality or an attribute of a thing? If a thing, it does not exist because it is not perceived like a sky-flower.
(1787) If it is said to be existent even though it is never perceived, then why is not karma said to be existent ? Whatever accounts for its existence, can account for the existence of karman also..
(1788) Or 'Svabhava' may be (another) name for karman. Let it be. What wrong is there? Or how is it that this Svabhava remains eternally similar (always similar)?
(1789-90) Is it corporeal or non-corporeal? If it is corporeal, it cannot always be similar, because of modification, like milk. If it be non-corporeal, it cannot be the cause of the body, because of absence of causal apparatus. O Sudharman, if it is non-corporeal (it cannot be the cause) as the effect is corporeal and it cannot be non-corporeal as there are the sensations of pleasure, etc.
(1791) If 'by nature' ('naturally') means 'without a cause', even then how could there be similarity? Would not dissimilarity occur without a cause, or (even) the end of worldly life be uncaused? (Certainly it would).
(1792) Or if Svabhava be the attribute of a thing, even that will not be eternally similar, since the modes of a thing - origination, persistence, destruction -are various.
(1793) Or what wrong is there if Svabhava is the attribute-modification of karman which is of the nature of matter, and if it is the variegated cause of the world?
(1794) Or Sudharman, every thing at every moment is born in respect of certain modes, perishes in respect of certain modes and persists in the same form in respect of certain modes.
5

Page #123

34
(1795) Even the same thing, by virue of its earlier (previous) altributes, is not similar to its later attributes (then what to say of one thing being similar to another ?) And (in a way) it is similar to all the three world in respect of certain universal characteristics.
(1796) What is absolutely similar or dissimilar in this worldly existence or in the other worldly life ? Everything is similar-dissimilar, eternal-non-eternal and so on.
(1797) As a young man is not similar to his own attributes as a child or an old man and yet is similar to the whole world in respect of existence, etc.; such is the case with the soul in another worldly life (which is dissimilar to itself as it was in the previous worldly life and in a way is similar to everything, so it is no use pointing out that the soul in the subsequent worldly life is absolutely similar to the soul itself in the previous one).
(1798) A man who becomes a god (in the next worldly life) is similar even to the whole world in respect of existence, etc., and is dissimilar in respect of godhood, etc. He is in the same way eternal and non-eternal.
(1799) If similarity be insisted upon, there would not be any betterment or deterioration even in the same class and the fruit of charity, etc. would be lost (i.e. would be in vain).
(1800) The Vedic statements like 'He is born a jackal....' and the fruit in the form of heaven, all that would be inconsistent in this view regarding similarity.
(1801) When this doubt was removed by the Jina free from old age and death, the Sramaņa became a monk along with his five hundred followers.

Page #124

GAŅADHARA 6 – MAŅDIKA
(1802) Hearing that they had became monks, Mandika came to the Jina (thinking), “I shall go, pay my respects to him and wait upon him.”
(1803) The Jina free from birth, old age, death, and allknower and all-seing-accosted him by his name and gotra.
(1804) You think, 'Are there bondage and emancipation or not ? This is your doubt. You do not know the meaning of the words of the Veda. This is what they mean.
(1805) You think that if bondage is the connection of the jiva (soul) with karma, was jīva prior and karma later or vice versa or were they simultaneous ?
(1806) The origination of the soul before (karma) is not possible for it like ass's horn would have no cause; and what is produced without any cause perishes also without any cause.
(1807) Or it (soul) is beginningless and there cannot be the union of the soul with karman without any cause. If this union is regarded as occurring without a cause, it will recur in the case of an emancipated (soul) also.
(1808) It would be eternally emancipated; or what emancipation could it have in the absence of bondage? The sky is not spoken of as 'free' in the absence of bondage (because it has no bondage).
(1809-10) And karman could not possibly be produced (before jīva), in the absence of the doer. If it be born without cause it too would be such (i. e.would perish without a cause). In the case of their being produced simultaneously, (the drawbacks of both the alternatives would be present) and in the event of

Page #125

36
their being produced simultaneously it would not be proper to term jīva the 'doer' and karman the effect, just as this relation is not found in the world between the horns of a bull (produced simultaneously).
(1811) Even if the union is beginningless, emancipation does not stand to reason. What is beginningless is also endless, like the connection between jīva and sky.
(1812) Thus bondage and emancipation cannot be explained by reasoning. And (yet) in the Vedas there are statements regarding bondage and emancipation; hence you have this doubt. Listen why this doubt should not be entertained.
(1813) Tbe continuum of body and karma like that of seed-sprout is, oh Mandika, beginningless, since they are related to each other as cause-effect.
(1814) There is a body which is the cause of (the future) karman and which is the effect of another (previous) karman; and there is (again) karman which is the cause of the body, and which is the effect of another (previous) body.
(1815) Jiva is the doer of karman through the instrumentality (of body) as the potter is of the pot. So also jīva is the creator of the body, because there is possibility of the instrumentality of karman.
(1816) If you think that karma is not established as an instrument, (our reply is) that it is established by reason of the effect. Moreover, know it to be established from the fact that it is the fruit of activity, as did Agnibhūti.
(1817) As to the argument that the continuum being beginningless is also endless, this is not an absolute rule; for it is seen at times coming to an end even when it is beginningless, e.g. the continuum of seed and sprouts.

Page #126

37
(1818-19) If either the seed or the sprout were to perish before giving rise to the effect, the continuum would be snapped; so also in the case of hen and eggs and so on. Or the conjunction of gold and dust here even though handed down in a beginningless continuum is cut off if the (proper) means are employed; so also the union of soul and karman.
(1820) (Mandika)-Now then, is the union like that of the soul and the sky or like that of gold and dust? (Reply) The union of soul and karman is said to be of both the kinds and there is no contradiction in this.
(1821) The former (kind of union) is that of the abhavya souls (who are never to be emancipated);. that of bhavya souls. is like that of gold and dust. (Mandika-) When soulness is common to all why this distinction of bhavya and abhavya?
(1822) If this distinction were caused by karman there would be no contradiction (i. e. difficulty) as in the case of the distinction of naraka (denizens of hell) and others. But you regard the bhavya and abhavya souls as such by their very nature and hence the doubt.
(1823) (Reply) Even when 'substanceness' etc. are common, the distinction of jiva and ākāśa accounted for by soul-nonsoul, etc is due to their very nature; such is the distinction in the case of bhavya and the other kind of souls (even though all are souls).
(1824) (Mandika-) Even so, if being bhavya is the very nature of the thing like 'soulness', it should be eternal; and if that is so there should be no emancipation.
(1825) (Reply) As the prior non-existence of jar even though beginningless by nature, comes to an end, so what wrong is there if there be the non-existence of bhavyatva brought about by action?
(1826) If it be thought that non-existence like the ass's horn cannot be an illustration, it is not so, because it is

Page #127

38
positive existence only characterised by the non-production of jar.
(1827) (If it is said that) thus there would once come an end to bhavya souls as there comes an end to the hoard in the granary, - it is not so since the bhavya souls are endless in number like the future time and sky. .
(1828) As the past and the future time are equal in effect and as an infinitesimal part of the bhavya souls has reached the consummation (state of perfection, emancipation) in the past time
(1829) And as it is proper that only that much part will reach consummation in the time to come, even so all the bhavya souls cannot properly be exhausted. If it is asked as to how this can be established
(1830) That the bhavya souls are infinite in number and that an infinitesimal part of them is emancipated, (the reply is). O Mandika, this is as in the case of time, etc; or accept this on my word.
(1831) Accept this as true because it is my word, like other statements of mine, or because of omniscience, etc. like the statement of an arbiter in the know of facts.
(1832) You think, 'How are you omniscient?' The reply is, because I have set aside the doubts of all. Even when there is no example (of another omniscient person), anyone may ask whatever doubt he has (and make sure whether I am omniscient or not).
(1833) (Mandika –) (You said that) some bhavya souls also will not reach their consummation even in all time, then verily they are abhavya only. Or, what is this bhavyatva of theirs ?
(1134) The reply is that bhavya means capable (or fit), having the potentiality for (perfection). All do not attain consummation only by being capable; as even when several materials are

Page #128

39
capable (of being turned into images), all are not turned into images.
(1835) Or as in the case of the union of stone and gold, even though it is capable of being dissociated, all such cases are not dissociated, but only that (particular case) whose means (for dissociation) are at hand.
(1836) Moreover the fact of the means being at hand is meant only for that which is capable, not for what is not capable. Similarly emancipation is meant as a rule for the bhavya souls, not for the others.
(1837) (Objection) Emancipation cannot be eternal, because it is caused and on account of such (other) reasons, like jar. (Reply — ) It is not so; because posterior non-existence here on the earth even though having that characteristic (i.e. caused, etc.) is eternal.
(1838) It should not be thought that this non-existence too is no illustration; for it is positive existence of the nature of matter characterised by the destruction of the jar.
(1839) What change is brought about absolutely in the soul on the disappearance of mere matter ? On the destruction of the jar alone what is added to the sky (what change is effected in the sky) ?
(1840) It (emancipated soul), Jike a guiltless person, is not bound again for there is no cause of bondage. Activities (yoga) are the cause of bondage; and they cannot belong to it (emancipated soul) because it has no body. .
(1841) It is not born again in the absence of the seed i. e. (cause), as the sprout is not produced in the absence of the seed. The seed for it is karman and that for it does not exist, so it is eternal.
(1842) If it is thought that if it (the emancipated soul) is regarded as eternal because it is non-corporeal while being

Page #129

40
a substance, then there is the contingency of its being ubiquitous, -(the reply is) this is not so as inference goes against it.
(1843) What obstinate insistence could there be regarding eternality ? Everything is characterised by origination, destruction, duration. The reference to it (soul) as non-eternal, etc. is only by assigning another mode (i. e. only when a specific mode is prominently in view).
(1844) What is the place for the emancipated soul (i. e. where does the emancipated soul stay) ? (Reply-) The summit of the three worlds. (Q :) How does it move? (R--) This is explained by transformation into movement of this kind when it is light of karman (i. e. free from karman).
(1845) (Mandika) If it (soul) is non-corporeal, how can it have activity ? (Reply-) Mandika, what is there on the earth that is sentient and non-corporeal ? As sentiency is its particular attribute, so also is activity recognised (as a particular attribute) of the soul (even when it is non-corporeal).
(1846) Or it is recognised as being active on account of its being the doer, etc. like å potter; or because the movements of the body are directly perceived, like a machine-man.
(1847) If it be said that effort is the cause of the bodily movements, that too is not found in what is inactive. If it is thought that unseen (adřsta) is the cause, -if it is non-corporeal we come to the same position. . (1848) If it be corporeal, it must be the (karmic) body and à cause must be pointed out for its movement (and so on). And it is not proper to regard non-sentient things as having specific movements (naturally).
(1849) (Mandika-) The movement may be there while it is in the worldly existence. But by what is it caused when it (soul) is free from karman ? (Reply-) Verily, that is on account of transformation into movement; as consummation occurs (on the destruction of karman) so that (motion) too occurs.

Page #130

41
(1850) Why does it not move beyond the abode of perfect souls? Because there is the absence of dharma (principle of motion) which has spatial existence; this dharma that helps motion exists in the loka (world) but not in the aloka (non-world).
(1851) Loka has its counter-entity (viz. aloka), because the word 'loka' is uncompounded, as aghata the counter-entity of ghata does exist. If cannot be said that aloka can be jar, etc (i.e. there is no need to suppose another entity called aloka), because due to negation the counter-entity must be in agreement with the thing negated.
(1852) Therefore, it stands to reason that there are dharma (principle of motion) and adharma (principle of rest) which determine loka. Otherwise akāśa being the same, how could there be the distinction of loka and aloka ?
(1853) If there were not the division of loka, there would not be any obstruction (to the motion of jīva and pudgala) and there would be no end (to their motion). In that case there would not be any relation between them and if that be so there would not be the utterances (about bondage, salvation, etc.).
(1854) Beyond (loka) there is no motion because there is nothing to promote it, as fish cannot move beyond water. The principle that promotes motion is dharma which extends as far as the loka (-which is co-extensive with loka).
(1855) Loka must certainly have a determining (lit. measuring) factor as it is capable of being determined (measured), as knowledge is (the determining factor) of the knowable. And it can exist only if aloka exists (i. e. is recognised as a fact). (Therefore the siddhas are stationed in the uppermost part of loka).
(1856) (Objection) In that case, fall from that place of residence becomes contingent. (Reply) It is not so as the genitive here (in ‘siddhasya sthānam') is in the sense of the subject. The station is non-different from the subject.

Page #131

42
(1857) (Even if the two are different), the (place) sky being eternal, it cannot be destroyed and there can be no fall from it. Also because there is no karma and because there is no action
again.
(1858) Or it would be contingent that sky, etc should fall from their eternal location. If this is not accepted, the rule that a thing invariably falls from its station would not be without an exception.
(1859) (Mandika) According to you one becomes a siddha from the worldly existence, then it is but proper that there should be someone who was the first to become siddha. (Reply) Time being beginningless, this is not proper, just as (there is no) 'first body', (or 'first day', though every day has a beginning).
(1860) (Mandika) How can an infinite (number of siddhas) be accomodated in a limited space? (Reply) Because they are not corporeal; as knowledge, etc. can be accomodated in one object or glances in one form (i e. as a form can become the object of innumerable glances).
(1861–62) You do not know the true meaning of such Vedic expressions as, 'An embodied being cannot be free from pleasure and pain', etc. and hence your doubt as to bondage and emancipation. But you should have no such doubt as it is but clear that the embodied and disembodied existences are bondage and emancipation respectively.
(1863) When his doubt had been removed by the Victor free from old age and death, the Sramana became a monk along with his three hundred and fifty pupils.

Page #132

GANADHARA 7-MAURYAPUTRA
(1864) Hearing that they had become monks, Maurya came to the Victor thinking, "I shall go, bow down and wait upon him."
(1865) He was accosted by the Victor free from birth, old age and death, and all-knowing and all-seeing, by his name and gotra (as Mauryaputra Kasyapa).
(1866) Are you thinking in this manner: 'Do the gods exist or do they not?' This is your doubt. You do not know the meaning of the words of the Veda. This is what they mean.
(1867) You think the denizens of hell are dependent and unhappy. They are not able to come here. One may have faith in them (in their existence) even on the basis of verbal testimony.
(1868) While the gods are at their free will to go where they like and they have celestial powers, your doubt about them is on account of the fact that (in spite of this) the gods are
never seen.
(1869) Do not entertain this doubt. See for yourself these four kinds of groups of gods of a class quite different from men.
(1870) You should not have had this doubt earlier too for the jyotiska (stellar) gods are directly visible. And we perceive their favour or disfavour on the world.
can also
(1871) If you regard them as abodes, even then it is proved that like a city they must have denizens. They are the gods. It cannot be that abodes are eternally vacant.
(1872) Or you may have a doubt 'Who knows what this could be?' They are definitely vimanas (abodes) as they are

Page #133

44
made of gems and move in the sky like the vimānas of Vidyādharas and others.
(1873) You may have a thought that (all) this is an illusion; still it is the gods who bring about this illusion. Moreover they are not transformations of magic, etc., because like a city, they are always found.
(1874) If the denizens of hell are recognised as being the enjoyers of the fruit of great sins, even so assemblages of gods too must be recognised as the enjoyers of the fruit of very great merit.
(1875) Gods do not come to the foul world of men as they have transferred their affection to celestial things, they are attached to objects of pleasure, they have not performed (all) their duties and human works (efforts and their fruit) are not dependent on them.
(1876) All the same, gods come here on the festive occasion of the birth, dīkņā (initiation), perfect intuition or nirvāņa (emancipation of a tīrthaikara. Some of them, o gentle one, come instantaneously out of a sense of devotion, (others as the followers of these), others to dispel their doubt.
(1877) Or on account of previous attachment or as fixed by appointment, on account of austerity, for showing disfavour or favour to multitudes of human beings or for pleasures of love and for such other reasons.
(1878-9) One must have faith in the existence of gods on account of these reasons also: (i) On the basis of the statement of a person who remembers his previous birth or existence, (ii) direct perception, (of someone), (iii) success attained by vidyā, mantra, upayācana, (prayer) (iv) graha-vikāra-possession by ghosts etc., (v) the existence of the fruit of great merit that is accumulated, (vi) establishment of nomenclature ('gods'), (vii) proof of all scriptures.

Page #134

45
(1880) The name “gods' is meaningful because like the name 'ghata' (jar), it is uncompounded (and derived). Or you may think man himself rich in qualities and extraordinary powers is god.
(1881) (But) this is not so. Only when the real thing is known to exist can the name be applied figuratively. Only when the lion exists in reality can we have the term 'man-lion' figuratively.
(1882) If the gods did not exist, the heavenly fruit of acts like Agnihotra and others and of sacrifices and the fruit of (acts of) charity, etc. would be in vain. And this is not proper.
(1883) (The statement that) one wins by sacrifces the heavenly kingdom, etc., of Yama, Soma, Sūrya and Sura-guru (Bphaspati) and the invocation of India and other (gods) by mantras — all this would be in vain (if the gods did not exist).
(1884) When his doubt had been dispelled by the Victor, free from old age and death, the śramaņa became a monk along with his 350 pupils.

Page #135

GANADHARA 8 - AKAMPITA
(1885) Hearing that they had become monks, Akampita came to the Jina with the intention, 'I shall go, bow down and wait upon him.'
(1886) He was addressed by the Victor, free from birth, old age and death, and omniscient, all-seeing, by his name and gotra (Akampita - Gautama).
(1887) Are you thinking whether hellish beings exist or not. This is your doubt. And you do not understand the meaning of the Vedic words. This is their meaning.
(1888) You think, "The gods Moon and others are directly known. So also even others are known through the accomplishment of the fruit, etc. by vidyā (science), mantra (formula, charm), upayācana (prayer, solicitation).
(1889) But again those hellish beings whose fruit is sruti (word) alone (i.e. who are merely licard of )-- how can they of a kind different (from lower beings, men and gods) because they are not cognised by direct perception or inference, be accepted (as existent)?"
(1890) Admit the (existence of) hellish beings as of soul, etc. on the basis of my perception. Can it be that your own perception alone is perception ? Rather
(1891) even the perception of another is recognised as perception in the world, as (for example) the perception of lion, etc. is accepted (recognised), but it is not the perception of all.
(1892) Or is the perception by the sense-organs alone perception? (Rather) it is so figuratively (secondarily); non-sensuous perception is the true one.

Page #136

47
(1893) The sense-organs, being corporeal, etc. cannot be cognisers, like jar. They are the doors to cognition, the soul is the cogniser.
(1894) Because there is memory even when they are not functioning and because there is no cognition even when they are functioning, the knower is different from the sense-organs, as the cogniser is different from the five windows.
(1895) The soul which is without the sense-organs (as instruments or aids) sees much more on account of the removal of all obstruction, like a cogniser who is outside the house.
(1896) (Sensuous perception) is not perception since by one attribute (as the cause) there is cognition of only that attribute of the thing, as only non-eternality is established of the jar by its artificiality. (There is not a comprehensive or full knowledge of the thing).
(1897) Or (it is not perception) because it is caused by memory of the relation cognised earlier, as (the knowledge of) fire arises from smoke; or because it arises on account of another instrument; sense-organs are the instruments of the knowing organ (akṣa i.e. jiva).
(1898) As in the case of a person who has not pure and perfect knowledge, intuition of mental modes and visual intuition, all knowledge is but inference, and as that is there with respect to the existence of hellish beings, therefore they (hellish beings) exist.
(1899-1900) There must certainly be some who are the enjoyers of the fruit of very great sin, because that too is karman like the rest. They are regarded as (i.e. called) hellish beings. If it be thought
that those lower creatures and human beings who are very miserable, they (should be) regarded as naraka (hellish beings), it is not so since that pain or misery is not comparable to the very great happiness of the gods.

Page #137

48
(1901) O Akampita, this is true, because it is my statement like other statements of mine; or because it is the statement of an omniscient one, like the statement of one recognised as omniscient (by you).
(1902) My statement is true and intransgressible because there are no (i.e. it is not actuated by) fear, likes, faults, infatuation, like the statement of an arbiter who is in the know of facts..
(1903) If you doubt as to how I am (i.e. can be called) omniscient, (I say) that is obvious, because I have dispelled all doubts. Gentle one, I am free from fear, likes, faults as there is no sign of these.
(1904) When his doubt had thus been dispelled by the Jina free from old age and death, the Sramaņa became a monk along with his 300 pupils.

Page #138

GAŅADHARA 9 - ACALABHRĀTĀ.
(1905) Hearing that they had become monks Acalabhrātā came to the Victor thinking, "I shall go, pay my respects and wait upon him”.
(1906) He was accosted by the Jina, free from birth, old age and death, all-knowing and all-seeing, by his name and gotra (as Acalabhrāta-Haritā).
i (1907) What are you thinking about ? You have a doubt whether punya (merit) and pāpa (sin) exist or not. You do not know the true meaning of the words of the Veda. This is their (true) interpretation.
(1908) You think-punya alone exists, or papa alone exists, or both are mixed or even both are different, or that karman itself doesn ot exist. This manifest existence (life) is there just naturally,
(1909) With the increase in punya, there is welfare; on account of the graded decline (in it) there is loss (of welfare or of pleasure). When it is exhausted there is emancipation just as in the case of wholesome food.
(1910) With the increase in păpa, there is lowliness; with the graded decline in it there is welfare; when it is completely exhausted there is emancipation as in the case of un wholesome food.
(1911) If it (punya-pāpa) is mixed like mixed colour etc, then by the increase or decrease to the extent of one degree that very (entity) is called punya or papa (as the case may be).
(1912) In the same way both may be different; or the worldly existence may occur just naturally. (In reply to this) it is said it could not be on account of svabhāva (nature), for if that be accepted,

Page #139

50
(1913) could this syabhāva be a thing or non-causality or an attribute of a thing ? If it be a thing it could not be existent because of non-apprehension, like sky-flower. [Same as 1786]
(1914) If it is said to exist even though utterly uncognised then why could not karman be existent? Or whatever be the reason for its existence, the same could be the (reason for the existence) of karman. [Same as 1787]
(1915) Or svabhāva may be just another) name for karman. Let it be, what harm is there? [Same as 1788ab] And on account of specific form being there it cannot be the cause (of body, etc.) as (the potter alone) cannot be of jar.
(1916-17) Is it corporeal or non-corporeal. If it be corporeal, then karman and svabhava could be different (only) in name (they would be really identical). If it be non-corporeal, it would not be the cause of body, etc. like the sky. On account of effects, etc. corporeality stands to reason. If it is non-causality, then let ass's horn, etc. be existent.
(1918) Jf it is the attribute of a thing, then it is the transformation of karman and jiva, called punya-papa. It can be inferred from cause-effect (relationship).
(1919) On account of activities being the cause and body, etc. being the effect, karman (exists). Accept karman also because it is stated by me (to be existent), as Agnibhūti did.
(1920) Know that itself to be punya-pāpa distinct by · nature on account of the goodness or foulness of body, etc. and also of actions.
(1921) Pleasure and pain must certainly have a fitting cause, as they are effects, as atoms are (the cause) of jar. The cause in this case is punya-papa.
(1922) (Objection — ) If karman be the cause of pleasurepain and if it be a (cause) befitting the effect, it should be arūpin (formless); if it has form, then it is not a befitting (cause).

Page #140

51
(1923) (Reply) The cause is neither entirely in agreement nor entirely different. If these be accepted (or insisted upon) by you, could there be cause-effect or could it be a thing?
(1924) If everything be similar-and-dissimilar, then what is this 'being befitting the effect'? It means O gentle one, that the effect is its own mode and the rest are 'alien modes'.
(1925) Is karman the cause of pleasure, etc. as a corporeal thing is the cause of an incorporeal one? Is karman the cause just as food, etc. are the cause of pleasure, etc.?
(1926) Let that (food, etc.) be the cause, what have we to do with karman? It is not so, for even in the case of persons with the same resources the result is different. That difference must have a cause; karman is the cause.
(1927) And on account of this too it is corporeal, as it imparts strength to corporeal things, as is jar. (It is corporeal) because its effects, body etc. are corporeal. When this is pointed out, he again says:
(1928) Therefore is it corporeal because body, etc. are corporeal and is it formless (incorporeal) being the cause of pleasure-pain?
(1929) Karman alone is not the cause of pleasure, etc; jiva too is their cause. It (jiva) is the material cause; karman is the other (cause auxiliary). So what harm is there?
(1930) Karman thus being established to be having form (corporeal) and the cause of pleasure and pain, it is not proper that there should be abundance of pain simply on account of the decline of merit.
(1931) It is certainly produced by the prakarsa (abundance) of karman, because it is of the nature of the experience of abundance; this abundance is experienced, as experience of

Page #141

of
happiness
is
caused
by
plentifulness
of
abundance merit.
(1932) It is also dependent on the plentifulness of external means. For otherwise it would not here require the plentifulness of the force of the external means which are opposed to it (i.e. which produce the opposite sensation).
(1933) The body is not caused by decline (of merit), because it is corporeal, as also in the case of abundance of merit. Or it would be small; but how could it be very foul and big in size ?
(1934) This must similarly be applied reversely in the case of the destruction (exhaustion) of all sin. Karman has not a mixed nature (merit-demerit), because there is no cause for it.
(1935) Karman is caused by yoga (activity). That can be good or bad at one time but not of a mixed nature. Therefore karman too has a corresponding nature.
(1936) (Objection) - Verily activities of the mind, speech and body are seen to be both good and bad at one time. (Reply) There can be a mixed nature in the physical (yoga), but not in the psychical cause (instrument i.e. bhāva-yoga).
(1937) Meditation is either good or bad, but not mixed. And the coloration too that occurs on the cessation of meditation, is either good or bad. Therefore karman, too, is either good or bad.
(1938) The karman formerly bound can be turned into one of mixed nature by force of transformation or can be turned into one of the other nature as to rightness or perversity; but not at the time of binding.
(1939) Excepting the longevity determining, attitude-deluding and character-deluding, in the case of the remaining types, transference of the sub-ty pes can be resorted to.

Page #142

53
.
(1940) That which has attributes like good colour, etc. and which has a good fruition is merit. What is just the opposite of this is sin. It is neither gross nor very subtle.
(1941) As a person besmeared with oil catches (binds) dust exactly in accordance with it, so the soul catches (dravya of the karma-group) which is in the same sphere by all its space-points.
(1942) In the world full of pudgala which is non-differentiated the division of karma into gross and subtle may be justified; (but) how could there be the distinction between good and bad at the time of grasping (binding)?
(1943) It is not of any special kind (it is neither good nor bad). But the soul in grasping it immediately turns it into good or bad on account of the transformation (resolve) and the nature of the support, as in the case of food.
(1944) As even when the food is the same we get milk of a cow and poison of a serpent by virtue of (the difference) of transformation and support (receptacle), such also is the transformation into merit and demerit (sin).
(1945) Or as even in the same body, the sarre food results in good or bad (healthy or unhealthy) transformations, such also is the division of karma into good and bad.
(1946) Comfort (vedanīya), rightfulness (darśana-iobaniya), mirth (cāritra-mohaniya), male-sex, love, good life, name, lineage - these (types) are merits; the rest should be known as sin. Both are with or without fruition.
(1947) If merit and sin were non-existent, the external performance of agnihotra, etc. in the case of one desirous of heaven and the fruit of acts of charity, etc. in the world would be in vain (inconsistent).
(1948) When his doubt was dispelled by the Victor free from old age and death, the Śramaņa became a monk along with his 300 pupils.

Page #143

GANADHARA 10- -METARYA
(1949) Hearing that they had become monks, Metarya came to the Victor (thinking), 'I shall go, bow to him and wait upon him.'
(1950) He was accosted by the Victor free from birth, old age and death, and omniscient, all-seeing, by his name and gotra (as Metarya Kaundinya).
(1951) Are you thinking 'Does the other world exist or not'. This is your doubt. And you do not know the meaning (import) of the words of the Veda. This is what they mean.
(1952) You think, 'If consciousness is an attribute of the material elements, as intoxication (wine-spirit) is of the constituents of wine, then there is no other-world, for these (elements) being destroyed, it is destroyed.
(1953) Now, even if it (consciousness) is an entity different from them (material elements), still because it is not eternal, there will be the same fault (i.e. it will not transmigrate, as it is perishable), like perishable fire different from the fire-wood. (Hence consciousness will perish and it is not necessary to imagine another world).
(1954) If it be all-pervading and inactive, even then there would be no other-world, because there would be no movement to another place, as in the case of the sky which is present in all bodies.
(1955) If the world of gods, etc. be looked upon as 'other world' because it is other than this world, that also is

Page #144

55
not directly perceived. Even so there is no other world. And (still) it is mentioned in the Vedas. Hence (your) doubt.
(1956) Consciousness is an attribute of (an entity) other than the material elements, sense-organs (etc.), and know it to be eternal from the point of view of the basic substance, as Vayubhuti did, on account of (reasons like) remembrance of (previous) birth, etc.
(1957) It is not one, all-pervading, inactive, because there is difference of characteristics, etc. Therefore, like Indrabhuti, know that they (souls), like jars, are many.
(1958) O gentle one, the world other than this does exist. The world of gods and of hellish beings is the other world. Accept this, as did Maurya and Akampita on the basis of the proofs put forth.
(1959) (Objection) If the soul is of the nature of consciousness (vijñāna), that is non-eternal, hence there is no other-world. If it is different from vijana, then it is non-knower, like ākāśa (sky).
(1960) Hence too it is not the doer and enjoyer. Even so there is no other-world; and (there is no other-world) because it does not move (transmigrate), on account of its being without knowledge (like a piece of wood) and without corporeality like the sky.
(1961) (Reply) You regard consciousness as perishable on account of reasons like 'because it has an origin and so on; like a jar.' But oh gentle one, these very reasons can prove its indestructibility (imperishableness).
(1962) Or (there can be a counter-inference to this effect:) Consciousness is not penishable, because it is a thing like jar. If it is argued, "How can jar when it has an origin, etc. be imperishable?"

Page #145

56
(1963) (The reply is:) Because jar signifes (a conglomeration of) colour, taste, scent, touch, number, structure, substance (clay), and potencies (to carry water and so on). These are characterised by origination, destruction and duration.
(1964) The lump (of clay) is here produced in the form of the modes, viz the shape (form) of jar, and potencies simultaneously with the destruction of the modes, viz. shape of lump (of clay) and (its) potencies.
(1965) But from the point of view of (or as) colour etc. and the substance (clay), it is neither produced nor destroyed, so it is eternal. The everything is known to be of the nature of origination-destruction-duration (persistence).
(1966) Destruction (in its capacity) as cognition of jar is simultaneous with production in its capacity) as cognition of cloth, but there is duration (or persistence) as continuity (of consciousness in general), so in the present context in the case of this world, other-world and soul.
(1967) The destruction of this-world (existence)in the form of man is simultaneous with the production of other-world in the form of gods; etc. and there is persistence as soul (in general). (From the point of view of the basic substance-soul), there is neither this-world nor other-world.
(1968) What is non-existent cannot be produced. Or if it is (produced), then let ass's horn (too be regarded as produced). And there connot be the utter destruction (of what is existent) because (in that case) there would be the contingency of the extinction of all.
(1969) So the persistent thing is destroyed from the point of view of (or as) some attribute and is produced from the point of view of another. Extinction of all is not recognised as it would mean the end of all dealings. (Thus the soul persists even after death and so there is other-world).

Page #146

57
(1970) And if the other-world were not existent, (the injunction regarding) Agnihotra etc. for one desirous of heaven would be inconsistent, and (so also) all the fruit of charity, etc. in the world.
(1971) When bis doubt had been dispelled by the Victor free from old age and death, the Sramaņa became a monk along with his 300 pupils.

Page #147

GANADHARA 11
(1972) Hearing that they had become monks, Prabhasa came to the Victor (thinking), 'I shall go, pay my respects to him and wait upon him'.
PRABHASA
(1973) He was addressed by the Victor free from birth, old age and death, and all-knowing and all-seeing, by his name and gotra (as Prabhasa Kaundinya).
(1974) What are you thinking? Your doubt is as to the reality or otherwise of nirvana (emancipation). And you not know the meaning of the words of the Veda. This is what they mean.
(1975) You are thinking 'Is the nirvana of the soul like the extinction of the lamp or is it a state of the form of extinction of pain etc. of it, an existent entity?
(1976) Or the contact of the soul with karman being beginningless, as it is with ākāśa (ether), there cannot be their disjunction and hence there can never be the negation of the worldly state.
(1977) You, like Mandika, recognise the absence here of the conjunction of karma and soul due to knowledge and action even though it be beginningless, as in the case of gold and mineral.
(1978) Existence as hellish beings, etc. is samsara; what jiva is there distinct from the (modes)-hellish etc.? You believe, when that (existence as hellish being etc.) is destroyed, the soul is destroyed.
(1979) (Reply ) There is not recognised the utter destruction of the basic substance-soul, on the destruction of

Page #148

59
only the modes-hellish state, etc., as gold does not perish when the ring is destroyed.
(1980) Samsāra is caused by karman; it is but proper that it should perish when that (karman) perishes. But the 'soulness' is not caused by karman; (so) how could it perish when that (karman) is destroyed ?
(1981) It is not perishable by nature, because as in the case of a kāśa (so here too) no change is noticed. What is perishable is here seen to have change, e. g. pieces in the case of a jar.
(1982) If it be thought that on account of being artificial (caused) etc., it would perish at another time (with the passage of time) like the jar, it is not so, as (we find) here that posterior negation (pradhvainsābhāva) though having that characteristic (i. e. though caused) is eternal.
(1983) If it be thought that negation is no illustration, like the ass's horn, it is not so, because it (negation of jar) is a positive material state characterised by the destruction of jar.
*(1984) Or what great (complete) change is effected in the soul on the disappearance (destruction) of only the pudgalas (matter) (that it should be called krtaka, caused or artificial) ? What is added to the sky on the destruction of only the jar ?
(1985) Being a substance and (yet) non-corporeal, the emancipated soul is eternal, like the sky on account of its being a substance. Now if it be said that in that case there would be the contingency of its being ubiquitous, etc., it is not so, on account of inference (going against this).
(1986) Or what is this obstinate insistence on its being eternal ? Everything is characterised by origination-destruction
* Same as Gā. 1839. +Same as Gā. 1843.

Page #149

60
persistence (duration). A thing is (i. e. can be) called 'non-eternal' etc. from the point of view of the modes (i. e. according to the point of view one takes).
(1987) And there is not the utter extinction of fire, because it is (only) modified, like milk (into curds), pot (into potsherds), potsherds (into powder), because such a change (modification into another form) is perceived.
(1988) If there is not utter destruction of the fire, why is it not directly perceived? On account of the subtle (very fine) nature of the modification (transformation), like the transformation of cloud, or like particles of eye-ointment (blown off by the wind; and not an account of non-existence).
(1989) Skandhas (matter-aggregates or compounds) being cognisable by one of the sense-organs become (transformed so as to be) cognisable by another sense-organ or not cognisable at all. Various (diverse, of different kinds) is the transformation of pudgala (matter).
(1990) Like things constituted of wind, etc. cognisable by one particular sense-organ, things constituted of fire having been cognisable by the eye attain the state of being cognisable by the organ of smell.
(1991) As the lamp which has attained another transformation is said to be nirvana (extinguished), so the soul which has attained a transformation free from all pain is said to be parinirvana (emancipated).
(1992) The emancipated soul has perfect bliss like the sage on account of there being (perfect) knowledge and no affliction. It is such on account of there being the absence of the factors that bring about obscuration and affliction.
(1993) (Objection--) The emancipated soul on account of the absence of sense-organs is non-knower, like the sky. (Reply) Well, this is contradictory, for from this itself it

Page #150

would also follow that it is non-soul. (The Objector -) says, Well, it may be such.
61
(1994) (Reply) On account of its natural genus (jivatva), like 'substance' and non-corporeality, it is not proper that it should attain another genus that is quite the opposite of it, as sky cannot attain the genus 'soul' (soulness).
(1995) Being corporeal, etc., sense-organs are not the possessors of cognition (cognisers) like a jar. They are the doorways to cognition (i. e. means of cognition) and it is the soul that is the coguiser.
*(1996) The soul is different from the sense organs because there is remembrance (memory) even when they stop functioning and no cognition even when they are operating, as the cogniser is different from the five windows.
(1997) Soul cannot be devoid of knowledge, because that is its very nature, as an atom cannot be devoid of the state of corporeality. It is contradictory that it exist and be devoid of knowledge.
(1998) How can it be said that knowledge is its nature? (Reply) Why, from the direct experience in one's own body! It is to be accepted as such even in another's body, by virtue of the signs of action and inaction.
(1999) When all the obstructions are removed it attains its purest state, like the sun. As the senses are not of the form of knowledge, it is not proper that it (soul) should be non-knower in their absence.
(2000) Thus the soul is of the nature of knowledge (illumination). It shines forth only to a small extent because it shines (only) through the peep-holes (the sense-organs) like a lamp covered with an utensil having holes.
*See Gathas 1657-1660.

Page #151

62
(2001) The emancipated soul knows very much more (i. e. everything) on account of the removal of all obscuration, like a man who is outside the house or like a lamp from which the covering (utensil) has been removed.
(2002) (Objection-) Pleasure and pain are caused by merit and demerit (respectively); when these latter are destroyed, the former also should perish and so the emancipated soul should have neither pleasure nor pain, like ākāśa (ether).
(2003) Or, it would not have pleasure or pain, like the sky, on account of the absence of body, sense-organs, etc, because it is the body that is the locus of the cognition (experience) of pleasure and pain.
(2004) (Reply) The fruit of merit (too) is (of the form of) pain itself, because it rises from karman, like the fruit of demerit (sin). (Objection —) Well, this would be true of the fruit of demerit also; moreover this also contradicts our perceptual experience).
(2005) (Reply-) (It is not so), Gentle one, for what you experience (as pleasure) is not pleasure, it is only pain. It has been looked upon as different only because it is so established (considered) by way of a remedy. Therefore that which is the fruit of merit is only pain (is pain in reality).
(2006) Pleasure derived from objects is only pain, because it is a counteraction (remedy) against pain, like medicine. It is called pleasure secondarily, and there can be no secondary usage without the reality being there.
(2007) Therefore what is the happiness of the emancipated soul that is reality (real happiness); because it rises without fail not by way of remedy on the destruction of pain, like the happiness of a sage free from obstruction.
(2008) Or the soul is of the nature of knowledge and the obscuration overpowers knowledge; sense-organs are aids (to

Page #152

63
knowledge); when there is the destruction of all obscuration, there is purity (knowledge in its purest state).
(2009) Similarly, the soul is of the nature of happiness; demerit (sin) should be known as overpowering it; merit is an aid to it; when all (merit-demerit) is destroyed, there is perfect happiness.
(2010) Or as by the destruction of karman, one attains the transformation into perfectness (siddhatva), etc, so it is from that alone (as a result of the destruction of karman alone) that one obtains supra-mundane happiness.
(2011) Pleasure and pain are both pain; and there is (true) happiness (only) in their absence (when they are got rid of); so there is pain when the body, sense-organs are there and happiness in their absence.
(2012) Or this contingency may be there from the point of view of one who recognises happiness as resulting from body, sense-organs. (But) this happiness of perfectness, which is supramundane is quite a different thing.
(2013) If it be thought, "How is this to be known ?" (the reply is:) Why it has already been said that it is on account of knowledge and freedom from obstruction. (Objection -) Then knowledge too should be non-eternal, because it is an attribute of a sentient entity, like rāga (love, passion).
(2014) Or because it is brought about and so on. (Reply-) It is not so, because there is no cause of obscuration and obstruction. Or this is no fault, on account of its being of the nature of origination-duration-destruction.
(2015) As to statements like 'An embodied being cannot be free from what is pleasurable and painful (desirable and undesirable), etc., these would not be consistent in meaning if there were no emancipation, or if there were destruction (of the soul) or if there were no bliss (in mokșa).

Page #153

64
(2016) (Objection) What is devoid of body, is dead only (non-existent like ass's horn), and pleasure and pain, desirable and undesirable do not touch · (affect) it. It is obvious that ‘aśarira' (bodiless) means dead. What wrong is there in this interpretation)?
(2017) (Reply) You do not know correctly the meaning of the words of the Veda. Listen to this (correct meaning) of theirs.
The term 'aśarira' is like 'adhana' (moneyless) because there is negation of an attribute in something which is existent.
(2018) Because of negation by 'na', there is meant something which is other than it, but certainly like it. Therefore by ‘aśarīra', it is proper to understand soul and not ass's horn (which being non-existent is entirely different from sa śarīra).
(2019) (And) Because 'va vasantam' expresses it as existent. 'Vā' suggests that (pleasure and pain do not touch) even an embodied being. The particular pleasure and pain do not affect an ascetic (sage) free from passions (likes and dislikes).
(2020) Or ‘văva' is an indeclinable having the same meaning as 'va'; and ‘santam' means 'bhavantam’-existing. Or ‘ava' means 'know!' and 'vā santam' means existent or existent as qualified by knowledge, etc.
(2021) ('aśarīram vă avasantam') If it be thought that . 'avasantam' (non-existent) is ‘na vasantam' (not existent), it is
not so, for we have the word asārīra (which can refer to å soul alone as shown above) and even the qualification of touch is recognised to be only with reference to an existent
thing.
(2022-3) (Objection) Even if the emancipated soul is such (existent), the condition of being free from both pleasure and pain is there (and so it cannot be said to be perfectly happy). (Reply-) It is not so; for pleasure and pain caused by merit

Page #154

65
and demerit (sin) do not affect one who is free from likes and dislikes on account of there being knowledge and freedom from obstruction. Nothing is dear or not-dear to him. His is the happiness of the emancipated. What contingency is there here?
(2024) When his doubt was dispelled by the Victor free from old age and death, the Sramaņa became a monk along with his 300 pupils.

Page #155

Page #156

Explanation based on Maladhari Hemacandra's Commentary.
1- INDRABHUTI REGARDING JIVA
to
Lord Mahavira rose above attachments and aversions and became omniscient. He was in the Mahasena Vana and people were coming to him in numbers. The Brahmanas assembled in the sacrificial enclosure became inquisitive as to who this great one was who was attracting hosts of people. In the fulness of pride, the most prominent and intelligent amongst them, Indrabhuti Gautama decided approach Mahavira. Seeing him Mahavira said, "Indrabhuti Gautama, you have a doubt as regards the existence of the soul." Indrabhuti's reasoning was to this effect: The soul is not known by perception (pratyakṣa), as the jar can be perceived; and it should be acceptable to all that what is utterly imperceptible does not exist just as the sky-flower does not exist. Atoms too cannot be directly perceived, but they become perceptible when they are transformed into their effects, jar, etc.. Not so the soul. Inference (anumana) also will not help us to know the existence of the soul, because inference is based on perception. Hence where perception itself does not work, inference is of no avail. "The Mountain is fiery, because it is smoky. Wherever there is smoke there is fire, e. g. in the kitchen. There is, on the mountain, smoke which is the determinate concomitant of fire; therefore it is fiery." Here 'smoke' is the middle term (the linga, mark), fire is the probandum (the signified, lingin that of which smoke is the mark). A person can infer in this way the existence of fire on the mountain provided he has previously cognised the relation of smoke (the linga) and fire (the lingin) in places like the kitchen and has determined that wherever there is smoke, fire also must exist, because fire is the cause of smoke, and remembers that on the perception of smoke on the mountain. But

Page #157

68
the connection of the soul with any mark has not been perceived. Moreover had it been so, it would have been a clear case of perception and we would not then have to resort to inference. The soul cannot even be established by the sāmānya todřsta type of inference (where a relation is established between linga and lingin on the basis of the perception of likeness in general) as is possible in the case of the movement of the sun. The sun is in the East in the morning and in the West in the evening; this charge of place is not possible without movement. Devadatta can change his place only when he moves. Therefore the sun too must be moving. In the present case there is no linga or mark found in any illustration, which is invariably concomitant with the existence of the soul and hence which could lead to the inference of the existence of the soul.
The soul cannot be known through verbal testimony (agama) also, for this latter does not differ in essence from inference. Agama or verbal testimony is two-fold according as it concerns an object that can be perceived or an object that is not amenable to sense-perception. In the former the process is as follows: A person has observed the use of the word “jar' in connection with an object which has a particular shape, etc.. He hears the words 'Bring a jar'. He argues to himself, “An object having a protruding shape in the middle and like characteristics is called a jar, because the word 'jar is used with reference to it, as noticed before in the shop. Here, I hear
the word 'jar' again. So I am expected to bring an object of the . same description and called 'jar.” Inferring thus he brings the jar. Hence verbal testimony concerning a perceptible object is not different from inference But the word 'self' (atman) has not been noticed to be used in connection with any object other than the body, so that hearing the word ‘self' one could have the knowledge of the soul. Even as regards objects that cannot be perceived, e. g. heaven, hell, etc., verbal testimony consists of the words of a trustworthy person in whose statements no discrepancy or incompatibility is found

Page #158

69
(avisamvādin), that is to say, whose statements are infallible, e.g. the forecast regarding eclipse, etc. It can be easily seen that this too falls within the scope of inference. And we do not find anyone who has had the direct perception of the soul and hence whose words could be accepted as verbal testimony. The scriptures too make conflicting statements regarding the soul. Hence too, it is but natural that one should be confounded and as a consequence start questioning or doubting the very existence of the soul. The Cārvākas say that only that much exists as can be perceived by the senses; even the very wise arrive at absurd conclusions when they resort to inference. A man made certain marks in the dust on the road from which wise people came to the conclusion that a wolf liad frequented the streets at night. Hence inference too is not reliable, then what to say of the other means of knowledge ? (Etāvān eva loko’yam yāvān indriyagocaralı, bhadre vška padam paśya yad vadanti bahuśrutāḥ.) A seer* too has said : Vijñā naghana evaitebhyo bhūtebhyah samutthaya tāny evānu vinaśyati'-- "The mass of consciousness itself rises from these material elements, and follows them in destruction, and there is no consciousness after death." This shows that the soul has no independent existence; it is but an epiphenomenon of the elements aggregating in acertain proportion. Buddha too has said, 'Rūpa is not pudgala (soul)', that is, the external object that can be perceived is not soul. In this manner referring to all entities existent, Buddha bas proved that there is nothing which can be looked upon as the soul. With this testimony we could have conclusively said that the soul does not exist. But we have statements referring also to the existence of the soul. To take but a few illustrations, the Chandogya Upanisad states : 'Na ha vai sasarīrasya priya priyayor a pahatir asti, aśarīram vā vasantam priyāpriye na sprśataḥ|- As long as it is embodied, it cannot be free from what is pleasurable
* This is a sentence from the Brhadaranyaka Up. (2. 4. 12), uttered by Yājsavalkya, and not a statement of (Kumärila) Bhatta as stated in the commentary

Page #159

70
and what is painful; but these latter do not affect one that remains disembodied. This asserts the existence of the soul apart from the body. etc. So also we have injunctions which enjoin, for instance, the performance of the Agnihotra sacrifice on one who desires heaven (agnihotram juhuyāt svargakamah). This can be understood only if the soul continues its existence after the corporal death. Samkhyas also refer to the soul as non-doer, quality less, enjoyer, of the nature of sentiency (asti puruso'kartā nirguņo bhoktā cidrūpah). What can be regarded as verbal testimony is thus seen to be conflicting. Therefore we have no proof of the existence of the soul from perception, inference and verbal or scriptural testimony.
Certain schools of pbilosophy accept other positive means of proof-analogy (upamana ), presumption or postulation (arthāpatti). 'As is the cow so is the gayal -such a statement of resemblance can give us knowledge of a remote object. But there is nothing similar to the soul in all the three worlds, by the knowledge of which we could know the soul. Time, ether (ākāśa), space etc. cannot serve the purpose of analogy. They are incorporeal no doubt; but not being amenable to sense-perception their existence itself would be questionable. Thus analogy is of no help in attaining knowledge of the existence of the soul. Presumption too does not work. No object has been seen or heard of in the world which depends for its existence solely on the soul and therefore whose existence could decisively establish the existence of the soul. Thus the soul is beyond the range of these five means of valid knowledge · which are concerned with existent objects. Hence the soul must be the object of the sixth pramāņa viz. anupalabdhi (non-apprehension) which establishes non-existence. Indrabhūti's doubt seems to be a genuine one, and his reasoning too appears to be cogent (1549-1553).
Lord Mahavira's reply was as follows:- The jiva or soul is perceived by Indrabhūti, hence no other means of proof need be resorted to. The apprehension of the nature of doubt and other knowledge is itself the jiva (soul) because jiva is of the

Page #160

71
nature of knowledge. Knowledge is self-luminous and hence jiva being of this nature is established by self-consciousness. If thus the jīva is directly perceived, it is not at all necessary to resort to other means of proof. We do not need any other means of proof for establishing sensations like pleasure and pain which are self-cognised. It may be argued that even though the world is established by perception, we have to resort to other means of proof like inference to convince the Sūnyavādin Buddhist, so here too the soul requires to be established by other means of proof even when it is established by perception. But there is a difference in the two positions.
The Buddhists argue that all ideas or judgments (pratyaya) are · without an objective basis, because they are mental constructs,
like dream-ideas (Niralambanāḥ sarve pratyayāḥ, pratyayatvāt, svapna-pratyayavat).* And we have to refute such a contradictory argument. But here in the case of the perception of the self, there is no contradictory means of proof to set aside which we would have to resort to other means of proof (1554).
We use expressions like 'I did', 'I do', 'I shall do', 'I said this', 'I say this', 'I shall say this', etc. Here there is a reference to action of all the three times - past, present and future. The consciousness of 'I' is present throughout and this shows that the soul is directly known. This 'I' consciousness is not known by inference, because there is no mark (linga) here. Agama, etc. could not be possible here, for even very ordinary people who have no access to agama, have this introspective 'I' consciousness as self-illumined and this is the perception of the soul. But we do not find this in the case of jar, etc. because these have no soul (1555).
Further, if the soul did not exist, how could one have the 'I' consciousness ? It could not exist without its object. It may be urged that the body is the object of this consciousness; e. g. we say 'I am weak', 'I am stout'. But the consciousness of 'I' is not present with reference to a dead body and this means
*(See Pramāņavārtikālankāra, p. 22).

Page #161

72
that the 'I' consciousness refers to the soul. Thus that Indrabhūti has the 'T' consciousness means that the soul is known to him. And hence there is no scope for the doubt as to its existence; on the contrary there should be a conviction about it. And if Indrabhūti still has a doubt regarding the soul, he must point out what the object of the 'I' consciousness is, because no notion can arise without an object and Indrabhūti does not accept the existence of the soul (1556).
If the doubter jiva does not exist who would have the doubt: "Do I exist or not?' Doubt being of the nature of cognition is a quality and there could be no quality without something which it can qualify, that is to way, without a substance; and therefore the soul must be existent for without it the quality doubt' could have no existence. Doubt cannot be regarded as a quality of the body because this latter is corporeal and inanimate, while knowledge is non-corporeal and of the nature of bodha, awareness. If their nature is so divergent, it follows that there cannot be the relation of quality and the thing qualified between them, otherwise we could have also thought of colour as a quality of ákāśa (ether). Moreover if one doubts his own existence, what thing in the world would he possibly not doubt ? He will be sceptical about everything. And if in spite of having the 'l consciousness one were to infer, 'Soul does not exist because the five means of proof cognising existent objects do not operate with respect to it', then the proposition or thesis being contradicted by perception. turns out to be a sham-thesis as happens in the case of 'Sound is inaudible'. It is also contradicted by inference; there are inferences to establish the existence of the soul, as we shall see later on, and by these the inferential cognition that the soul does not exist will be contradicted, as 'word is eternal of the Mīmäisakas is contradicted by the Naiyāyika by an inference establishing that word is not eternal. To argue further, when one doubts the existence of the soul, one admits 'I am the doubter' and then if he says that the soul does not exist he is contradicting his own view. This is what the Sārnkhyas also

Page #162

would do if at the outset they admit that the puruşa (soul) is non-doer, eternal, of the nature of sentiency, and then proceed to look upon it as doer, non-eternal and non-sentient. If one denies the soul that means contradicting our empirical experience, because the soul is well known to all-even the simple cowherds and women and all. It is equivalent to saying "Sašī (luna) is acandra (non-moon)". The statement, 'Do I exist or not ?' is self-contradictory like 'My mother is a barren woman'. If the thesis of the inference - "The soul does not exist' - is a sham one, the reason, 'Because the five means of proof cognising existent objects do not operate with respect to it also cannot be its attribute and thus it becomes unreal (asiddha) with reference to it and hence fallacious. Moreover we can never know the size of the Himalaya by any means of proof; the five sources of positive knowledge do not operate with respect to it, nor with respect to ghosts, etc., but this does not mean that they are non-existent. Similarly the means of proof may not be able to operate with regard to the soul and yet the soul may be existent. Thus the reason given above is anaikāntika, inconclusive. In fact, the soul will be established even by inference later on, in which case the mark (linga) given above can be shown to be existent in heterologous cases only, and so is viruddha, contradictory also. Therefore a doubt should not be entertained with regard to the existence of the soul; but the soul should be determined by perception. (1557)
The qualities of the soul viz. memory, desire to know, desire to do, desire to go, doubt—which are all particular forms of consciousness are established through self-apprehension. Therefore the substratum of these qualities must also be directly known, just as the jar is known by perception because its qualities, colour, etc. are known by perception. One may feel like arguing that this is not conclusive, because sound, the attribute of ether is perceptible, but not so ether. But this is not correct. Sound is not an attribute of ether, it is a modification of matter, because it like colour, etc., is amenable to the senses (1558) 10

Page #163

74
We may pursue this inquiry differently. Is the thing possessing the attributes identical with them or different from them? If it is identical, it follows that the jiva should be immediately apprehended by the apprehension of its qualitiesknowledge, etc., just as if colour is identical with cloth, this latter is automatically. cognised when the colour is cognised. If the thing possessing the qualities is different from them, then it is true that it will not be perceived even when the qualities are perceived. But this will apply to all objects. Jar, etc. too will not be perceived even when their qualities are perceived. In that case it is not necessary to isolate the soul for a special treatment and say that it does not exist. It cannot also be said that the soul does not exist because it is not perceived, while the jar exists because it is perceived (Gāthā 1549). The existence of the jar will have to be first established before this could be said. If it is argued that the thing and its qualities are different, but the qualities cannot remain without it, therefore the perception of colour, etc. establishes the existence of the jar, - then the qualities memory, etc. too cannot remain without their substratum. The apprehension of memory, etc. establishes thus the existence of the soul of which they are the attributes. Thus the existence of the soul has to be recognised even though it is not accepted that the soul is perceptible and identical with the qualities. It may be argued that it may be accepted that the qualities knowledge, etc. have a substratum, but it does not follow that it is the soul; body can be the substratum because like leanness, stoutness, etc. knowledge etc. are found in it. The rejoinder to this is that knowledge, etc. cannot possibly be qualities of the body, because it is corporeal and visible like the jar; and yet qualities cannot reside without an appropriate substratum - a substance. The substratum which to be worthy of the qualities knowledge etc., is non-corporeal and invisible is the jiva or the soul which exists over and above the body. It cannot be urged that perception tells us that the qualities, knowledge, etc. reside in the body, because this is contradicted by inference: The knower is different from the senses, because even when they do not operațe, there is the remembrance of what has been cognised

Page #164

75
by them. That which remembers a thing cognised by another even when this latter has ceased to operate, is known to be different from it as Devadatta who remembers what was cognised through the five windows is different from them. This will be discussed later on when Mahavira solves Vayubhuti's difficulty (1559-1562).
Thus even for Indrabhuti the soul is directly perceptible but partially. But Mahavira is free from all passions, etc.; his knowledge is wholly unobscured. This accounts for the fact that he can thoroughly realise the infinite modes (paryaya) of the self-own and alien, while Indrabhuti can know it but partially; as when there is light we see portions only of the jar and yet the whole jar is regarded as having been perceived from the practical point of view. Here too Indrabhuti will have to be satisfied with this partial knowledge of the soul till he has got rid of his passions, etc. which obscure his knowledge, and still admit that the soul can be known by perception. Mahāvīra has convinced Indrabhuti of his veracity by straightaway telling him what the doubt in his mind was. Hence he appeals to Indrabhuti to accept this statement of his regarding the soul as truthful on the basis of his former experience of Mahavira's trustworthiness (1563).
Indrabhuti may admit that his own body has a soul, but how is he to know this of the bodies of others? Therefore, Mahavira anticipating this says that the soul of the nature of consciousness, in the body of another, can be known as existent through inference. The soul exists in another's body, because we see that it is actuated towards what is attractive or desirable and turns away from anything that is undesirable, as in our own case. Wherever this is observed, it is always in association with the soul, e.g. our own body; hence another's body too which is seen to behave in this way must have a soul. If the soul were not there, there would be no such behaviour; for instance, a jar is never seen to behave in this manner. This establishes the existence of the soul in another's body too (1564).

Page #165

76
Indrabhūti had argued that for inference, the lingin (probandum) should have been observed previously as being always in association with the linga (probans). But if these two have not been observed previously as concomitant, the lingin cannot be inferred from the linga e.g., hare's horn (horn is not seen to be associated with the hare). The jiva too has not been known previously as concomitant with any mark (linga), and hence it is not possible to infer the existence of the soul. Mahavira now says that it is not always necessary that the lingin should have been cognised previously as concomitant with the linga. A spirit is generally never observed previously making all sorts of gestures and yet from certain gestures like laughing, singing, weeping and other bodily gestures we infer the existence of a spirit in a body. (1565–1566)
Mahāvīra puts forth other inferences also to prove the existence of the soul.
(1) The maker of the body exists because it has a definite shape which has a beginning, like the jar. What does not have a maker, does not also have a definite shape with a beginning, e.g. the modifications of clouds. And jīva is this maker of the body. The Gathā does not specifically mention that the shape must have a beginning. But in that case the reason would become inconclusive, since the mountain Meru, for instance, has a definite shape, but no maker or creator. If* we add the epithet 'which has a beginning' to 'shape', the inference becomes valid for the shape of Meru is beginningless.
(2) The manipulator of the senses exists, because they are instruments, as the potter is the manipulator of the wheel, staff, etc.; what is not controlled or manipulated is not also an instrument, e.g. ether. Jīva is this manipulator of the sense-organs.
(3) The agent of grasping (or grasper) exists, because there is the relation of the instrument of grasping and the thing grasped between the senses and their objects, as the blacksmith is the grasper in the case of the pair of tongs (the instrument of grasping) and pieces of iron (which are grasped). The jiva is this grasper. Where there is no grasper, the relation of the

Page #166

77
instrument of grasping and the thing .grasped also does not exist, e.g. in the case of ether.
(4) The enjoyer of the body, etc. exists, because they are things to be enjoyed; as man is the enjoyer of food, clothes, etc.. That which has no enjoyer is also not a thing to be enjoyed e. g. the ass's horn. But the enjoyables body, etc. exist and therefore they must have an enjoyer. The soul is this enjoyer..
(5) The lord (owner) of the body, etc. exists, because they are of the form of an aggregate or because they are corporeal or sensuous or visible or due to any such reason which is not inconclusive; as the lord of the house, etc. exists; what is without a lord is also not of the form of an aggregate; nor is it corporeal etc. e. g. sky-flower. And body, etc. are of the form of an aggregate, are corporeal, etc.; therefore, their lord must exist. The jiva is this lord (1567-1569).
It stands to reason that the body, etc. must have a maker, enjoyer, etc., but does it follow that the jiva is all this? Yes, it does, for the concepts of God, etc. do not stand the test of reason. One may also feel inclined to argue that these reasons are of the types called viruddha (contradictory) for they establish just the opposite of what is meant to be established. Potters and others who are agents and so on are seen to be corporeal, of the form of a collocation, non-eternal, etc. and hence the jiva also would be established as being of this nature, while our conception of jiva is just the opposite of this. But this is not true for as long as the jiva is in the transmigratory condition, it is, in a way, of this nature – corporeal, etc., because it is enveloped by the aggregate of the eight-fold material karman. Hence what has been established is not the opposite of what was intended to be established (1570).
Moreover, the very fact that Indrabhūti has a doubt establishes the existence of the soul. X sees something which has particular dimensions etc. X has a doubt whether it is a man or the trunk of a tree, because he has noticed only the common features, dimension, etc., but not noticed the particular

Page #167

features, viz. movement, etc. on the one hand, and bird's nest, climbing creapers, etc. on the other. But man and trunk of a tree are both existent. It is not necessary that both should be found on the same spot; the other one may be anywhere in the world, but the fact remains that that regarding which there is a doubt must be an existent thing. This should not be interpreted to mean that it establishes the existence of ass's horn, as it has been stated that the thing must be existent somewhere — there or elsewhere. When we doubt the existence of the ass's horn, when we say, 'The ass's horn does not exist,' we only inean that the horn is not found on the ass, but it is present on the bull's head and therefore there is no difficulty. Similarly if anyone mistakes a trunk of a tree for a man, this error too is possible only when 'man' exists, not otherwise. If as Indrabhūti has said people have the conception of soul in the body erroneously, that is to say, regard the boily as soul it cannot be explained otherwise than by positing the existence of the soul (1571--1572).
We negate the jiva when we say ‘non-jīva' (ajīva). Therefore, the counter-positive of ‘non-jīva' must exist. The rule is that if an entity denoted by an etymologically derived, pure (uncompounded) word is negated, this negation always implies the existence of its counter-positive; e. g. in aghata, ghata is a word which is both etymologically derived and uncompounded; it is negated and ghata is an existent thing. Similarly in the case of ajiva, jīva must be an existent thing. If the counter
positive does not exist one may take it for granted that the word · is not etymologically derived and uncompounded, e. g. fakharavişāņam, 'non-ass-horn' (ass-born can be etymologically, explained, but it is not uncompounded) and 'adittha', 'non-dittha' (Dittha is uncompounded, but it cannot be etymologically explained, hence Dittha need not necessarily exist). But as pointed above, the jīva must be existent, for in ajīva we have the negation of an entity denoted by an etymologically derived, uncompounded word. Moreover the very fact that Indrabhūti says, 'The soul does not exist' presupposes the existence of jīva,

Page #168

79
as when we say "There is no jar', it is implied that it is existent - but elsewhere. What is utterly non-existent is also not negated, e. g. the sixth element which is non-existent like the ass's horn. But the jiva is negated, therefore it must be existent (1573).
Yet, it may be urged, we do say 'the ass's horn does not exist' and if as has been said by Mahavira, that which is negated must be an existent thing, then ass's horn must be real, existent. True, when anything is negated anywhere, it is its conjunction, inherence, genus (universal) or particular that is negated in the present substratum, even while it does exist elsewhere. For example, In 'Devadatta is not in the house', the conjunction of 'Devadatta' and 'house' is negatived, though they themselves are existent entities. Similarly when we say, 'The ass's horn does not exist' what is negativel is merely the relation of inherence of 'ass' and 'horn' which are existent. So also in 'Another moon does not exist, by negating another moon we are denying merely the class-concept ('moonness'), but the utter non-existence of moon is not thereby established. And in 'Pearls of the size of jar do not exist', the particularity of 'being of the size of a jar' is negatived of pearls, but there is no question of denying existence to pearls. This being so, even when we say, "The soul does not exist', we are negating merely the conjunction of the existent soul with something somewhere, e. g. The soul does not exist in the body', and not rejecting outright the existence of the soul.
Even with this explanation there is likely to be an objection. If what is negatived must be an existent object, then were someone to say to Indrabhūti, 'You are not the lord of the three worlds," he should be the lord of the three worlds as lordship of the three worlds has been negatived. The point has not been properly grasped by the objector. What is negatived is only the particular, viz. 'lordship of the three worlds' of Indrabhuti, as 'being of the size of a jar' is negatived of pearls. There is not the utter denial of lordship, since even Indrabhūti can be the lord or master of his own disciples and followers.

Page #169

80
So also when we talk of this four-fold negation, we are denying the nature of being qualified by the number five' to negation, but we are not denying the reality of negation, since it exists as 'qualified by the number four'. Still one may feel that all this is nonsense for 'Indrabhūti's lordship of the three worlds' and 'negation's being qualified by the number five' are negated and these are non-existent, therefore it is not correct to say that what is negatived must be an existent thing'. To set aside such a doubt, Mahā vira says that the quartet of conjunction, etc. too is established as definitely existent in other objects'. The conjunction of Devadatta is denied in respect of his house but this conjunction does exist with respect to another object. For instance, Devadatta is in conjunction with a field or a road and even though the house is not in conjun with Devadatta it is in conjunction with furniture, etc.. Similarly inherence of the horn is not present in the ass, . but it is there in cows etc; genus too is not existent in the moon alone, because there is not another moon and a genus cannot be found in what is only one of its kind, but it is present in other objects, e. g. in jars, kine and so in the other cases too. Lordship of the three worlds is not present in Indrabhūti, but it is certainly there in tīrthaikaras and others. Keeping this in view it is said that what is negatived does exist, but thereby it is not intended to state that what is negated must exist there only. Indrabhūti cannot at this stage say that he denies the existence of the soul in the body alone, not elsewhere. This would make the task of Mahāvīra very easy. Indrabhūti had started by doubting the very existence of the soul. If now he accepts this, it will automatically be proved that the soul exists in the body. The soul cannot exist without a support, a locus and it is very easily seen that the body is this support for we have marks of its residence in the body, viz knowledge, etc.. One may feel inclined to say that it would be simpler to regard the body itself as the soul, but it is not so. Werę it so it would not be possible to explain statements like 'He is living', he is dead', 'he has fainted', as the body would be

Page #170

81
the same always; these statements refer to the relation of the body to the soul. If the two are related, the person is said to be living; if this relation is dissolved the person is said to be dead and if the soul becomes müdha, stupefied, the person is said to have fainted (1574).
The word 'jīva' has a meaning, that is to say it denotes a real thing because it is both etymologically derivable and pure (uncompounded). It is observed that a word, which being etymologically derivable is uncompounded, has a meaning, that is, denotes a real thing; e. g. the word 'ghata' (jar). The word 'jiva' also is such; therefore it has a denotation. That which has no denotation is also not etymologically derivable and uncompounded e. g. Ditha (uncompounded but not etymologically derivable) and khara-vişāņa (ass's horn)-(etymologically derivable but not uncompounded). The word 'jīva is not such; therefore, it has a meaning. The commentator has added the epithet 'being etymologically derivable' to ward off the fallacy of inconclusive reason, for 'Dittha' has no denotation even when it is an uncompounded word.
Of course, one may say that there is no objection to the word 'jīva' having a denotation. Even the scriptures say 'deha' eyāyam anuprayujyamāno dịstaḥ, yathaișa jīvaḥ, enam na hinasti'the word 'jīva' stands for deha, e.g., This is the jīva, he does not destroy it. Jīva is regarded by Mahāvīra and his followers as eternal. Hence if there is in this context a reference to the destruction of the jīva, jīva must necessarily mean the body. This is but a figurative usage based on their association. Mahāvīra's reply to this is that if we study the two sets of synonyms of 'jīva' and 'deha' (body) we find that they are entirely different. (The synonyms of jīvaḥ are jantuh, asumán, prāņi, sattvam etc. and those of dehaḥ are śarīram, vapuh, kāyaḥ; kalevaram, etc.). On the contrary we find them distinguished in expressions like "The soul has gone', ‘May this body be burnt (cremated)'. The soul has the qualities knowledge, etc., while the body is unconscious or inanimate. How possibly could they be identical? It has already been explained that the 11

Page #171

82
qualities knowledge etc. cannot belong to the body as it is corporeal and so on. (See 1559–1562). (1575-1576).
Mahāvīra then makes another appeal. His words should be regarded as truthful, like his statement regarding the doubt of Indrabhūti. He is free from the afflictions of likes, dislikes, fear and delusions, hence his statements are truthful and unexceptionable like those of an arbiter who has a thorough knowledge of the circumstances. If still Indrabbūti has any doubt regarding Mahā vira's omniscience, he can ask anything he does not know and be convinced by Mahāvīra's reply of the latter's omniscience (1577-1579).
Thus Indrabhūti should accept the existence of the soul with conscious activity (upayoga) as its characteristic as established by all the sources of knowledge — perception, inference, verbal testimony. There are two kinds or souls--samsărin (transmigratory) and others (i. e. siddha--perfect). The samsārīn souls are again trasa and sthāvara (1580).
Indrabhūti might still have a doubt as to the number of jīvas. According to the Vedāntins there is but one soul and the scriptures too, according to them, say so; e. g. (i) eka eva hi bhūtāmá bhūte bhūte pratisthitaḥ;
ekadhā bahudhā caiva dịśyate jalacandravat. - (Brahmabindu Up. 11). (The same is stationed in every being. Still it appears as one and also as many like the reflection of the moon
in water). (ii) yathả viếuddham ākāśam timiropapluto janah;
samkīrņam iva mátrābhir bhinnabhir abhimanyate. tathedam amalam brahma nirvikalpam avidyayā; kaluşatvam ivā pannam bhedarūpam prakāśate.
- (Bșhadāraṇyakabhāşyavārttika 3. 4. 43–44). [ The ether is (one and) pure, but a man inflicted with partial blindness regards it as variegated with different lines. Similarly the one pure Brahman devoid of differentiation

Page #172

appears due to nescience as if dirty and of the nature
of difference). (iii) urdhvamūlam adhaḥsakham aśvattham prāhur avyayam;
chandāmsi yasya parņāni yas tam veda sa vedavit-. (Bhagavad Gitā 15–1; Yogaśikhopanişad 6. 14). [The tree with its root upward and branches downward they regard as indestructible. Chandas (Vedas) are its
leaves. He, who knows it, is the true knower of the Veda]. (iv) purușa evedań gni* sarvam yad bhūtain yac ca bhāvyam
utāmộtatvasyeśāno yad annenātirohati. (Rgveda 10. 90. 2; Sāmaveda 619; Yajurveda 31. 2; Atharvaveda 19. 6. 4). (Whatever was and shall be, all this is Puruşa. He is the
lord of immortality; he grows by food). (v) yad ejati yad naijati yad dūre yad u antike;
yad antar asya sarvasya yat sarvasyāsya bāhyataḥ. (īsā Up. 5). (What trembles (moves) and what does not, what is far and what is near, what is within all this and outside all this is the Puruşa)].
Mahāvīra anticipating that Indrabhūti too may feel inclined to believe that there is only one soul, replies that it is not.so. If there were one soul, like ether, in all bodies, it would have the same characteristics in all of them. But this is not what we find; hence there cannot be one soul in all the bodies. Because of differences of characteristics it can be seen that the souls are many, like jars, etc.. If there were but one soul there would not be pleasure, pain, bondage, liberation, for one and the same soul cannot experience pleasure and pain or bondage and emancipation at the same time (1581-1582).
* The Yajurvedins pronounce Anusvära occurring in the middle of a pāda aş gum. This seems to have crept in here as ‘gni', as the latter is not found in any place where this verse occurs.

Page #173

84
Upayoga or conscious activity is the characteristic of the soul, but this upayoga is known to be different according to its different degrees of excellence and accordingly the souls too are infinite in number. If the soul were one, it would be all-pervading and if so there could not possibly be any pleasure or pain or bondage or emancipation as is true of the allpervading ether. It would not also be the doer, enjoyer, thinker or even transmigratory. That which is all this, is also not all-pervading, e. g. Devadatta. Hence the souls are infinite in number (1583-1584).
There are. infinite souls of the type of nāraka (hellish), tiryak (lower) etc. and they are all unhappy. As compared with these, few souls' are happy. Innumerable souls are in bondage and few have been emancipated. If they were all one this one soul would not be happy or liberated as it would be unhappy and in bondage to a far greater extent. If a man is diseased all over his body excepting a little finger would you call him healthy or happy? So also, if a man is nailed all over and only his finger is free would you call him free? This shows that the souls have to be accepted as many (1585).
The souls may be many, but can they not be ubiquitous or all-pervading as the Naiyāyikas and others regard them ? No. The characteristics of the soul are found only within the expanse of the body and so can exist only in the body.. It is of the same size as the body. Or to put it the other way round, the characteristics of the soul are not found outside the body, so it too cannot exist outside the body as a jar cannot exist in cloth. A thing is existent only where its qualities are found. Hence the soul resides in the body and is not ubiquitous. It being so, it stands to reason that the soul is the doer, enjoyer, etc. and that the souls can experience pleasure, pain, bondage, emancipation, transmigration (1586-1587).
? Mahāvīra interprets the Vedic passage Indrabhūti has in mind in the light of the latter's view. (See Gathā 1553). ‘Vijñānaghana evaitebhyah.... This passage, Indrabhūti believes,

Page #174

85
conveys the idea that the soul which is a mass of consciousness is but an epiphenomenon of the aggregate of the elements constituting the body, as wine-spirit is a result of the conglomeration of the constituents of wine. It is not that the soul is different from the body and comes from some other world and occupies it. There is nothing like the soul which is over and above the body and which is of the nature of jñāna (knowledge) and darśana (indeterminate intuition). The soul perishes when the aggregate of the elements is dissolved, and there is no after-death existence as most of the systems of philosophy would have it. We never have the knowledge regarding any one that he had a particular name in a previous birth or that he was formerly a denizen of hell or was a god. In short, there is no transmigration from one existence to another (1588–1590).
On the basis of such an interpretation Indrabhūti believes that the soul does not exist. But there are other Vedic passages where the existence of the soul is affirmed, e. g. 'na ha vai saśarīrasya....... Moreover only if a soul exists can it enjoy in another world e. g. heaven, the fruits of sacrifices which are enjoined in the Vedas. This explains why Indrabhūti was confounded and why he entertained a doubt regarding the existence of the soul. The fact is that he has not grasped the true meaning of the Vedic statements - which Mahāvīra now explains to him (1591-1592).
Vijñāna mean particular knowledge i. e. upayoga which is two-fold — jñāna (determinate knowlege) and darśana (indeterminate intuition). The soul is non-different from vijñāna and abounding in it, is referred to here by the word 'vijñā naghana', (a mass of consciousness); or it is so called because there is an aggregate of infinite vijñāna-modes in every pradeśa or space-point of the soul. 'Eva' stresses that this is the very nature of the soul; otherwise it would not be inherently conscious like the soul of the Nyāya-Vaišeşika and others who do not regard the soul to be of the nature of vijñāna. In 'bhūtebhyaḥ samutthaya', 'bhūta' signifies objects like

Page #175

86
jar, cloth etc.. Particular knowledge (vijñāna) arises from these that have assumed the form of knowables. These vijñānas (ghata vijñāna, etc - This is a jar) are different modes of the jīva and hence it can be said that the jiva, from this point of view arises out of the knowables, jar, etc. Similarly, when these objects pass out of view by being covered or by disappearing on some account or when owing to absent-mindedness or due to some such reason this particular knowledge does not arise or when we leaving one object concentrate on another, that particular knowledge can be said to bave perished on the destruction of that object in its capacity as a knowable, and hence that particular mode of the soul too can be said to have perished (1593- 1594).
But this should not be misunderstood to mean that the soul perishes utterly. When the upayoga is directed to an object other than the previous one, the previous particular knowledge perishes and another comes into existence. These particular cognitions are looked upon as particular modes of the soul. Hence the soul too can be said to perish with respect to the previous vijñāna and be born with respect to the other (present) vijñāna. But there is a continuity of vijñāna which should not be lost sight of and with respect to this the mass of consciousness, jiva is imperishable. The jiva thus has a threefold nature and in the Jaina view everything has this threefold nature of origination, destruction and persistence. The previous particular knowledge does not remain only because upayoga is divertei to another object; but this does not mean that the soul has perished, because it persists in the midst of this sort of origination and destruction.. 'Vijñànaghana' of the Veda stands for the soul (1595–1596).
Indrabhūti might still have the impression that knowledge is an attribute of the material elements, earth, etc., for it rises only when the material object is present as a knowable and perishes when it is removed. But it is not so. Even according to the Vedic tradition, consciousness can exist even in the absence of objects : 'astamite aditye Yājñavalkya candramasi

Page #176

87
astamite, śānte'gnau, śāntāyām vāci, kimjyotir ova'yam puruṣaḥ; ātmajyotir evayarn samrād iti hovāca'. (Bșhadāraṇyaka Up. 4. 3. 6)-“When the sun and moon set, O Yajña valkya! when fire and speech fade away, what will be the light of the puruşa ? 'O King, the self is its own light', said Yājñavalkya”. This means that the soul is self-luminous. This luminosity is the same as jñāna and this shows that this jñāna-nature of the soul is in no way dependent upon the existence or non-existence of material objects. Particular knowledge alone is dependent upon the presence or absence of objects in their capacity as knowables, as pointed out above. But consciousness in general is not so; it is not an attribute of the material objects. It exists even in their absence. In the state of emancipation it exists even when the material objects are not present. And in the case of a dead body, there is no knowledge even when the material objects are present. Hence knowledge is different from material objects just as jar and cloth are different as there is no direct relation of agreement with regard to presence and absence between them (1597-1599).
Indrabhūti does not know the meaning of these Vedic words -- in fact he does not know the meaning of any Vedic expression. In the case of every word he has the doubt whether it conveys just word or sound as that of the drum, etc., or the particular knowledge of an object expressible in words when the word (e. g. jar,) is uttered, or the knowledge of the difference of things - e. g. the word 'ghata' cxpresses an object jar which has a particular shape, etc., but not cloth, etc.; or it expresses genus (universal) or substance or action (e.g. he runs) or an attribute (white, etc.). Such a doubt is not proper. Much depends on what is intended to be conveyed. That it can be this alone and not another is not proper. If the statement is from the point of view of sva-para paryaya (i. e. from the point of view of own and alien modes) i. e. from the comprehensive point of view, everything is characterised by everything else and hence such a doubt as of Indrabhūti's should not rise at all, A thing can be omniform, and hence the word “jar' can express all the

Page #177

88
meanings substance, quality, action, etc.. for these are the different aspects of a thing. But from a particular point of view, there can be only one meaning; that is to say, from the svaparyaya point of view, everything is different from everything else. Jar' from the general point of view expresses all the meanings substance, quality, etc.; from the particular point of view it has only the conventional meaning viz. an object jar of a particular shape, etc.. This is how all words can be explained (1600-1603).
After this exposition, Indrabhuti was convinced of the greatness and veracity of Mahavira, and he became a monk along with his five hundred pupils (1604).
It may be noted that henceforth what is common to the discussions has not been repeated, only the new and distinctive points have been discussed. The reader is expected to supply the common arguments and maintain a compact argument in each discourse.

Page #178

2. AGNIBHŪTI REGARDING KARMAN
Hearing that Indrabhūti had become a monk and a follower of Mahāvīra, his brother Agnibhūti was very much perturbed. He decided to defeat Mahā vīra in debate and to bring back Indrabhūti. He could not understand how Indrabhūti, a master mind could be reduced to this state, when ordinarily people did not even dare to approach him for a proper logical discourse. It might have been that he was defeated by the tricks of logic viz. quibble, futile rejoinders, etc., or Mahāvīra might have exercised his sorcery and thus turned the minds of all--men, gods and all. No one knew what had actually taken place. Hence it was highly necessary that he should go to the spot and get first-hand information and expose Mahāvīra and his tricks. But as Agnibhūti approached Mahāvīra the latter addressed him as Agnibhūti Gautama. Agnibhūti was taken aback, but even then he argued to himself that it was not very surprising that Mahā vīra should know his name so well for he was a well known figure. If Mahā vīra could read his thoughts then alone there would be some ground for wonder and admiration (1606-1609).
'Agnibhūti', said Mahāvīra then, you have a doubt regarding the existence of karma, whether there is really anything like karma.' Agnibhūti had found conflicting statements in the Veda regarding karma and this had led him to doubt karma. On the one hand the Vedas say 'Purușa evedam sarvam ...' and it is also stated: 'Punyaḥ punyena karmaņā, pā paḥ pāpena karmaņā' (Brhadaranyaka Up. 4. 4. 5) ('He becomes meritorious by meritorious action, sinful by sinful action'). (See Gathās 1581, 1643). Moreover, like Indrabhūti in the case of the jīva, Agnibhūti believes that karma cannot be regarded as real because it does not fall within the scope of the means of knowledge. 12

Page #179

90
Mahavira now explains to Agnibhuti that the latter has not grasped the meaning of the words of the Veda and that karma is not beyond the reach of knowledge. It is known to Mahavira by direct perception and even Agnibhuti could infer its existence from its fruit, viz. the experience of pleasure and pain. It should not be argued of course that if Mahavira can perceive it directly, all must be in a position to do so if it is at all a real entity; there are many things in the world-lion, etc.--which have been perceived by only a few and yet no one has the slightest doubt regarding their existence. Mahavira's word has to be relied upon, for we have the evidence of Mahāvīra knowing immediately Agnibhuti's doubt. As pointed out earlier there cannot be any doubt as regards Mahavira's omniscience. Moreover even though atoms are imperceptible, we admit their perception in their form as effects, because we perceive their effects viz. jar, etc.. Similarly karma itself being supersensuous may not be known directly by our ordinary perception, but we do have the perception of it in the form of its effects-pleasure, pain (1610-1611).
The inference can be stated thus: The cause of pleasure and pain exists; because they are effects, as seed is the cause of a sprout. Karma is this cause. It may be argued that the cause of pleasure can be a visible one-garland, sandal-wood, etc.--and of pain snake's poison, thorn, etc.; as long as a visible cause can be traced it is not proper to imagine an invisible one. This reasoning involves a fallacy. Even when the same means or causes are present for pleasure or for pain, we find that there are different degrees of them; and what is still more significant what yields pleasure to one may be painful to another. To take an illustration, a garland makes a man honoured by it happy, but it causes inconvenience or even pain to a dog which would like to get rid of it. This difference in the case of pleasure and pain even when the means are the same can be explained only by inferring an unseen cause; karma is this unseen cause (1612-1613).
Other arguments too may be adduced. The body of a child just born must be preceded by another body, because it is

Page #180

91
possessed of sense-organs or pleasure and pain or the vital breath or winking, life, etc., like the youthful body which is preceded by another body (child's body). This body preceding the child's body is the karmic body. The body of the previous life or existence cannot be regarded as the cause of the child's body, because in the intermediate stage the jiya (soul) has lost its association with this body and is moving in the direction of the place where it is to be re-born. Thus, in this condition the soul is free from the gross body and hence the gross body of the former life cannot be regarded as the cause of the child's body. Nor can the soul move to the new place in a bodiless state as there would then be nothing to decide which womb the soul should have access to. Thus the soul must have the karmic body which would determine the place of the new birth as also be the cause of the new gross body. It cannot be argued that svabhāva (nature) would be the deciding factor. This will be discussed later. The scripture also says that after death the soul takes nourishment through activity of the karmic body (joeņa kammaenam āhā rei añantaram jīvo-- Sūtrakřtănga Nir. 177) (1614). .
Moreover, it is universally admitted that the actions of animate beings always bear fruit, e. g. agriculture. Hence acts of charity, etc. must have a fruit and karma is this fruit. It is observed that at times the activities of animate beings, viz agriculture and others, do not yield fruit; but this does not go against the universal rule as this happens on account of lack of right knowledge or because the means are insufficient or defective. Similarly, if the full complement of operative causes is not there, as for instance, if charity is not accompanied by purity of heart, etc., it too may be fruitless. Another argument can be anticipated here. As long as we can find a perceptible fruit or result we should not assume an imperceptible one. Agriculture, to take the same instance, has a tangible fruit-crop. So it is not reasonable to regard karma as the fruit of acts of charity, etc., when tranquillity of mind or any such fruit can be shown to result from them. But this is not so. Tranquillity of mind too

Page #181

92
is an act and it too, therefore, must have a fruit. Karma is this fruit, because pleasure or pain, the effect of this karma is experienced later on. There is no conflict in the two statements in the former of which acts of charity, etc. were referred to as the cause of karma and the latter one in which tranquillity of mind is regarded as such. Tranquillity of mind is the cause of karma, but acts of charity, etc. are the cause even of tranquillity of mind. Being the cause of the cause, acts of charity, etc., are regarded figuratively as the cause of karma (1615–1616).
Still someone may urge that it is not necessary to go into all these confounding details. Our common sense tells us that we attain tranquillity of mind by acts of charity and then feel more inclined to perform acts of charity which yield greater tranquillity and so on. It is not at all necessary to imagine an intangible fruit. But this is incorrect reasoning. Acts of charity, etc. are the cause of tranquillity of mind, as lump of clay is of a jar. What is the cause of a thing can never be the effect of that very thing. How is it possible to think of acts of charity, etc. as effects of tranquillity of mind ? (1617).
Even now the opponent may not be convinced as it is still possible to point out a tangible fruit. Acts of charity etc. may be said to be performed for fame which is its result or fruit. Why should we posit an unseen fruit? If people slaughter a beast, it is for the meat (flesh) and not for the sin which
is supposed to accrue from it. People are mostly motivated by - the tangible fruit in view and not even an infinitesimal part of the activity of the world is seen to have an unseen or intangible fruit in view (1618–1619).
The answer to this is that activities with a tangible fruit do have an unseen fruit also. Slaughter, agriculture etc. may lead to some visible gain, but sin too accrues to the performer. Otherwise if, as has been stated, people mostly act with a tangible fruit in view and if these actions of theirs have no

Page #182

93
unseen fruit at all, we would not be able to explain the very existence of innumerable worldly beings or transmigratory souls. The facts is that even while performing the activities of agriculture, etc. and attaining its fruit, crop. etc., they bind unto themselves the unseen fruit in the form of sin even though it was not intended by them and thus bound down they continue their transmigratory course. The very few performers of acts of charity, etc. obtain an unseen fruit of the nature of dharma or merit and thus are gradually liberated. It can be argued that those who perform good activities like acts of cbarity, etc. with an unseen fruit of the nature of dharma may attain it; no one should have any objection to this. But those who go in for activities like agriculture, slaughter etc. without intending to attain the unseen fruit of the nature of adharma, should have nothing to do with it. But this is not true. If the causal apparatus is perfect the fruit is bound to follow whether one intends it or not. If a farmer while sowing barley drops unknowingly seeds of other grain, if there is enough supply of water and there are also such other factors, these seeds will invariably sprout forth and grow even though the cultivator himself did not intend that they should. Similarly when a person indulges in cultivation, slaughter, etc. when the full complement of operative causes is present, the unseen fruit of the nature of adharma does invariably arise irrespective of the doer's intention. A truly wise person has no eye on the fruit of meritorious activities like charity, etc. and yet the fruit of the nature of dharma does arise. Thus all activities good or bad must have an unseen fruit-merit or demerit-as the existence of an infinite number of transmigratory souls could not be otherwise explained (1620).
Further, if those who perform activities like cultivation, slaughter, etc. only for the purpose of attaining a tangible fruit, do not attain along with it the unseen fruit (karma) also, they would not have the bondage of karma and thus would be liberated immediately on their death without any effort on their part. On the other hand, for those who perform good

Page #183

94
activities with an unseen fruit in view there would be endless transmigration as they would incur karma by the performance of these activities, experience the fruition of karma in another birth, inspired by it again indulge in activities like charity, etc., again incur karma and so on; thus transmigration would be an endless affair for them and their existence would be full of pain and suffering. Even to this we should have no objection; but if this were true, in the absence of the accumulation of the unseen fruit of activities like cultivation, etc., there should not have been found anyone performing these activities and there should not have been found anyone experiencing the fruition of demerit or sin; while there should have been found only those who indulge in good activities like charity and those who enjoy the fruit of merit. But this is not what we find (1621).
What we find in the world is the reverse of this. And yet it may be noted that those who perform (sinful) activities like cultivation, etc. do not have the unseen fruit of the nature of adharma (demerit) in view. This shows that all action good or bad has an unseen fruit accordingly good or bad, of the nature of dharma or adharma. There are very many people in the world who perform sinful activities and very few who perform meritorious acts of charity, etc.. We may note that those who perform sinful activities like cultivation, etc. have only the tangible fruit in view and yet they do attain the unseen fruit which it was not their intention to obtain. Thus the unseen fruit follows invariably in the wake of an act of a sentient being. It may, further, be noted that the seen or the tangible fruit does not result invariably on the performance of an activity; all perform the same activity, yet some attain the tangible fruit-crop, wealth, etc., of cultivation, trade, etc., while others do not. The complement of operative causes being the same, this difference in the result can be explained only on the basis of some unseen cause and karma is that cause. This has been explained earlier (Gatha 1613). Karma is an effect and activity the cause; hence karma is essentially different from the cause (1622-1624).

Page #184

95
If from the existence of bodies, etc., the existence of their cause, viz. karma is established, it follows, someone might feel inclined to say, that like the effect, body, the cause, karma too must be corporeal. Mahāvīra says that in that case his task becomes very easy for then the opponent would be accepting what be usually has to take great pains to prove. It stands to reason that karma should be corporeal, for its effect (body, etc.) is corporeal, as in the case of paramāņus or atoms, the cause of the corporeal jar. If the effect is incorporeal, the cause also is such, e.g. the soul which is the cause of knowledge. It may be noted that by 'cause' is meant the material or the constituent cause (samavāyi-karana); hence it cannot be argued that pleasure and pain are effects of karma and they being incorporeal it follows that karma too is incorporeal. It is the soul that is the samavāyi-kā laņa and it is incorporeal as pleasure and pain are; while karma, like the other factors--food, drink etc. - is but the instrumental cause. It can be seen that there is no difficulty whatsoever in accepting the rule that like causes (samavāyi-kārana) produce like effects (1625). There are many other inferences demonstrating the corporeal nature of karma:A few are given by way of illustration:
(i) Karma is corporeal, because in relation to it there is the
experience of pleasure, etc.. That in relation to which there is the experience of pleasure, etc., is observed to be corporeal, e. g. edible food. And in relation to what is non-corporeal, there is no experience of pleasure, etc.; e. g. in relation to ether there is no such experience. And pleasure, etc. is experienced in relation to karma,
Therefore karma is corporeal. (ii) That in relation to which there is the rise of feeling
is observed to be corporeal; e. g. fire. And there is the rise of feeling in relation to karma, Therefore karma is corporeal.

Page #185

96
(iii) Karma is corporeal, because while being distinct from the
soul and its qualities (knowledge, etc.) it gains strength on account of such external factors as garland, sandal-wood, etc., which become the cause of perversity of outlook, like a jar, which becomes strong by the application of oil, etc..
(iv) Karma is corporeal, because being distinct from the soul, etc.,
it undergoes modification, like milk.
It should not be argued that the reason because it undergoes modification is asiddha (unreal, inadmissible) because it does undergo modification as that whose effect is subject to modification must itself be such; for instance,curds can be modified as sour milk, and hence it can be ascertained that the cause of curds, viz. milk too is subject to modification (1626–1628).
Agnibhūti again raises a point. As there are a number of transformations of clouds, etc. and we are not required to assume karma as the deciding factor, similarly even without karma the transmigratory souls can experience different grades of pleasure, pain, etc. and we need not assume karma to be the cause of these (1629).
Mabăvira says it is really surprising that Agnibhūti while prepared to accept variety in respect of such things as shapes and forms of clouds, etc., which are external and hence not influenced by the soul, is reluctant to do so in the case of karma which is associated with the souls. There is a greater reason to accept variety in the latter case just as we willingly admit a greater variety in designs and imagery undertaken by an artist than in the case of the clouds. The jīvas bind unto themselves karma which clings to them and there is no reason why this karma should not have variety in its transformations as producing different degrees of pleasure and pain (1630-1631).
Agnibhūti is still not convinced. Mabā vīra accepts variety in karma and through that in the degrees of pleasure and pain. Why can he not admit that just as there is variety in the transformations of the clouds, etc. naturally, without a cause,

Page #186

97
so the body also can have variety of appearance, of conditions of pleasure and pain and so on without a cause, just naturally? Why does he want karma to explain these latter ? Mahāvīra calmly argues that karma too is body (kārmaņa-śarīra). If Agnibhūti admits variety in the body, he ought to admit it in the karmic body too which also is material - only it is supersensuous subtle and internal because it clings closely to the individual soul. So if variety be accepted of the gross body on the ground of its similarity to clouds, etc., it should be accepted of the karma-body too (1632).
Agnibhūti, sceptical as he is, argues that he personally does not admit even the reality of the karmic body which is not perceived, much less variety in it and he fails to see what is lost by not accepting it. Mahāvīra's reply is that on death a soul has no connection whatsoever with the gross body. If the subtle karmic body were not there, the soul would not be associated with a body again, because there would be no cause or deciding factor for doing so. If this were to happen all would be emancipated; there would be an end to transmigration for all without any effort (1633).
There would be the contingency of the emancipation of the entire assemblage of souls. If it were to be argued that even the bodiless can transmigrate, then all would be undergoing metem psychosis without any cause and even the siddha (perfect
oul) would be thrown without a cause into the whirl of transmigration and then no one would have faith in the fact of emancipation (1634).
Agnibhūti now feels inclined to admit the reality of karma, but he cannot understand how corporeal karma can be related-by conjunction (samyoga) or by relation of inherence (samayāya) to the soul which is incorporeal. Mahā vira adduces instances to show that there is no difficulty so far as this is concerned. The corporeal jar is related by conjunction to the sky and there is the relation of inherence of the corporeal finger to its action — movement, which is incorporeal (1635).
13

Page #187

98
Or, as the external gross body is seen to be connected with the soul so the soul inust be admitted to be conjoined with the karmic body when it passes from one life to another, for
therwise there would not be the taking of another body as pointed out earlier. If it is said that the external body is connected with the jiva on account of dharma (merit, good), and adharma (demerit, sin, evil), then are these latter corporeal or incorporeal ? If they be corporeal, how could they be related to the incorporeal soul ? If they be related somehow, then karma too could be so related, If they are incorporeal, even then it will have to be shown how they can be related to the external gross corporeal body. If they are not related to the body, they will not be instrumental in bringing about the activity of the body. And if the relation of the incorporeal dharma, adharma to the corporeal body be admitted, there should be no difficulty in accepting the relation of the soul and karma (1636).
Agnibhūti objects as to how karma even though related to the incorporeal soul can influence it — favourably or unfavourably by according pleasure or pain to it. The sky though related to fire, is not influenced by it. Mahāvīra explains that there is no such rule that a corporeal thing cannot influence favourably or otherwise an incorporeal thing. Consciousness, memory, etc., the attributes of the soul though incorporeal are influenced by corporeal things--unfavourably by the consumption of wine, poison, etc. and favourably by that of milk. ghee, etc. So the soul though incorporeal can be influenced by the corporeal karma (1637).
Mahāyira has, till now, merely set at nought Agnibhūti's misconception that a corporeal thing cannot influence something incorporeal. But in his view the soul in the transmigratory condition is not utterly incorporeal; it is also in a way corporeal. As iron coming into contact with fire assumes the nature of fire, so the soul coming into connection with the beginningless karma comes to be of the nature of the modification

Page #188

99
of karma. Thus it, being in a way non-different from karma, can be influenced favourably or otherwise by karma. The sky is not influenced by the corporeal fire, etc., because it is itself incorporeal and insentient. But the transmigratory soul is sentient and hence it stands to reason that it should be influenced by karma (1638).
The stream of karma, again, is beginningless because body and karma are related as cause-effect. A seed produces a sprout and this in its turn produces a seed and so on. Similarly, the body leads to karma which leads again to the acceptance of a body and so on. There is always a beginningless stream of things related to each other as cause-effect (1639).
Agnibhūtí has referred to certain Vedic statements which seem to go against the acceptance of karma. But the very truth of the Vedic statements rests on the acceptance of karma. There are Vedic injunctions regarding the performance of agnihotra, etc. for a person desirous of heaven. By performing agnihotra, an apūrva (unseen)-karma is produced in the soul which leads to heaven in a future life. On death the soul loses its association with the body; if karma were not admitted, there would be no determining factor as regards the soul's journey to heaven. Hence it cannot be argued that the Vedas do not admit the reality of karma. Moreover, even according to popular belief, heaven is regarded as the fruit of good actions like acts of charity, etc., which also would not be possible if karma were not accepted (1640)
Agnibhūti may argue that if the pure soul or God or Avyakta (Unmanifest Matter), Time, or Destiny, Chance were regarded as the cause of the variety and manifoldness of body, etc., it would not be necessary to admit karma (1641).
But there is no consistency in this. If these be not helped by karma, they would not be able to give rise to the body, etc., for no effect is possible without the necessary complement of causal conditions. The potter cannot make a jar without the staff or the wheel. No apparatus other than karma would be

Page #189

100
available, because the soul in the womb would not be associated with karma, and without karma it would not be able to take unto itself the constituents of the body, viz. blood, etc. and thus would not be able to create the body. Another argument is that the soul devoid of karma cannot create the body, etc. as it is motionless; what is motionless, e.g. the ether, cannot create the body, etc.. The soul devoid of karma is motionless and hence it cannot create the body, etc.. Other reasons may be adduced, viz. - The soul devoid of karma cannot create the body, etc. because it is incorporeal or bodiless or inactive or ubiquitous (omnipresent), etc. like ether, or because it is one, like the unit atom. Hence the existence of karma has to be admitted. It cannot also be argued that God with a body creates all effects like the body, etc. for there would be the same difficulties as regards God's body. Does God create His own body, being devoid of karma ? This is not possible, for no effect cani be created without the necessary complement of causal conditions. If it is argued that another God creates His body, has this second God a body or not? If He is bodiless, He cannot create because He lacks the necessary causal apparatus. If He has a body, again he could not have created it if he were devoid of karma. Thus another God would have to be imagined and so on. All this is unwanted. Therefore it should be acceptable that not God, but jiva along with karma is the creator of the body. etc.. If God created body, etc. without a purpose in view, He would be as good as mad; and if he had a purpose, He would be bereft of Godhood. He who is eternally pure cannot entertain the desire to create the body, etc., as he is free from attachment und aversion. There can be no desire without these and no construction without desire. Hence God cannot be the creator of the manifoldness and variety of hody, etc. Thus, only the jiva associated with karma can be the creator of these. Thus the existence of karma is established. This also disproves the existence of Visņu, Brahmă, etc. (1642).
Agnibhuti might still be in favour of regarding svabhāva or nature as the cause of all manifoldness of body, etc., because

Page #190

101
of the Vedic statements regarding the mass of consciousness', etc. (see Gātbās 1553, 1588, 1592–94, 1597). Some have said, "The origination of things is not regarded as dependent upon any cause by the Svabhāvavādins. They do not regard even ‘sva' as cause. Who is responsible for the diversity of the tenderness of the lotus and the pricking of the thorn ? We cannot also account for the variegated colours of the feathers of the peacock and the whiteness of the moonlight. Where there is the element of chance, all that is without any cause; e. g. sharpness of thorns and these pleasures and pains”. [ Sarvahetunirāśamsam bhāvānāín janma varnyate;
Svabhāvavadibhis te hi náhuḥ svam api kāraṇam. 1, räjiya-kantakādinām vaicitryam kah karoti hi; mayūracandrikädir vā vicitrah kena nirmitaḥ. 2 kādācitkami yad atrasti niḥseşam tad ahetukam;
yathả kanţaka-taikṣnyādi yathā caite sukhádayaḥ. 3] Agnibhūti admitting this inight say that the variety and manifoldness in the world in due not to karma, but to svabhāva. Lord Mahāvīra inquires if Agnibhūti has a clear idea regarding this svabhāva. Is it a particular thing or is it non-causality or the attribute of a thing? It is not a particular thing for it does not fall within the scope of any of the means of valid knowledge (pramāņa). If in spite of this it is admitted, there is no reason why karma should not be admitted even if, as Agnibhūti has said, it does not fall within the scope of any of the pramāņas. Morever if this svabhāva, a particular thing is regarded as corporeal, it is only another name for ‘karma'. If it is incorporeal, it cannot be the creator of anything as it is incorporeal and has no complement of causal conditions, just as ether cannot create anything. And it does not stand to reason that the effect, the corporeal body, etc., should have an incorporeal cause. If syabhāva means noncausality, it would amount to saying that body, etc. originate without a cause. And if this is true, there is no reason why all bodies should not originate all together. Moreover this means

Page #191

102
that body, etc. originate without a cause, just by chance. But this is not consistent for whatever originates without a cause or by chance has no particular shape, e. g. transformations of clouds, etc.. Body, etc. have a beginning and a particular shape; hence their origination cannot be just accidental, but must be brought about by karma. It follows that body, etc. having a particular shape have been created by a creator with his full causal apparatus. In the condition when it is in the womb, the jiva has no causal complement other than karma. Hence all the manifoldness and variety in the world is not there just by chance, but is due to karma.
If svabhava is conceived as the attribute of a thing even then if it be an attribute of the soul as consciousness is, it could not be the cause of the body, etc. as it would be incorporeal. If it be regarded as an attribute of a corporeal thing, this would be equivalent to accepting what was intended to be established, as karma too is accepted by Mahavira as a particular mode of matter (pudgalastikaya-paryaya-viseṣa).
There is a Vedic statement: puruşa eveḍam sarvam yad bhutam yac ca bhavyam, utamṛtatvasyeśāno yad annenätirohati; yad ejati yad naijati yad dūre yad u antike yad antar asya sarvasya yat sarvasyasya bahyatah. (See Gathā 1580). This is interpreted by Agnibhuti to mean that the purusa (soul) alone exists. ['Eva' is taken to negate the existence of karma, prakṛti (matter), God, etc.]. Whatever is past (i. e. samsara from the point of view of the emancipated) and what is future (i. e. emancipation from the point of view of the bound samsarin), he who is the lord of immortality (emancipation), who grows by food, what moves (animals, etc.) and what does not (mountains, etc.), what is far (Meru, etc.) and also what is near and what is within the sentient and the insentient and what is without these, all this is purusa alone. Agnibhuti thus believes that according to the Veda, the existence of nothing other than the puruşa in admitted, which means that the existence of karma, etc. is negated. Moreover it has been said in the Veda Vijnanaghana evaitebhyaḥ bhütebhyaḥ........' (see Gathā 1553); here also, in the view of

Page #192

103
Agnibhūti, the existence of karma, etc. which are other than consciousness is rejected. But this interpretation of the Vedic statements is not correct. Here is their true significance. Statements like 'Purusa evedam sarvam' are commendatory. They preach the doctrine of non-duality just for the removal of pride based on caste, etc. by praising the puruşa; they propound non-duality, but are not meant to negate the existence of everything other than the puruşa. Their purport is that all souls are alike and there should be no notion of inequality leading to a false unjustified pride of caste, etc.. Some Vedic statements are meant to lay down injunctions we could not have got elsewhere; they are novel. Other statements have arthavāda in view i. e. are commendatory or denunciatory and still others merely repeat what is already known. 'One who desires heaven should perform the Agnihotra' is a vidhi — an injunction. Arthavāda can be by way of praise or censure. It either recommends something by praising it or dissuades us from pursuing it by censuring it. In 'Puruşa evedam sarvam' and such other statements, e. g. 'Sa sarvavid yasyaiņa mahimā bhuvi divye brahmapure hy esa vyomni ātmā supratisthitas tam aksa vedayate yas tu sarvajñaḥ sarvavit sarvam evāviveģetio,* and ‘Ekayā pūrņayā hutyā sarvān kāmān avāpnoti’ (by one full sacrifice, one attains all one's desires - desired objects - Taittiriya Brāhmaņa 3. 8. 10.5), arthavāda by way of praise is pre-eminent. This latter sentence cannot be taken as a vidhi, because if it were literally true all injunctions regarding the performance of agnihotra, etc. would become useless. Moreover 'Eşaḥ vaḥ prathamaḥ yajño yo’gniştomaḥ, yo'nenāniștvā'
*This text is found with a slight difference in two different upanişads —a) yaḥ sarvajñaḥ sarvavid yasyaişa mahimă bhuvi; divye brahmapure hy eșa vyomny ātmā pratisthitaḥ. — Mundaka 2. 2. 7. He who is omniscient and all-knower, whose glory that is such is spread on the earth and in the divine world of Brahman, that soul is established in the sky or heaven. (b) tad akşaram vedayate yas tu somya sa sarvajñaḥ sarvam evāviveģeti, – Praśnopanişat 4-10,

Page #193

104
nyena yajate sa gartam abhyapatat' – Tándya-mahābrāhmaṇa 16. 1. 2. — Agniștoma is the first sacrifice; he who without performing this sacrifice performs another, falls into a pit -- This statement is meant to show that it is not proper to perform the animal sacrifice, etc. before performing Agnistoma and this it does by arthavāda of the type of censure. Dvādaśa māsāḥ samvatsaraḥ (Twelve months are a year — Taitt. Br. 1. 1. 4), Agnir uşnaḥ (fire is bot - Taitt. Br. 1. 1. 4), Agnir himasya bhesajam (fire is the antidote for cold or frost — Taitt. Br. 1. 1. 4)—such sentences merely repeat what is already well known. Hence all the Vedic statements should not be interpreted in the same way. Thus 'Purușa evedam sarvam' is by way of praise. Similarly 'Vijñā naghana evaitebhyah...' means that the puruşa, the mass of consciousness is different from the elements. And it has already been proved that this puruşa. (soul) is the creator and body, etc. are the effects. Now where there is the relation of creator, created, the instrument or the means must be present; e. g. blacksmith is the agent or creator, ball of iron is the thing created and pincers (saidamsa) are the instrument. In the creation of the body, etc., by the ātman, there must be an instrument and karma is that instrument. Moreover there are Vedic statements which directly establish the existence of karma, viz. Punyaḥ punyena karmaņā, pāpaḥ pāpena karmaņā (see Gathā 1611). Thus karma is established by the testimony of the scriptures also (1643).
Mahāvīra thus dispelled the doubt of Agnibhūti regarding karma, and the latter became a Jaina monk along with his five hundred followers (1644).

Page #194

3. VĂYUBHUTI REGARDING BODY-SOUL
Hearing that Indrabhūti and Agnibhuti had become monks, a third Vayubhūti came to have great faith in, and respect for, Mahāvīra. He very humbly decided to approach Mahāvīra respectfully and place his difficulties before him. But so overawed was he by Mahāvīra's personality and extra-ordinary knowledge that he could not utter a word as he stood before him, even as the latter accosted him by his name and gotra as Váyubhūti Gautama. Mahāvīra realising this said, “You have a doubt as to the identity of the soul and yet you do not ask me. 'Is the soul identical with the body or is it different from it ?'--This is your problem. You do not understand the meaning of the texts and hence you are confounded” (1645-1649).
Before discussing the meaning of the words of the Veda, Mahāvīra explains in very clear words Väyubhūti's own difficulty to him. Väyubhūti believes that the soul is an epi-phenomenon resulting from the aggregate of the four elements – Earth, Water, Fire, Air. The wine-spirit is not found in the constituents of wine severally, but being non-existent previously it comes into existence when there is a conglomeration of them; similarly consciousness is not found in the elements severally, but emerges when these elements form an aggregate. Wine-spirit remains in existence for some time and then on the means of its destruction being present it perishes. So also consciousness not existent in the elements severally, comes into existence in the aggregate, remains for some time and then disappears wben this conglomeration is disturbed. Thus consciousness is an attribute of the aggregate of the elements. There is the relation of identity between the attribute and what possesses it for this relation of attribute-substance cannot exist between things that are different. Hence Väyubhūti is inclined to regard the body and soul as identical. But statements like 'Na ha vai sasarīrasya....'
14

Page #195

106
establish that the soul is distinct from the body. This is why Vāyubhūti cannot come to a conclusion whether the soul is identical with the body or distinct from it (1650-1651).
Mahāvīra explains that if consciousness were absolutely non-existent in the constituent elements severally, it would not emerge at all in the aggregate of these; as oil not being present in the particles of sand does not emerge even when they form an aggregate (1652).
The wine-spirit or the power to intoxicate, etc. is certainly present to some extent in the constituents of wine severally. To take but a few illustrations : The dhātaki flowers by themselves can cause a reeling sensation; molasses, grapes, sugar-cane juice are satisfying and water quenches thirst and so on. Similarly only if consciousness were present to some extent - however slight - in Earth, etc. could it become full and distinct on their forming an aggregate (1653).
Moreover, if the wine-spirit were utterly non-existent in the constituents of wine, it would not be necessary for us to seek these very constituents for obtaining it or for forming their aggregate. One desirous of wine need not then necessarily resort to these but should be able to achieve his aim by means of other constituents--ash, stones, cowdung, etc. all together resulting in wine. But this is not what we find. Hence winespirit is present in each and every constituent of wine (1654).
If it is argued on the basis of this that consciousness exists to some extent in each one of the elements – Earth, etc., and it is this that becomes distinct when the elements are brought together, the reply is that this reasoning is fallacious, for consciousness is not observed in the aggregate of the elements. The aggregate called body comprises not only the elements but also the soul and if conciousness exists in this aggregate, it is not on account of the conglomeration of the elements but because it is an attribute of the soul. If it were due to the conglomeration of the elements it should exist in a dead body also. If it be argued that consciousness is not perceived in a dead body owing to the non-existence of Air, this argument

Page #196

107
could be rebuffed by pointing out that consciousness does not reappear even when Air is pumped in. Similarly it does not reappear even when Fire (Heat) is introduced. If it is urged that consciousness is not observed in a dead body on account of the absence of a special type of Fire, Air, then this is but another name for the soul (1655).
Vāyubhūti feels that Mahāvīra's statement that consciousness does not pertain to the aggregate of elements is one that contradicts direct perception as it is there that it is actually perceived. You cannot deny the jar its colour. Mahā vīra says it is not so as there is an inference that sets aside this sense-perception. We see green grass where there is an aggregate of Earth and Water, but this does not inean that it is a product of the aggregate of these; we have an inference that establishes the existence of grass-seeds -- the material cause of grass. Similarly in the present context there is an inference establishing the existence of atman of which consciousness is an attribute and which is distinct from the elements. In fact, it is Váyubhūti's stand that consciousness exists in each element because it exists in their aggregate that contradicts direct perception as consciousness is not perceived in any of the elements (1656).
The inference establishing the existence of the soul as distinct from the elements or sense-organs is as follows :Consciousness belongs to something distinct from the elements or sense-organs (Thesis), because it remembers what has been cognised earlier by the elements or sense-organs (Reason); as consciousness is an attribute of Devadatta who remembers what has been cognised earlier through five windows (Example). The purport is that if there is an individual thing that remembers all that has been cognised by many it must be distinct from them. If it be not distinct but identical, it being one could not remember what was cognised by many, as a mental cognition cognising sound, etc. can cognise that alone. Moreover, if Vayubhūti's argument were to be pursued, it would end with Devadatta's being identical with the five windows. If

Page #197

108
Väyubhūti rejoins that if the sense-organs theniselves can cognise, nothing other than these need be established,-his position would not be justified, for it will presently be shown that there is no cognition at times even when the sense-organs are operating (1657).
That there is a soul distinct from the sense organs can also be seen from the fact that even when the sense-organs stop operating — e.g. in the condition of blindness, deafness etc. - there is remembrance of what was cognised earlier by the sense-organs; or the fact that even when the sense-organs are operating, there is no cognition --- in the condition of absentmindedness or when the attention is directed elsewhere. If the sense-organs were the only cognisers, this would never happen as long as they were in a perfect condition and the objects were amenable to perception. If follows, therefore, that knowledge belongs ultimately to something distinct from the sense-organs as it belongs to Devadatta who sees different objects through the five windows. This Deyadatta can remember the things cognised earlier through them even when they are shut; and if he is absent-minded, will not perceive anything even when they are open (1658).
Other inferences may be adduced: (i) Soul (jīya) exists over and above the sense-organs, because cognising through one, it reacts to the objects with the help of another. X sees a man eating tamarind and his mouth (organ of taste) starts watering. Or, a man sees a jar through one window and takes it through another and is thus clearly distinct from both the windows. The soul grasps with the hands what has been perceived with the eyes (organ of sight) and is thus distinct from the hands and the eyes (1659).
(ii) The soul is distinct from the sense-organs because it can remember the objects individually cognised by the senseorgans; as a man having the knowledge of all the five knowablestouch, taste, smell, colour, sound - is different from the five men who by their wish cognise one each. The purport is that that which cognises all that has been cognised by many is distinct

Page #198

109
from them. Vāyubhūti might object that from the example given of five men who cognise colour, etc., it could be established that the sense-organs are the cogniser 3 of colour, etc.; but this is not what is desired by Mahāvīra who regards the sense-organs not as cognisers but only as instrumental in bringing about the cognition. But Mahāvīra by the qualification by their wish' in the case of men has given the hint that the two cases are not to be treated as alike in all respects inasmuch as the sense-organs can have no wish and hence cannot be looked upon as cognisers, unless it be but figuratively. Till now Mahāvīra has resorted to reasoning to establish the existence of the soul; but he would like to make it clear to Vāyubhūti that Atman is supersensuous and hence we should not rely on reason alone. It has been said: 'For the knowledge of the existence of supersensuous things, agama (verbal testimony or scripture) and upa patti (reasoning) are perfect means of valid knowledge. (Agamaś copapattiś ca sampūrņam dịștikāraṇam; atindriyāņām arthánām sadbhāvapratipattaye) (1660).
(iii) Child's knowledge must be preceded by another knowledge because it is of the nature of knowledge. Whatever knowledge there is is known to be preceded by another knowledge, as a youth's knowledge is preceded by his knowledge as a child; that knowledge which precedes a child's knowledge is distinct from the body, as even when the previous bo-ly is given up, it remains as the cause of this-worldly knowledge (or of the knowledge during this life); moreover, it is an attribute and hence requires a substratum; ātman is this substratum. Thus, the atman (soul) is distinct from the body. Väyubhūti can object that the reason (betu) 'because it is knowledge' is the same as the thesis and hence the hetu (reason) is asiddha (inadmissible), because the thesis has not itself been established. But this does not stand to reason. Knowledge in general is given as the h (probans, reason) and particular knowledge (child's knowledge) is the subject (pakşa) of the thesis and hence there is no reason why the hetu should be looked upon as fallacious. 'Word (or sound) consisting of letters is non-eternal because it is sound,

Page #199

110
like the sound of thunder- This is accepted as a correct inference. If so, our inference too is valid. If the general has been established it is possible to demonstrate the particular (not yet established) on the basis of that. The hetu would be asiddha in an inference of the type : Sound is non-eternal, because it is of the nature of sound – where sound (the subject) and sound (the hetu) are both general (1661).
(iv) Child's desire for breast-feeding must be preceded by another desire, because it is of the nature of experience, as our present desire is preceded by another .... or because it is of the nature of desire*, just like our present desire. Now this desire preceding the child's first desire for breast-feeding must be distinct from the body, for even when the previous body perishes, it persists and becomes the cause of the child's first desire for breast-feeding in the next life. Desire is an attribute (knowledge-attribute) and therefore requires a substratum. The persisting soul alone can be regarded as the substratum of this desire. The reason (hetu) “because it is of the nature of desire may perhaps be looked upon as 'inconclusive on the ground that the desire for emancipation is not preceded by a desire for emancipation and yet it is desire all the same and that this stultifies the universal rule that desire should be preceded by another desire. But note should be taken here of the fact that the universal rule does not insist that a particular desire should be preceded by a desire of the same type. What is meant is that it should be preceded by desire in general --- some desire, whether it be of the same type or another. Desire for emancipation, it will be admitted, is preceded by some sort of desire and if so the reason given above is not-inconclusive (avyabhicări) (1662)
(v) Child's body must be preceded by another body, because it is possessed of sense-organs, etc.. Whatever has sense-organs is seen to be preceded by another body, e. g. a youth's body is preceded by his body as a child. That which precedes a
*This second reason is suggested by the commentator.

Page #200

111
child's body could not be the previous gross body for it has already perished and cannot therefore be the cause of a child's body. Karmic body is the cause of a child's body. The karmic body cannot subsist by itself; it must have something of which it could be the body, which it could embody, and this something is the soul which persists from one life to another. Thus, again, it can be seen, the body and the soul are not identical (1663).
(vi) Child's pleasure, pain, etc. must be preceded by other pleasure, pain, etc., because they are of the nature of experience; like our present pleasure, pain. These pleasure, pain, etc, preceding the child's pleasure, pain, etc., must be distinct from the previous body for they persist even when the previous body has perished and become the cause of the child's pleasure, pain, etc.. Being qualities, they must have a substratum and that is atman;-which again proves that the atman is distinct from the body (1664).
(vii) Body and karma are related to each other as cause-effect and their continuum is beginningless, like that of seed-sprout. If karma and body are related to each other as instrument and effect, there must be some agent over and above these to manipulate them, as the potter is there with respect to stick and jar. The atman is this agent (1665-66).
[For other arguments demonstrating the existence of ātman see gathās 1567-1570].
Mabāyīra anticipates an argument from someone with a Buddhist bent of mind to the effect that the soul may be distinct from the body; yet being momentary like it, it perishes along with it and hence there is no sense ultimately in establishing its existence as something independent of the body. Mahāvīra's reply is that everything in the world is not momentary; The basic substance is eternal, only its modes are non-eternal or even momentary. Hence the soul need not be regarded as perishing along with the body. It remembers its previous existence and hence could not have perished with the previous body. A man can remember in youth or old age

Page #201

112
what happened in childhood or a man in a foreign country remembers what happened in his own country because the soul has persisted amidst all the changes; so also if there is remembrance of the previous life, it only means that the soul has not perished with the body. It cannot be argued that the subsequent moments (or point-instants) are stamped with the impressions of the immediately preceding ones and this can explain the memory-factor, because if the preceding moment perishes absolutely without having any connection with the subsequent one, the subsequent moment is absolutely different from the previous one. And one cannot remember what has been experienced by another as it would amount to the absurdity of Yajñadatta remembering what Devadatta experienced (1671).
It cannot also be argued that remembrance can be explained on the basis of a stream of point-instants of consciousness, even when the soul is momentary; for if a stream of consciousness be accepted as distinct from the body, it is as good as accepting the existence of a soul of the nature of a continuous stream of momentary consciousness (1672).
ness
Mahavira thus convinces Vayubhuti of the existence of the soul even though it be of the nature of a stream of momentary consciousness. Then he says that consciouscannot be absolutely momentary* for it could not then remember what Was previously perceived, as a child who dies immediately after birth does not remember what happened in the past in this life (as it has no past). But we find that a man remembers in his old age what happened in childhood or youth, and what is still more significant he remembers even his previous life (1673).
The Buddhists believe that cognition is one (not helped by another) and being one it can cognise only one object. Moreover, it is momentary, for in the Buddhist view, whatever
*Momentariness is in a way-from a particular point of view-acceptable to Mahavira and so he says that knowledge is not absolutely momentary.

Page #202

113
is existent is momentary (yat sat tat sarvam kṣanikam-Hetubindu, p. 44; kṣanikaḥ sarva-saṁskārāḥ-All things are momentary). But how possibly could they establish this? If all the momentary things could be brought together, then alone could there be a cognition of all of them as being momentary; again, this knowledge could not have been originated by all the things, because the Buddhists believe that one cognition can have but one object. If there could be simultaneous cognitions of the momentariness of all individual things and if the soul were to assimilate them this could be possible, but the Buddhists do not accept the simultaneous origination of a number of cognitions of all objects. Hence with their tenets, it is not possible to have knowledge of the momentariness of all the objects of the world. Even if knowledge being one and of one object, were not momentary it perishing immediately after its origination could have been possible to have this knowledge of momentariness of objects; but knowledge too, in their view, is momentary. Looking to these difficulties, knowledge should not be accepted as momentary. And being a quality it requires an appropriate substratum viz. the soul. This proves the existence of the soul as distinct from the body (1674).
-
There would be still another difficulty in the Buddhist view. A cognition, according to it, is confined to its own object, i. e. it can have but one object. If so, how could such a cognition ever tell us of the attributes momentariness, essencelessness, painfulness, etc. of the objects of a great number of cognitions? Thus it is not all possible to have the knowledge of the momentariness of things (1675).

-
It can be argued that though cognition is one, of one object only and momentary, still it can know the momentary nature of all cognitions and objects on the basis of the inference grounded on the nature of itself and its own objects, and thus there is no difficulty whatsoever. To this the reply is that such an inference would be fallacious, for only a thing which is known to exist can be the subject of an inference (tatra pakṣaḥ prasiddho dharmi Nyaya-praveśa, p. 1); while the very existence of the
15

Page #203

114
subject of this inference – viz. Other cognitions and their objects — has not been established. What is the sense in discussing the attributes (momentariness, etc.) of things the very existence of which is a matter of doubt. The one momentary cognition having but one object cannot do this work, viz, establish that there are other cognitions, they have their own objects and these objects have their attributes — capability of producing knowledge about themselves, etc.. How can cognition tell us of the momentariness of these, when they themselves are not known. It may again be urged that inference from itself and its object can establish all this: "Just as I am, 80 other cognitions also exist; just as my objects exist, so also the objects of other cognitions; and as I and my object are momentary, so other cognitions and their objects are momentary.” But this, too, is not correct. The knowledge cognising the momentariness of all these is inomentary; it perishes as soon as it originates; it cannot, therefore, cognise its own destruction and momentariness - much less can it cognise other cognitions, their objects and the momentariness of all these. Moreover, it cannot cognise the momentariness even of its own object, because the cognition and its object perish simultaneously. Should the cognition perish after having seen its object perish and having ascertained its momentariness, then this could be possible. But both perish simultaneously after having given rise to their respective point-instants. Perception of the nature of self-consciousness (sva-samvedana) or sensuous perception cannot cognise momentariness in the Buddhist view and that inference cannot help in this direction has been shown above. So momentariness of things cannot be established (1676).
... It cannot also be argued that the previous cognition creates such an impression on the succeeding one that cognition though momentary and of one object, can know the attributes (existence, momentariness, etc.) of other cognitions and of their objects. This is possible only if the impressor-cognition and the cognition impressed upon meet in one moment and not when a cognition perishes as soon as it is born. If, to avoid this difficulty,

Page #204

115
the two cognitions be regarded as existing simultaneously that would conflict with their momentariness. Again, is this impression momentary or is it not? If it is momentary, it too, as shown above, cannot establish the momentariness of all; and if it is not momentary, that goes against the Buddhist view that everything is momentary. Thus even the introduction of the concept of vāsanā (impression) in the explanation does not help us to establish the momentariness of all things of the world (1677).
If while accepting that knowledge is momentary, the Buddhists also want the knowledge of the momentariness of all things, there would be a number of difficulties :
It will have to be accepted that for the knowledge of all the objects in the three worlds a number of cognitions can rise simultaneously and the existence of a permanent entity - soul - as one that can be the substratum of these cognitions and can remember the objects cognised by them, will have to be ac
One cognition will have to be accepted as having a number of objects,-which goes against the Buddhist view; (c) Cognition will have to be accepted as having a prolonged
existence (i. e. as non-momentary) so that it could cognise all the things one after another. Does this not amount to
the acceptance of atman or soul by a different name? (d) Buddhism would be throwing to the winds its doctrine
of pratītya-samutpăda (dependent origination) according to which there is no connection whatsoever between cause and effect; the cause does in no way persist in the effect. If this pratītya-samutpāda be accepted all the empirical behaviour-remembrance of past things, etc.-would be flouted as memory, etc. are possible only when there is a co-ordinating factor as the locus of past cognitions. Ātman (soul) can supply this void and we need not rue the loss of pratītya-samutpăda even here, for the Buddhist tenets themselves cannot sustain it. If Ātman (soul) is accepted as of the nature of origination, destruction, persistence, knowledge, none of these difficulties
.

Page #205

116
remain and all empirical behaviour can be explained. The soul is persistent and eternal from the point of view of the basic substance - dravya — and liable to origination and destruction according as its modes rise and perish. Hence instead of the stream of momentary consciousness, soul of. the nature of eternality, origination and destruction should be accepted as existent over and above the body (1678-1679).
Väyubhūti would like to know what kinds of cognitions the soul has and how it has them. When there is destructioncum-subsidence of the coverings or karma-obscurations of mati-jñāna (sensuous knowledge), śruta-jñāna (verbal or scriptural knowledge), avadhi jñāna (visual intuition) and manaḥ-paryāya-jñāna (intuition of mental modes), these latter arise. The destruction-cum-subsidence of coverings of different kinds and degrees produces corresponding kinds and degrees of cognitions in the soul. These are momentary as modes (paryāya), but persisting in other times or moments or even eternal as the basic substance (dravya) (1680).
But when the coverings are utterly destroyed, kevala-jñana (omniscience or pure knowledge) arises. It is perfect, eternal and does not admit of variation; it has an infinite number of things as its objects and persists in a pure condition perpetually (1681).
Vāyubhūti is still a bit sceptical and wonders why, if the soul has an existence independent of the body, it is not seen entering the body or leaving it. Mahavira explains that non-perception is two-fold. An utterly non-existent thing, e.g. ass's horn cannot be perceived. But even an existent thing may not be perceived on account of one or more of these reasons: (i) Durabhāvāt ---- if a thing is very far; e.g. heaven or
Mount Meru; (ii) Atisannikarşåt - if a thing is very near; e. g. eye-lashes; (iii) Atisauksmyāt - if a thing is very subtle; e. g. atoms; (iv) Mano'navasthānāt if the mind is perturbed and
inattentive; e. g. those unconscious cannot see anything, and an absent-minded person does not perceive an object before him.

Page #206

117
(v) Indriyā pātavāt - if the sense-organs are not highly
efficient; e. g. in the case of one slightly deaf. (vi) Mati-mándyāt — dullness. A dull person cannot grasp
things which are deep and subtle. (vii) Asakyatvāt — if perception is not possible; e. g. it is not
possible to perceive one's ears, bead, back, joint of the
neck. (viii) Avaraņāt - if the eyes are cove ed or something stands
between the sense-organ and the object; one cannot, for
instance, see an object covered by a mat or behind a wall. (ix) Abhibhavat - when a thing is overpowered; e. g. the stars
are overpowered by the light of the sun and hence
cannot be perceived in daylight. (x) Samanyát - extreme similarity; even when a grain of
pulse is very closely examined and then mixed up in a heap of pulse-grains, it is not possible to find it out and distinguish it from the others as they are all extremely
similar. (xi) Anupayogāt - lack of attention and interest; if a man is
concentrating on the perception of colour, he does not. perceive odour, etc. even when they are present, for he is not interested in them and hence does not pay atten
tion to them. (xii) Anupāyāt -- if the means are not there; e. g. seeing the
horns, one cannot have an idea of the quantity of the
cow's milk, because the horns are no means of knowing ☺ the quantity of the cow's milk. (xiii) Vismști -- Forgetting. If a man forgets, he does not know
what was previously perceived. (xiv) Durāgamăt - wrong instruction or testimony; if a man
for instance, has been deceived or misguided and has all along known sand of a golden colour as gold, he will
not then know gold even when it is before him. - (xv) Mohāt — Stupefaction. If a person's intellect has been i stupefied, he does not perceive the soul, etc. though they
are existent entities.

Page #207

118
(xvi) Vidarśanāt -- lack of sight. One born blind cannot see
anything. (xvii) Vikārāt -- Deterioration; when due to old age, a person's
energies flag, there is non-cognition even of what was
cognised earlier a number of times. (xviii) Akriyātaḥ — lack of activity. If a man does not dig the
ground he cannot see the root of the tree. (xix) Anadhigamät - Non-acquirement. If a man has not
studied the scriptural texts, he will not know their
meaning. (xx) Kálaviprakarsát - separation by time; one does not
perceive past and future things. (xxi) Svabhāva-vipra karşāt — the thing's nature being not
amenable to perception; e. g., one does not perceive
the sky or evil spirits.
Thus in any one of these twenty-one ways, it might not be possible to perceive a thing even though real and existent. In the present context, on account of svabhāva-viprakarsa, i.e. because the soul is incorporeal, it cannot be perceived. The karmic body is subtle like an atom and hence it too cannot be perceived; and so the transmigratory soul accompanied by the karmic body cannot be perceived as it enters the gross body or leaves it. The soul or the karmic body should not, on account of this, be regarded as utterly non-existent, for the existence of these is established by a number of inferences (1682–1683).
On the basis of Vedic testimony also it is easy to realise that the soul is distinct from the body. The Veda enjoins agnihotra, etc. on one who wishes to go to heaven. Now the body is reduced to dust or ashes when a person dies. If the soul is not distinct from the body, there would be no one to enjoy the fruit of agnihotra, etc. in heaven, and the Vedic injunctions would be serving no purpose; they would be proved false. Similarly people believe that one who performs good deeds, acts of charity, etc., goes to heaven. This would hold good only if the soul be distinct from the body. Váyubhūti had not understood the true meaning of the Vedic statements and hence

Page #208

119
was inclined to regard the soul as identical with the body. But Lord Mahavira explained the Vedic passages to him and also established by inference that the aggregate of elements in the form of the body must have an agent-creator, for the body has a beginning and a fixed shape, as the potter is the maker of the pot. There are Vedic statements which clearly say that the soul is distinct from the body: Satyena labhyas tapasā hy eşa brahmacaryena nityam jyotirmayo višuddho yam paśyanti dhirã yatayaḥ samyatātmānaḥ -- Mundakopanişad, 3. 1.5. — 'By truth, austerity, sexual continence, the bright, pure one can always be obtained. The wise, controlled sages see him',-and such others Hence it must be accepted that the jīva (soul) has an existence independent of the body (1684-5).
When his doubt had thus been removed, Váyubhūti became a monk along with his 500 pupils and followers (1686).

Page #209

4. VYAKTA – REGARDING THE OBJECTIVE REALITY OF THINGS.
A fourth Ganadhara named Vyakta too decided to approach Mahāvīra with reverence and have his doubts dispelled. Mahāvīra accosted him by his name and gotra as Vyakta Bhāradvāja and told him straightaway that he had a doubt as regards the five elements Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Ether and that that was so because he found apparently conflicting statements in the Veda. One of them says : Svapnopamam vai sakalam ity esa brahmavidhir añījasă vijñeyah-which Vyakta interpreted as meaning, Everything is but of the nature of a dreain (like a dream); this brahma-vidbi, way of the ultimate truth should be understood truly and instantly', and hence he was inclined to believe that there is nothing like the elements. On the other hand there are statements like dyāvāp?thivi sahāstam - Taitt. Brah 1. 1. 3, přthivi devatā, āpo devatāḥ-which establish the existence of the elements. Hence Vyakta was confounded whether the elements are really existent or not. But the fact was that he did not know the true meaning of, and the logic behind, the Vedic statements. Before explaining this Mabăvīra proceeds to expound Vyakta's doubt in clear terms to himn (1687-89).
Vyakta believes that the elements are like objects seen in a dream or like objects created by magic-illusory, having no real existence. A poor man may see in his dream elephants, and horses at his door and his coffers full to the brim with jewels and gold. But he awakes as poor as he was, for all the dream-objects were unreal. So also in an illusion projected by a magician, utensils of gold, jewels, pearls and silver and parks, flowers, fruits may be seen, but they are all unreal. Similarly the elements we perceive empirically are unreal, because they topple down when subjected to the test of reason. If one doubts

Page #210

121
the reality of the elements which are perceptible, one is sure to doubt the reality of soul, merit, demerit, etc. which are all supersensuous, or not amenable to sensuous perception. Vyakta too is apt to believe that the entire world is unreal (1690-1691).
Vyakta's argument is that the moment we start reasoning, things looked upon as real start tumbling down from their pedestal of so-called reality. Everything in the world is relative like the notions of long-short. A thing cannot be established by itself, or by another, or by both or by anything other than these. Everything in the world is either an effect or a cause. An effect is so called because it is produced by a cause and a cause is so called because it produces the effect. These expressions are thus mutually dependent and relative. There would be no 'cause if the effect' did not exist and vice versa. Thus kārya (effect), etc. are not established intrinsically, i. e. by themselves. And what cannot be established by its own nature cannot be established by another. So also a thing cannot be established both by itself and by another, because what they cannot do severally, they cannot achieve jointly too. If oil is not found in the grains of sand taken severally it is not also found in their aggregate. And in this there would be the fault of mutual dependence, for one cannot be established till the other has been established and a thing cannot be established by anything other than these (itself and another), since nothing other than these exists and that would lead to the contingency of a thing being established without any cause, i. e. having no cause. Hence the fourth alternative also fails to help us. This is what happens with respect to 'long', 'short' also. The index finger is 'long' when it is referred to the thumb, but that same finger is 'short when referred to the iniddle finger. By itself it is neither long nor short. Longness and shortness are thus not self-established and so cannot be established by another.
The other two alternatives too are of no avail in establishing their existence. It is well said:
Na dirghe' stība dirghatvain na hrasve näpi ca dvaye; tasmad asiddhan śünyatvāt sad ity ākhyāyate kya hi. 16

Page #211

122
hrasvam pratītya siddham dirghamdirgham pratītya hrasvam api; na kiñcid asti siddham vyavahāravaśād vadanty evam. [There is nothing like longness in what is (called) long, nor in what is (called) short, nor in both. Hence longness is not established. Being (thus) void where possibly could it be regarded as existent? 'Long' is established in dependence on 'short', and 'short' is established in dependence on 'long'. Nothing is in fact an established entity; people talk of things as if they were established under the compulsion of practical necessity (i. e. to carry on their empirical dealings)] (1692).
Approaching the problem of reality from another point of view, one may ask: Are existence and jar one or different? If they are one i. e. non-different, whatever has existence would be a jar and so all the things in the world would be of the nature of the one jar. And then cloth, etc. which are non-jar could not exist at all, everything existent being of the nature of jar. Or to put it differently, the jar would not only be jar but also everything else (ghataḥ sarvātmakaḥ). Or, existence being identical with jar, that alone would exist and nothing other than it. Or even that would not exist; for 'jar' is so called only because it is the counter-positive of 'non-jar'; but if this ‘non-jar' is not there, jar too will cease to exist. Hence there is but void. If jar and existence are different, then being devoid of existence, jar, like ass's horn, would not be existent. Existence means being existent. If existence be absolutely different from the existent jar, etc. which are its support, then it would be non-existence, for the attribute, the supported can never exist apart from the supporter, the substratum. As none of these alternatives is possible, jar and all like objects are indefinable or utterly void (1693).
There is no sense in discussing anything about that which is not produced, e.g. ass's horn. But even of what is produced, causality does not stand the test of reason, and so it too is void. What is produced cannot be produced, as it has been already produced, e. g. jar. If even a produced thing can be produced, then there would be no end to this repeated origination. What is non-produced, that too cannot be produced; otherwise we

Page #212

123
would have to accept the origination of non-existence, e.g. ass's horn, as it too is non-produced. Even produced-non-produced cannot be produced, for the difliculties of both the above alternatives would be present here. But, is there any such thing as 'produced-non-produced'? If it exists, it can be called 'produced' alone, and not both. If it does not exist, it can be 'non-produced' only. And the difficulties in either case have been pointed out. So also, 'what is being produced cannot be produced, for it too if existent should be classified under 'produced', and if not existent under 'non-produced', and the same difficulties would present themselves. It has been said :
gatam na gamyate tävad agatam naiva gamyate;
gatăgata-vinirmuktain gamyamanam na gamyate. (Madhyamika-kärikā 2. 1) – 'If motion has already taken place, the question of motion does not arise at all; and it does not arise even if it has not taken place. And the condition other than 'motion' and 'non-motion' (the process of motion, what is being gone through) is not found.' Thus, as causality does not stand to reason, the world should be regarded as void (1694).
Another argument can be advanced to demonstrate the inconsistency of the concept of causality - which leads to the view that everything is void. The inherent (or material or constituent — hetu) and the instrumental (pratyaya) are the causes held responsible for the production of a thing. And it is held that the constituent and the instrumental causes taken severally cannot produce the effect. But if the capacity to cause or originate does not exist in each factor of the full causal apparatus, how can it exist in the total causal apparatus as pointed out earlier too? Then there would be no effect and the causal-apparatus too would not exist and the world would be void. It is said :
Hetu-pratyaya-samagri-prthagbhāveșy adarśanāt; tena te nābhilāpyā hi bhāvāḥ sarve svabhāvataḥ. loke yāvat samjñā sāmagryām eva drśyate yasmāt; tasmăd na santi bhāvā bhāve' gati nāsti sāmagri.

Page #213

124
- The effect is not found in the constituent cause and the instrumental cause severally and till the effect, e.g. jar, is not produced it cannot be called jar, etc.; hence by nature it is indefinable. Whatever nomenclature we find in the world is with reference to the total (causal) apparatus, hence things do not exist. And if things do not exist the causal apparatus too does not exist (1695).
What is imperceptible is, like the ass's horn, unreal. But even if we take into consideration perceptible things, they are not indivisible wholes, they are made up of parts. Roughly speaking everything has a fore part, middle and hind part. The latter two are not visible as they are covered from view by the fore part. The fore part too can be infinitely divided into parts so that these will be just atoms and so not perceptible. Therefore things like post, etc. cannot be perceived in reality. Being non-perceived they are unreal like the ass's horn. This again proves that everything is void. It is said :
Yävad dřśyam paras tāvad bhāgaḥ sa ca na drśyate;
tena te nābhiläpyā hi bhāvāḥ sarve svabhā vataḥ. -‘Of what is perceptible, the hind part is not seen. Thus all things are by nature indefinable'. By such reasoning Vyakta argues out a case in favour of the unreality of all things. The Vedas, on the other hand, refer to the existence of things. On account of this, Vyakta has a doubt as to the existence or non-existence of things in reality (1696).
After having set forth the doubt in Vyakta's mind, Mahā vīra shows that this doubt itself does not hold good in that context. If, as Vyakta argues, there are no objects whatsoever in the world, no one would entertain a doubt as to their existence or otherwise. No one even for a while has any doubt regarding sky-flower or ass's horn. Doubt can arise only with respect to existing things as when we say 'Is this a man or a post ?' If everything is regarded as unreal, no special reason can be adduced on account of which doubt as regards man-post is justified but does not present itself in respect of sky-flower. It could have

Page #214

125
been equally possible to have a doubt regarding sky-flower and no doubt in l'espect of man-post-just the opposite of what we have at present. But this is not what we find. It follows that everything is not non-existent like sky-flower (1697–98).
The doubt with regard to man-post cu be justified. Things are known to us by any of the three means of valid knowledgeperception, inference, verbal testimony. Doubt can arise only where knowledge is possible. But how can there be any doubt with regard to things which cannot be known by any of the means of knowledge ? This explains why we entertain doubts as to man-post, but not with regard to sky-flower (1699).
Doubt, error, indefinite knowledge, definite knowledge etc., are all moles of knowledge which can arise only in dependence on an object. So where there is no object, there is no knowledge and hence no doubt or error or any of these modes of knowledge. But there is doubt, as Vyakta says, and hence there is knowledge which invariably presupposes the existence of objects eg. post, man. It may be argued that the example is fallacious-an inadmissible (asiddha) one for the existence of post or man has not been establisherl. But then there would be no doubt also. Thus the existence of objects can be inferred on the basis of the existence of doubt (1700-1701).
It can be argued that there is no such rule that a doubt cannot arise if no object is existent. A sleeping man has nothing beside him that can be the object of his knowledge, and yet he doubts, 'Is this an elephant or a mountain ?' This means that doubts can arise even when there are no objects. But it should be noted that even in a dream doubt is caused by memory, etc., of what was perceived or experienced earlier or due to any such factor; it never operates where there is absolute negation of all existence. Dreams too cannot originate without the instrumentality of some such factors : something experienced in the waking condition, e. g. bathing, cating, anointing, etc; or somethiing perceived at some time-elephant, horse, etc; or something one thinks about very often or worries about, e. g. inability to attain one's

Page #215

126
beloved; or something beard of-heaven, hell, etc; or disorder of the humours-wind, bile, phlegm; some deity, favourable or otherwise; marshy land. Or merit may be the cause of a good dream; or demerit of an evil or inauspicious dream. This shows that even a dream is something positive; if that is so, how can we say that the world is void? (1702-1703).
Other reasons too can be adduced to show that dreams are positive in nature: Dream is positive, because it is of the nature of knowledge, like the knowledge of a jar; or dream is positive, because like a pot, it is brought about by instrumental factors any of those mentioned above (1701).
Morcover, if there were non-existence of everything, how could we distinguish between dream and non-dream, true and false; Gandharva-city (City of Illusion) and the city of Pataliputra; what is literally true (e. g. a real lion) and what is figurative (e. g. man-lion)? How could we speak in terms of effect, cause, what is to be established and what is the reason which establishes, doer, speaker, statement (whether it has three members in the syllogism or five) and what is to be stated (i. e. the intent of the statement)? And how could we accept one view as our own and say that the other view is another's. If everything were void, non-existent, how could we use such expressions even under the compulsion of practical necessity? And how could it have been determined that Earth is solid, Water fluid, Fire hot, Wind moving and Ether colourless (formless or incorporeal); and that sound, etc. are respectively the objects of the organ of hearing, etc.? (1705-7).
If everything were void or non-existent, everything should be alike and there could not be any classification of the type of dream-non-dream, etc.; or things could have been determined in just the opposite way a dream could have been non-dream and vice versa, or Water could have been solid and Earth fluid; or there should have been no cognition whatsoever in the absence of an object. If it is argued that all this nomenclature, etc. and inconsistency with respect to cognition, etc. are themselves due to bhranti, error or illusion, then the reply is that it is

Page #216

127
not so, for cognitions are determined by place, time, nature, etc.. Again is this bhranti itself real or not? If it is real it goes against Vyakta's view of the unreality of everything; and if it is unreal, the cognitions of objects as existent are free from error and so objects are real. Hence it is wiser to give up the doctrine of the non-existence of things and regard things as existent. And if one clings to the view that everything is void, there is no strong point which could lead to the conviction that knowledge of the void is correct and knowledge of the existence of objects is not. If everything be void, it would not even be possible to distinguish in this way (1708).
Vyakta has argued that a thing cannot be established by itself or by another, or by both or by anything other than these. To controvert this, Mahavira says, if everything is non-existent there cannot be the notions of 'self' (itself') and another'. And if these do not exist, Vyakta cannot establish that things do not exist by the above argument based on itself', 'other', 'both', 'other than these'. Moreover, it is contradictory to say on the one hand that the existence of things is relative (shortlong) and on the other to point out that a thing cannot be established by itself, other, etc. And it is not quite correct to say that the existence of things is only relative; things also have the efficiency to produce knowledge regarding themselves and this itself is a mark of their existence. 'Short', etc. give rise to knowledge concerning themselves and so they must be existent; they should not be looked upon as non-existent. If the finger which is unreal can be short or long when referred to another, then even the ass's horn should be spoken of as 'long' or 'short', as the two cases are parallel; or the index-finger should be short by itself with reference to itself, because non-existence holds good everywhere. But this is not what we find. The fact is that the finger exists in its own right. It has numerous attributes which become manifest as they have in their vicinity a corresponding auxiliary cause. But if the finger were utterly non-existent, it could not have been short or long only because it was referred to another and the alternatives of 'itself', 'other', etc.

Page #217

128
would not be possible. This is true of all things. The Nihilist, again, cannot argue that he himself does not accept the notions of itself', 'other', etc, but he utilises them because they are accepted by his rival thinker; - that he speaks of them only from the opponent's point of view. The Nihilist forgets that for him there is nothing like one's own view and another's; and if he accepts this, he should give up his stand regarding Nihilism (1709).
Vyakta has argued that nothing has existence, there is merely the void and that our empirical knowledge of 'long', 'short', etc. arises only relatively. A thing is called 'long' or 'short' only when it is referred to another. Now, do the two cognitions of 'long', 'short' occur simultaneously or one after the other? If simultaneously, the two cognisables appear in their own knowledge independently and one could not possibly depend on the other. If they take place one after the other, the index finger, to take an instance, has appeared as 'short' in its own cognition which occurs first and so does not need to depend on the other cognition, viz. of the middle finger as 'long'. And to cut the matter short, can you point out anything on which the very first cognition of a newly born child as it opens its eyes depends? And if two objects are alike in all respects like the two eyes and if they are cognised simultaneously, they appear in their own nature in their own cognitions and no mutual dependence of these two cognitions could be thought of. The fact is that objects appear in their Own nature in their respective cognitions without reference to another; and at a later stage when we have the curiosity to inquire into the details regarding form, etc. we are helped by auxiliary factors like the memory of their pratipaksa (opposite) and thus by a synthesis we speak of the object as 'long' or 'short'. But all things are existent in their own right -are self-established (1710-1711).
If, as Vyakta says, there is sheer Nihilism, all objects are equal in being unreal. In that case why has he to explain the knowledge 'long' with regard to the middle finger by referring

Page #218

129
to short objects like the index finger, etc. Why cannot a thing be called 'long with reference to a long object, or even a sky-flower when everything is equally unreal and non-existent; or why by referring things to a sky-flower do we not call things ‘long' or 'short'? But this is not found to be the case. So Nihilism cannot be accepted and reality of things has to be admitted (1712).
If Nihilism be accepted, even the concept of relativity should not be accepted as it is not consistent with the fundamental doctrine of Nihilism. It cannot be asserted that it is the very nature of things to be called relatively 'short' or 'long' and nature (svabhāva) cannot be questioned. Who is to be questioned as to why fire burns and not ether (agnir dahati nákāśam k'otra paryanuyujyatām)? If the Nihilist were to put forth this argument, his case would be doomed. Nature or svabháva is one's own existence or character. Here there is distinction between itself and another and this militates against the doctrine of Nihilism. Moreover if everything were unreal, would it be possible to discuss and argue in terms of one's own nature (svabhāva)? Can you ever imagine the essential nature of the 'barren woman's son' or of any such thing utterly non-existent? Only existent things can have syabhāva, their own nature. Thus Nihilism stands refuted (1713).
Mahāvīra himself is not against relativity as such. We may know .things as, or call them, “short' or 'long'. But the very existence of things does not depend on anything. And the qualities of things e. g. colour, form, taste, etc. too as distinct from the relative ones -- 'shortness', 'longness', etc. are selfestablished, not relative. The existence of these does not depend on anything and hence they cannot be regarded as non-existent. Hence the doctrine of Nihilism cannot be upheld (1714). :: Were even existence, etc. relative, the long thing itself would perish if the 'short' did not exist. But this is not what. we find; the thing would exist even then, only it would not be called 'long'. This shows that existence, colour and such 17

Page #219

130
attributes are self-established, and so Nihilism cannot hold good (1715).
Even Dependence or relativity has reference to depending, depender, that depended upon; these will have to be accepted as existent, so Nihilism is out of question (1716).
Certain things in the world are regarded as being self-established, e. g. cloud which is the result of a particular arrangement of the basic substance, but does not depend on any doer or maker; some things are extrinsically established, e.g. jar made by a potter; some are established in both the ways, e. g. mun, determined by his parents and also by his own karman; others are eternally established, e.g. ether. This consideration is from the empirical point of view (1717).
But from the real or ultimate stand-point everything is self-established, intrinsically established; the instrumental factors it depends upon are external to it; this can be seen from the fact that even when such external agencies exist a thing which has no essence in itself, e. g. ass's horn, does not come into existence for it is itself not intrinsically established. A person arrives at the truth by a proper consideration of both the points of view - empirical and ultimate or real (1718).
The very fact that Vyakta could ask as to the identity or otherwise of jar and existence implies that they are real ar existent; and that he is discussing merely the modes. If it was not so, why did he not say anything regarding ass's horn for barren woman's son being identical or not with existence ? (1719).
A similar question can be asked, 'Are jar and the Void identical or not ?' If the Void is something different from the jar, what is it? We see merely the jar and nothing else over and above it called the Void ? If they be identical, even then it is the jar that should be admitted, for it is amenable to perception and no attribute of it called Void is cognised (1720).

Page #220

131
Again, is the Nihilist identical or not with the conception, ‘All the three worlds are void' and the expression of it ? If he is identical, then Nihilism stands refuted for identity is an existent fact as in the case of 'treeness' and 'simšapāness'. If he is not identical, then the Nihilist is devoid of knowledge and speech, and under these circumstances how could he possibly prove Nihilism; a heap of stones cannot argue out á case ? (1721).
Vyakta had argued that if jar and existence were identical, everything would be of the nature of jar; or as the contradictory non-jar would be non-existent, jar itself would cease to exist.* Mahāvīra's rejoinder is that 'existence of the jar' is an attribute of the jar and identical with it, but it is certainly different from all the other things, cloth, etc.. Hence when it is said that the jar exists it does not necessarily mean that the jar alone exists, for everything does have its own existence. Thus this reasoning of Vyakta or of any Nihilist has no force. This also shows that the existence of jar will not serve as an obstruction to the existence of other things for each thing has an independent existence of its own (1722–3).
The sum and substance of the argument is that 'existence of jar' is an attribute of the jar alone, and is different from cloth, etc., is not found in them. When we talk of existence in general terms it may be referred to jar or non-jar. But when it is specifically said, 'Jar exists' it can refer to the jar alone. This can be clarified by giving an example: 'Tree' refers to mango and non-mango trees; but 'mango-tree' necessarily means a tree and not a non-tree for the latter can never be a mango-tree (1724).
Vyakta had said that neither the produced nor the nonproduced, nor the produced-non-produced, nor the being produced can be produced. Such a thinker may be asked what is that thing which he regards as produced ? If this something is admitted by him then Nihilism falls to the ground and all
* See Gāthà 1693 and its commentary.

Page #221

132
this discussion regarding the inconsistency of causality is in vain. Moreover if this thing be a produced one, how could it be called 'non-produced by these alternatives; and it would be self-contradictory as one and the same thing cannot be both produced and non-produced. And if this 'produced' be something unreal, then the alternatives regarding 'produced', etc., will not have anything to stand upon. If it could be possible to think in terms of such alternatives even of non-existent things Vyakta or any one should have discussed sky-flower which is non-existent in the same fashion. As said before (see Gathā 1708) if everything is equally non-existent the situation could have been the reverse of what is at present, viz dream could be non-dream and vice versa; or produced and non-produced should be of the same kind or what is produced should be non-produced and vice versa and so on. It cannot also be argued by the Nihilist that he discusses these alternatives of 'produced', 'non-produced', etc., not because he accepts them as such, but because he wants to defeat the opponent on his own ground, for if he accepts own view and 'other's view that would be giving the lie to Nihilism (1725).
Mahā vira argues that even our commonsense tells us that things must be produced. A thing becomes perceptible only after its birth, its production; it was not cognised before and again will not be cognised when with the passage of time it has perished. This shows that production is an established fact (1726).
By the above-mentioned alternatives, even the knowledge (conception, idea) that everything is void, and its expression can be proved to be non-produced; yet the idea and its expression have necessarily to be somehow taken as 'produced'. similarly all things can be looked upon as produced, whether the alternatives are applied or not. If the knowledge and its expression are not accepted as produced, the void will not be propounded by anything (1727).
Vyakta could disprove the concept of causality by dialectical reasoning. But Mahāvīra has the advantage of his

Page #222

133
non-absolutism according to which causality can be explained in the case of things, produced, non-produced, both and those being produced while there may be some things which are not produced at all. As possessed of colour the jar as produced is produced, for colour in the earth exists even earlier; from the point of view of shape the same jar as non-produced is produced, for shape did not exist in the lump of clay. From both these points of view, the jar as produced-non-produced is produced. The past has perished and the future is still unborn; no activity is possible in these; it is possible only in the present; so it is the jar that is being produced that will have to be admitted as produced. But there are things that cannot be said to have been produced from the point of view of any of these alternatives. As for example, a jar that was produced in the past cannot possibly be produced again; so it can never be produced and the produced jar can never be produced in the form of another's mode, for instance, as cloth. Again, the already produced jar which is already produced from the point of view of its own modes and non-produced from the point of view of the modes of another, cannot be produced, for it is already produced on the one hand and cannot be produced as another's mode on the other. Thus even the produced-non-produced can never be produced. The jar that is ‘being produced as jar can never be produced as cloth. Thus causality can be explained or not according to the point of view we adopt in viewing it (1728-1730).
The sky again is not produced at all as it is eternally produced or existent. To sum up, things are not produced as the basic substance as it is always there; and these alternatives apply to the modes as pointed out above (1731).
As to Vyakta's argument that all effect is produced out of the causal apparatus, but if everything is non-existent there is no question of this apparatus,-Mabā vīra's reply is that this statement is quite contradictory, for utterance as the effect and throat, lips, palate, etc. as the causal apparatus are directly perceived. The Nihilist can still say that owing to the illusion caused by Avidyā, even what is non-existent appears as existent

Page #223

134
for it is said : "Owing to attachment, dream, fear, intoxication, illusion caused by Avidyā, people see things even though they are really non-existent, e. g. woolly substance when the eyes are pressed with the finger". (Kámasvapnabhayon madair avidyopaplavāt tathā; paśyanty asantam apy artham keśondukādivat). But can the Nihilist explain why all things being equally 'non-existent, we do not perceive the causal complement of the hair of the tortoise, but we do perceive that of speech ? If the doctrive of the void is true and if everything is equally nonexistent and unreal, there is no reason why the causal complement of all should not be perceived, or that of the hair of the tortoise should not be perceived while that of speech is perceived (1732).
Moreover do the speaker equipped with the causal complement (chest, head, throat, lips, palate, etc.) and his utterance exist or not? If they do Nihilism is out of the question. If they do not and if everything is non-existent, there would be no one to make the statement, 'The world is void' and no one to hear it (1733).
If the Nihilist says that this is exactly the position, there is no speaker, no statement, nothing about which a statement can be made, that everything is void, - he may be asked if this statement of his is true or false; if it is true, Nihilism stands disproved; and if it is false, it will have no validity and will not be able to establish Nihilism. If in spite of this Nihilism is somehow accepted, even then is this acceptance true or false ? In either case there will be the same difficulty; even otherwise acceptance would presuppose the existence of the one who accepts, the acceptance and the thing to be accepted, which again would go against the doctrine of Nihilism (1734-1735).
If non-existence of all is accepted, all our empirical dealings and behaviour will be upset, will crumble down. Everything being equally non-existent, we should be in a position to obtain oil from grains of sand also and not necessarily from sesamum seeds. And the entire assemblage of effects

Page #224

135
could be obtained from the causal complement in the form of sky-flower. But this is not what we find; our experience is that an effect arises from a particular thing alone as the cause and this cannot be true if Nihilism is accepted (1736).
Moreover there is no invariable rule that everything must be produced out of the causal complement. Bodies of binaries, etc. having space-points are made of two or more atoms; but the atom is devoid of space-point and so is not produced by anything and yet it is existent as can be inferred from its effect as the linga (mark). It has been said : The atom can be inferred from corporeal things; it is without space-point, it is the final cause, is eternal, las one taste, one colour, one odour and two kinds of touch. If can be inferred from its effect (mūrtair aņur apradeśaḥ kā raram antyam bhavet tathā pityah; ekarasa-varņa-gandlio dvisparśaḥ kārya-lingaś ca). If even the atom is regarded as having space-point we will have to go still backwards, but will have to stop somewhere and that will be the atom. But even that will contradict the supposed rule that everything is produced by the causal apparatus (1737).
If Vyakta says that the atoms do not exist at all as they are not produced by the complement of causal factors, then it means that Vyakta is contradicting himself as he himself has previously said that everything is observed to be produced by the complement of causal factors, and the existence of these could not be explained in the absence of atoms. That would be as self-contradictory as saying, 'All statements are false'. Moreover if atoms do not exist, should the world of effects be explained as produced out of sky-flowers ? Therefore if it is believed that everything is produced out of the causal apparatus, atoms must exist (1738).
As to the argument that the hind part of a thing is not seen, only its fore-part is seen and so on* leading to Nihilism, there is contradiction even here, for it is admitted that the fore-part is cognised and yet upheld that it does not
* See Gathā 1696.

Page #225

136
exist. It cannot even be said that everything being non-existent the cognition of the fore-part is illusory; for if it be so, all things being equally non-existent, there should be the cognition, though illusory of the fore part of the ass's horn. Either both must be cognised, as they are equally non-existent, or there should be just the reverse situation, viz the fore part of ass's horn should be cognised and the fore part of pillar, etc. should not be seen. But this is not what we find and so it cannot be accepted that everything is void (1739).
What an inference is this, 'The fore part too does not exist, for the hind part is not seen’? How can one set aside by inference what is established by direct perception ? One can never demonstrate by inference that fire is cold. It would be more reasonable to say "The hind part exists because the fore part is cognised; .'Fore-part' is relative, it can exist only if the bind part is there; if the fore part is cognised, its existence establishes that of the hind part too. It is not also reasonable to imagine a fore part of this fore part and so on infinitely unless the existence of the hind part is admitted. Moreover it cannot be said that a thing does not exist simply because it is not perceived. Non-perception can be accounted for in a number of ways (1740).
If everything is non-existent, how can one talk of fore, hind or middle parts; it cannot be from another's point of view also for with Nihilism there cannot be anything like one's own or another's point of view. If such parts are accepted Nihilism cannot be admitted; and if they are not admitted, there is no sense in imagining such parts of a non-existent thing as in the case of ass's horn. If everything is void, why is the fore part alone seen and not the hind part? Why is there not non-perception of both or the reverse position, viz the hind part being seen and not the fore part ? (1741-43).
If it be accepted as a rule that a thing does not exist if it is not seen then the existence of crystal, etc. will have to be recognised as their hind part is seen; if even their existence is not admitted then the reason 'because it is not perceived'

Page #226

137
will not be a reason at all; instead one should say, 'Because nothing is perceived. Even this inference that 'Everything is void, because nothing is perceived' will contradict what Vyakta has said before, viz. 'because the fore part is perceived'; again, town, river, jar, cloth, etc. are perceived by all, so it would be contradictory to perception to say that nothing is perceived. Thus Nihilism cannot be established.
Somebody might argue that a reason (hetu) to be valid need not be present in all homologous (similar) cases, but must be absent in all heterologous (dissimilar) cases; e. g. 'sound is non-eternal, because it is produced by effort'. All noneternal things are not produced by effort, e. g. lightning, cloud, flower, etc.; yet this reason is not found in any heterologous case, as there is no eternal thing which depends on effort for its production; eternal things, in fact, have no origination, so effort is out of question. Similarly, here too ‘non-perception of the hind part' may not be present in void (šūnya) things like crystal, etc., but it is found in a great many cases and so can be regarded as a valid reason. The rejoinder to this is that in the case of 'because of non-perception', the negative statement of the univerşal rule (vyatireka-vyāpti) cannot be established, as in that of the argument given as an instance. It is quite proper to say: 'What is not non-internal is not also produced by effort, e. g. ether'. But would it be right to say: 'Wherever the Void does not exist, there is not also the non-perception of the hind-part? Where can this be demonstrated if nothing whatsoever is existent? Hence it will have to be admitted that because the hind part is not perceived' is not a valid reason (1744-5).
If it is said that the hind and the middle parts do not exist as they are not perceived, and relatively to them the fore part too does not exist, this is not proper for even here there will be the contingency of the acceptance of the existence of sense-organs and object which are indispensable for perception; and if they are admitted as existent, one cannot talk of Nihilism in the same breath. Or 'because of non-perception' 18

Page #227

138
should not be adduced as a reason to establish Nihilism, for the nomenclature 'perceptible' or 'non-perceptible' does not hold good in the absence of sense-organs and object (1746).
Again, 'because it is not perceived' is an inconclusive reason. There are things which are not perceived and yet are existent, e. g. Vyakta's cognition of the nature of doubt, etc. If even this is non-existent, then what is the void, whose is it, by whom is it cognised? If Vyakta has not this doubt, then no one else has it and the discussion ends here since the existence of village, town, etc. is acceptable to all the others (1747).
Mahavira thus refutes all the arguments of Vyakta. By way of instruction he proceeds to say that one should never entertain a doubt regarding perceptible things like Earth, Water, Fire as one does not doubt one's own nature. Air too is perceptible as its quality touch can be felt, like a jar. Or one may say that Air and Ether are not perceptible, so one may doubt their existence. But it is possible to establish even their existence by inference. Touch, sound, health, shaking, etc. are qualities of Vayu (or arising from Vayu), so they must have a substratum, though it be imperceptible, and Vayu (Air) is this substratum. Therefore Vayu is existent. Similarly there must be a container, receptacle, support of Earth, Water, Fire, Air, because they are corporeal, as jar is the receptacle of water; the container of these is clearly* Ether. If it is said that no example can be adduced for this inference as the example would be a part of what is to be proved, then we could have inferences of this type: 'Earth must have a container, because it is corporeal, like Water; Water must have a container, as it is corporeal, like Fire, and so on (1748-50).
These five elements are thus vouched for by the means of cognition and should be recognised as existent. They are animate, possessed of sentiency or soul till they are injured or struck by weapons; they are the support of the body and are enjoyed by the soul in a number of ways. Earth, Water, Fire, Air are
*There is a pun on the word Vyakta (Vyakta, Suvyakta). Vyakta should have a clear knowledge of things and not doubt,

Page #228

139
possessed of a soul, as the characteristics of the soul are observed in them; whereas Ether is only the support or container of the soul, but is itself not possessed of a soul as it is incorporeal (1751-2).
Instances can be cited to show that characteristics of the soul are observed in earth, etc.. Trees are animate, since they, like women, have birth, old age, life, death, healing of wounds, foods, a queer fancy for things during pregnancy, sickness, cure, etc.. It can be said that this reason is inconclusive, for even inanimate things are said to be born, etc; e.g. curds are produced, live poison, dead potion of safflower (kusumbhaka); — and yet these are not animate. But it must be noted that in curds, etc. all the characteristics are not observed as in the case of human beings, hence such expressions are merely figurative in respect of curds, etc: -- as if produced, as if live, as if dead; but trees like human beings manifest all the characteristics and so they are animate. The shy plant contracts itself the moment it is touched exactly as a worm would do; creepers move to trees, etc. for support; Sami, etc. are known to have the characteristics of animate beings - sleep, waking, contraction, etc.. And it is known that Bakula, Asoka, Kurabaka, Virahaka, Campaka, Tilaka enjoy in their seasons, sound, beauty, fragrance, taste, touch respectively. This holds good of Kūşmāņdi, Bijapūraka and such other trees in respect of their pregnancy-longing. Further, trees, corals, lavaņa (salt) upala (precious stone, rock) as long as they are in their own birth-place, are not uprooted from heir source. are animate. for they are known to sprout forth, as flesh sprouts forth in piles. Mahāvīra wants to prove that earth is animate; yet he has spoken of trees first and then of earth in the form of coral, salt, rock as animate for two reasons: Trees are known as the modification of earth; secondly the characteristics of the soul are manifest to a greater degree in trees than in rocks, etc.. Earth is thus shown to be animate (1753-6).
Water is animate, for water akin to the earth springs up naturally when the earth is dug; or water of the atmosphere is animate as it forms itself into clouds and falls. Väyu without

Page #229

140
being goaded by another, moves about horizontally in the different directions as it likes, like a bull, so it is animate, Fire is animate for like human beings it grows stronger or weaker according as it is fed (fuelled). In general, the four elements-Earth, Water, Fire, Air are bodies brought about by the soul, are its support, are corporeal and are different from transformations such as clouds, etc.. - these latter are excluded as they are aggregates of bodies that are loose and not modified. These elements are animate as can be seen from their colour, odour, taste, touch, etc. if they are not injured, cleft asunder by weapons; but are inanimate when thus struck (1757-1759).
There is another point to be considered. Numerous souls attain emancipation; and it is admitted that no new soul is born; this would mean that a time would very soon come when there would be an end of all worldly existence, as the world. is of limited dimensions and only a few gross souls can live in it. But this does not happen for there are souls with one organ, e. g. trees, etc. No thinker of any school admits that the world will one day come to an end. This means that an infinite number of souls will have to be admitted, and they must be embodied having the elements as their support, they are born in it. Where can such souls live but in trees, etc.? Hence trees, etc. are animate (1760-1).
One should not fear that because earth, etc. are so crowded with souls, there would be himsa (injury) at every step whether one wills it or not. It has been pointed out earlier that what is struck by a weapon is not possessed of a soul. There will not be injury simply because the world is crowded with souls. It is the intention that ultimately matters. From the real point of view, a man does not become a 'killer' only because he has killed or because the world is crowded with souls, or remain innocent only because he has not killed physically, or because souls are sparse. Even if a person does not actually kill, he becomes a killer if he has the intention to kill; while a doctor has to cause pain, but is still non-injurious, innocent, because his intention is purc. A wise man equipped with the five Samitis

Page #230

141
and the three Guptis and practising restraint thereby, is noninjurious; not one who is of just the opposite type. Such a man of restraint is not regarded as injurious irrespective of whether he kills or hurts or does not; for it is the intention that is the deciding facter, not the external act which is inconclusive. From the real point of new it is the evil intention that is himsă (injury) whether it materialises into an evil act of injuring or not. There can be non-injury even when the external act of injury has been committed and injury even when it has not been committed. (1762-0).
Does this mean that the external act of killing is never injury? Much depends on the evil intention. That external act of killing which is the cause of an evil effect, or is caused by evil intention is himsă (injury). But that which is not caused by evil intentions or does not result in an evil effcct is not himsā in the case of the above-mentioned wise man. For example, sounds, etc. do not rouse the passions of a man free from attraction and infatuation because his mind o: intention is pure, undefiled. A good man does not have infatuation for his mother however beautiful she may be; similarly, the external act of injury is not himsă in the case of a man of a pure mind. Thus that the world is crowded with souls does not mean that there is himsā at every step. Therefore there are five elements, and of these the first four are possessed of soul. As to the statement that 'everything is comparable to a dream', that does not mean what Vyakta took it to mean — that everything is non-existent. It is only meant to prevent worldly souls capable of being emancipated from being stupefied by over-attachment to worldly objects like wealth, gold, son, wife; 'comparable to dream' does not mean that they are unreal, non-existent; but that there is no worth in them, one should not lodge all faith in them, but must strive for emancipation. But the things of the world do exist (1767-8).
When Vyakta was convinced by Mahavīra of the impropriety of his doubt and of the reality of things, he became a monk along with his five hundred followers (1769).

Page #231

5. SUDHARMAN — REGARDING SIMILARITY
OF THE OTHER LIFE TO THIS ONE
Hearing that all these bad become monks Sudbarmă too decided to approach Lord Mahā vīra respectfully. As he approached, the Lord addressed him by his name and gotra as Sudharma Agniveśyāyana, and told him about the doubt in his mind. It is said in the Veda that after death a man remains a man and animals continue as animals (puruṣo mộtaḥ san puruşatvam eva’snute, pašavah pasutvam). Further, it is also said that he who is cremated along with the faces is reborn a jackal (śrgālo vai eșa jāyate yaḥ sapuriso dalyate). Owing to such conflicting statements Sudharmă had a doubt whether man's condition in the other world or life is similar to that in this world or dissimilar to it. But this was so because he did not understand the true meaning of the Vedic statements which Mahāvīra explained to him at the end of the discussion (1770-2).
Sudharma's line of argument is that the effect is in agreement with the cause, e. g. barley-sprout with the barley-seed. This-worldly existence or life is the cause of another birth which must, therefore, be similar to it. Hence a man must be reborn as a man only and so on (1773). : But this is not so. There is no universal rule that the effect must be in agreement with the cause, for Sara springs even from Sriga and a kind of grass Bhūtrņaka springs out of it only when it is besmeared with Sarşapa (mustard). Dūrvá grass springs from the hairs of cattle and sheep. Thus Vřkşayurveda (Botany) tells us that diverse herbs spring from the combination of different substances. Again in Yoniprābhsta where these is a description of yonis (wombs, sources), we can see that diverse things like serpent, lion, etc. and jewels, gold, etc. are produced out of the combination of a number

Page #232

143
of diverse substances. Hence it cannot be said that the effect must invariably be in agreement with the cause (1774-5).
Or even because the effect is recognised to be in agreement with the cause, condition in another existence should be different in respect of caste, family, strength, dignity, etc. from what it is in this one. Not man, but karman is the seed, cause of the sprout in the from of other-worldly existence and karmans are diverse in nature as they have diverse causes. If karmans be admitted ånd also recognised as diverse in nature, their fruit in the the form of worldly existence as denizens of hell, lower creatures or human beings or gods for the transmigratory soul too must be recognised as correspondingly diverse. The causes of karmans are diverse, viz. mithyatva (perversity, predilection for the untruth), avirati (intense attachment, non-abstinence), pramāda (spiritual inertia), kaşāya (passions) and yoga (activity) and so their effects or fruits must be accordingly diverse (1776-8).
The inference is as follows: The transmigration of souls as denizens of hell, and so on is diverse, as it is the fruit or effect of karmans which are diverse, like the diverse fruit in this world of actions wbich are of different kinds e. g. fruit of agriculture, etc. (1779).
That karman is diverse can be seen from the fact that it is a modification of pudgala (matter) just like the external modifications as clouds or like the modifications of Earth, etc.. What has not diverse modifications is not also a modification of pudgala, e. g. Akāśa. Karmans are all alike in being modifications of pudgala, yet their peculiarity in being a varaña (cover) etc. sbould be accounted for by the diversity of their causes, viz. mithyātva (perversity), etc. (the common ones) and hatred of the wise and such others which are the special causes (1780).
Or, if as Sudharmā argued, the other-worldly existence be admitted to be similar to the present worldly existence, and if action in this-worldly existence be diverse—good and evil - then the fruit of action in the other-worldly existence must

Page #233

144
be correspondingly diverse. That is to say, it is but evident that men perform different kinds of actions which can lead them to hell, heaven, etc.; if they are expected to experience the fruits of these actions in another world, then there should be found the same diversity and dissimilarity among these beings in the other world as was found in this world. As one is in this world (performer of good or sinful action and therefore one who binds good or sinful karman) so will he be in the other world (enjoyer of good or sinful karman) (1781-2).
It can be argued here that action yields fruit only in this world and not in another, that is to say, agriculture, etc. can bear fruit in this world, but acts of charity, ctc. which are for another world cannot bear any fruit in the other world; consequently there would be no fruit in the other world, and hence no dissimilarity in the conditions. But here the rival thinker forgets that in that case the similarity of the souls he is driving at will not be possible, since karman is the cause of the soul's birth in another life, while the fruit of karman in another world is not recognised by him. It cannot be said that a soul is born in a similar state in another world even without karman. For in that case, it would be as good as saying that similarity is produced even without any cause and at the same time there would be the loss or destruction of karman which is the result of acts of charity, injury etc. which are already accomplished. Or there would be the contingency of there being no karman at all; for acts of charity, injury, etc. would be looked upon as fruitless; karman would not be binding and in the absence of the cause; the other-worldly existence would not be there, leave alone similarity in it. If the other-worldly existence be admitted in spite of there being no karman, it would be without any cause; if even this be admitted, then that worldly existence would come to an end too without any cause and all efforts at the practice of austerity, self-control etc. would be useless. And if worldly existence is looked upon as uncaused, then dissimilarity of souls too can be looked upon as uincaused for the position is the

Page #234

145
same in the two cases. There is no reason why they should be looked upon only as similar and not as dissimilar (1783-4). ..
One may feel like saying that the other-worldly existence can occur just naturally even when there is no karman just as the effect, jar, befitting the cause, lump of earth, emerges just naturally, without any karman. The other-worldly existence in the form of a series of similar births of creatures will emerge just naturally. There can be nothing wrong in this. But one should bear in mind that even the jar is not produced just naturally; it requires the agent, the causal apparatus etc. so here too the agent soul stands in need of some instrument for the effect in the form of body, etc. of the other-worldly existence, and that should be distinct from the agent and the effect as the causal apparatus wheel, etc., is distinct from the potter and the jar. The causal apparatus that the soul requires for bringing into effect body, etc. is karman. It cannot be argued that jar, etc. may have agents like the potter, etc. because they are directly perceived; but the effect, body, etc. will come into existence just naturally like the modifications, clouds, etc. and hence karman cannot be establised. One should bear in mind that body, etc. cannot come into existence naturally since they have a beginning and a definite shape, like the jar. And as to the similarity of the other-worldly existence which is admitted on the basis of the law that the effect is always consistent with the cause', that too would have to be abandoned if Svabhāya-vāda be accepted on the basis of the example of the modifications of clouds, etc. for the modifications of clouds are utterly distinct from the substance which is their cause (1785).
Again what is this Syabhāva (one's Nature)?* Is it a thing or non-causality or attribute of a thing? It cannot be a thing as it is not perceived, like sky-flower. And if Svabhāva is accepted as existent even when it is not-perceived then karman
* Svabhāva has been discussed in Gathā 1643. In fact, the commentator has refuted Syabhāva in his comm. on Gāthā 1643, keeping in view Gäthās 1786–1793. See the summary of the comm. of Gátha 1643, 19

Page #235

146
too should be admitted as existent. Whatever accounts for the existence of Svabhāva can also account for the existence of karman. Or there should be nothing wrong if Svabhāva is but another name for karman. Again this Svabhāva will have to be admitted as always remaining the same, if the other-worldly existence is to be accepted as similar to this one, that is to say, if man is to be reborn as man. But on account of what can this Syabhāva remain similar? If it be said that it is by its very nature that Svabha va remains similar, then in favour of the thesis of dissimilarity of worldly existence, can it not be said that it is the very nature of Svabhāva to be eternally dissimilar, and so give rise to a dissimilar worldly existence ? (1786–8).
Moreover is this Svabháva corporeal or not? If corporeal, how is it distinct from karman? It is but another name for karman. And being modificatory it cannot remain similar, like milk, etc; or even because it is corporeal it cannot remain similar, like the modifications of clouds, etc.. If Svabhāva is incorporeal it cannot possibly be the causal agent of body, etc. for it would have no instruments, like the potter without the instruments, staff, etc. or even because it is incorporeal, like ether. Again, Svabhāva cannot be incorporeal, since its effect, body, etc. is corporeal. An incorporeal thing, e. g. ether, cannot have a corporeal effect. Svabhāva cannot be incorporeal if feelings etc, are to be accounted for. Karman has been established in Gañadharavāda, 2 as corporeal because its effect is corporeal and on account of feelings of pleasure, etc.. These arguments hold good for the corporeality of Svabhāva too* (1789–90). : Svabhāva cannot mean ‘non-causality'. 'Naturally' should not be understood to mean 'without being caused', for that cannot vindicate Sudharma's view that the other-worldly existence is similar to this one. If similarity can occur without being caused, there is no reason why dissimilarity also should not occur without a cause. And so also the destruction
* See Gathās 1625-6.

Page #236

147
of worldly existence can take place just accidentally without any cause, that is to say mokşa (emancipation) should not require any cause or effort. And if body, etc. can emerge without being caused, ass's horn should also so emerge, but that is not what we find. Moreover, if body, etc. have no cause, how could they have a definite shape ? Why could not the body emerge without a definite shape as the clouds do? All these problems cannot be solved if Svabhāva is taken to mean ‘non-causality'. Hence Svabhāva cannot mean ‘non-causality' (1791).
Even if Svabhāva means "attribute of a thing’, it cannot remain eternally similar, and so cannot give rise to a similar body, etc.. The modes of a thing are diverse — of the form of origination, persistence, destruction — and they do not eternally remain the same. The attributes of a thing, e. g. blue colour, etc. are seen to undergo other transformations. So Svabhava as 'attribute of a thing' cannot always remain similar. Moreover, if Svabhāva is taken to mean 'attribute of a thing', it will have to be clarified whether it means attribute of soul' or 'attribute of matter'. If it is the former, it being incorporeal, cannot be the cause of body, etc. which are corporeal, as the incorporeal åkāśa cannot be the cause of corporeal things. If it is attribute of matter, it is the same as karman, since Mahāvīra and his followers recognise karman as an attribute of pudgala or matter having spatial existence (pudgala-astikāya) (1792).
Thus there is nothing wrong if syabhāva is accepted as a modification i. e. attribute of a thing in the form of karman which is material, and if it is recognised as the cause of the diversity in the world. But it cannot be maintained that it remains eternally similar. On the contrary it is of diverse varieties on account of the diversity of its causes--perversity, etc., and so its effects too are diverse. Thus it should not be insisted upon that there is complete similarity in the otherworldly existence; the possibility of dissimilarity should be admitted (1793).
The fact is that not to speak of worldly existence alone, the nature of everything in the world is such that certain

Page #237

148
modes, similar or dissimilar are originated or are destroyed every moment, wbile its basic substance remains the same. One and the same thing does not remain the same in the next moment, but becomes different. Thus if a thing cannot remain similar to itself, one cannot think of its similarity to other things; and still a thing cannot be looked upon as absolutely dissimilar from all the other things in the world for there are certain universal attributes, existence, etc. which are common to all. Thus if a thing is similar to all the other things in the world, there can be no doubt whatsoever as regards the similarity, on account of these common attributes, of a thing to its previous conditions. But no absolute stand-point can be maintained. Nothing is absolutely similar or dissimilar to itself or other things in this worldly existence or another. Every thing is similar-cum-dissimilar, eternal-cum-non-eternal and so. Hence similarity alone in the other-worldly existence should not be insisted upon by Sudharmă or any one (1794-6).
A youth has no similarity to his own condition in childhood or old age, i. e. is not absolutely similar to himself by virtue of the past modes of childhood and the future modes of old age, even though there is nothing in the world to which he is not similar in respect of such common modes as existence, etc.. Thus the soul in another worldly life is similar-cumdissimilar to everything including itself, and it is no use insisting that the soul is absolutely similar to itself alone as it was in the previous worldly existence (1797).
To explain this point further, suppose a human being dies and is reborn a god. He is then similar to all the three worlds in respect of the common modes, existence, etc. but by his modes of godhead, etc. is dissimilar to them as he is to himself as he was in the previous worldly existence. Thus there cannot be absolute similarity anywhere. Similarly a thing is eternal as the basic substance, but non-eternal on account of the modes, and so on. Sudharmā may argue that. he did not insist on similarity in all respects in the otherworldly existence, but only in respect of birth; e. g. a man dies

Page #238

149
and is reborn a man. This too is not proper. The other-worldly. existence is caused by karman which having diverse causes is diverse in nature. If karman is diverse, its effect, the otherworldly existence too must be diverse and so it cannot be said that a man should be reborn as a man and so on, that is to say, that the jāti (genus) should remain the same (1798).
. Moreover if genus or class (jāti) were to remain the same then the betterment or deterioration in the same class could not be explained. He who is prosperous in this life should be prosperous in the other-worldly, existence also and he who is poor should be such. Thus there should be no scope for betterment or deterioration in the other-worldly existence. If this were so, acts of charity, etc. would be in vain, that is to say, would have no fruit. But this cannot be, for people are inspired to perform acts of charity, etc. in the hope that they will get the prosperity of gods ani thus better their lot. If such auspicious acts were to bear no fruit, people would not perform them. Hence even similarity in respect of genus should not be insisted upon (1799).
Further if similarity in respect of class is insisted upon, the Vedic statement that he who is cremated along with the feces will be born a jackal, will be contradicted for according to it a man is said to be reborn as a jackal. We have other statements to the effect that 'One who desires heaven should perform Agnihotra' (agnihotrain juhuyāt svargakāmaḥ) and 'One wins the kingdom of Yama by Agniștoma' (agniștomena yamarajyam abhijayati) and which yield promises of betterment of lot in heaven. This shows that even in the Vedic view there is no indication that the jāti (genus) remains the same. As to the statement that a man is reborn as man and animals as animals (puruso vai puruşatvam aśnute pašavaḥ paśutvam), Sudhairmā had not understood its meaning and hence his doubt. What it means is that a man who is by nature good, polite, kind, free from malice binds unto himself such two karmans called nāma (body-making) and gotra (status-determining) as enable him to be reborn as man again after he is dead. But this is not so

Page #239

150
as a rule. All men do not bind unto themselves such karman only and so take different kinds of birth, i. e. are born in different wombs. Similarly, animals who in this-worldly existence have on account of their deceit. etc. bound unto themselves nāma and gotra karman pertaining to animals, are reborn as animals. But all animals do not bind such karman and so all are not necessarily reborn as animals. Thus the state of a jīva is dependent upon karma. (1800)
When his doubt had been removed by Lord Mahāvīra, Sudharmă became a monk along with his five hundred followers (1801).

Page #240

6. MANDIKA — REGARDING BONDAGE AND
EMANCIPATION
Then Mandika decided to approach Lord Mahāvira who accosted him by his name and gotra as Mandika Vasiştha. Mahävīra also explained to him the doubt that disturbed him. Are there bondage and emancipation or not? There are Vedic statements which should mean that there is nothing like bondage or emancipation for the soul; e.g. Sa eșa viguņo vibhur na badlıyate samsarati vā, na mucyate mocayati vā, na vă eşa bāhyam abhyantaram vā veda—This soul is ubiquitous and free from guņas. Neither is it bound nor does it transmigrate. It is not freed (from karman) nor does it free (karman), that is to say, it is non-doer. It knows neither the external nor the internal (for knowledge is an attribute of prakrti). On the other hand we are told : Na ha vai saśarīrasya priyapriyayor apabatir asti, aśarīram vā vasantam priyāpriye na sprśataḥ - "The embodied soul is never lacking in respect of the pleasant and the unpleasant i. e. can never be free from pleasure and pain, whereas these do not have any effect whatsoever on the soul as it exists in an unembodied state'—which would suggest that the soul has the conditions of bondage and emancipation. Mandika was puzzled on account of these conflicting statementsboth of the Veda-and hence his doubt. But the truth is that he did not know the true meaning of these Vedic statements (1802-4).
Dialectical reasoning also has led Mandika to question bondage-emancipation. If bondage means the union of the jīva (soul) with karman, has this union a beginning or not? If it has, which of the two is earlier, jīva or karinan? Or were they simultaneously produced. Bondage cannot be explained in the light of any of these alternatives ;

Page #241

152
(i) Jiva cannot exist before karman, for in that case it like the ass's horn would have no cause, and hence could not be said to have been produced. What is produced must have a cause, e. g. jar. And what is produced without a cause, should also perish without one. If it is argued that jiva is beginningless and there is no question of its being originated, even then it cannot have any union with karman if there is no cause for it. If this union is regarded as uncaused, it would recur in the case of emancipated persons also, for there is no determining factor for its appearance; and if that is so there is no reason why people should have any faith in emancipation. Therefore the union of jiva and karman cannot be uncaused. If the soul be regarded as having no union with karman, it would be eternally emancipated, or in the absence of bondage what emancipation could there be for it? The unbound sky is never looked upon as being emancipated. There can be no emancipation without bondage preceding it. Hence the first alternative-first jiva, then karman-is not acceptable; it does not explain bondage and emancipation.
(ii) Karman cannot be produced before jiva, for jiva is regarded as the karta, doer, and karman as the karya, effect, and there cannot be the karya without the karta. Karma, cannot, like jiva, be produced without any cause, for its destruction also should then be brought about without there being any cause. Origination and destruction can never be uncaused. So karman cannot be regarded as existing before the jiva.
(iii) Jiva and karman cannot also be regarded as having been produced simultaneously, for the drawbacks of both the above-mentioned alternatives would accrue. Moreover, if they are produced simultaneously, one cannot be regarded as the karta and the other as karya; such a relation in not found in the case of bull's horns which are produced simultaneously (1805-1810).
To say that the union of jiva and karma is beginningless also does not stand to reason because it cannot explain emancipation. What is beginningless is also endless; and jiva and karma

Page #242

153
would never be dissociated, and the soul never be emancipated, as is the case with the union of jīva and sky (1811).
Thus Vedic passages and dialectical arguments have led Mandika to believe that the jīva cannot have bondage and emancipation and yet there are statements in the Veda pertaining to these. Mandika is therefore in a fix as to the acceptance or otherwise of these concepts. Mahāvīra proceeds to resolve his doubt (1812).
The stream of jiva-karma is beginningless, since they like seed-sprout are related to each other by the cause-effect relationship. . Hence there is no scope for the alternatives as to the prior existence of one. That the stream or continuum of karma is beginningless can be seen from what follows:
A particular body is the cause of a future karman and is itself the effect of a past karman. Similarly a karman is the cause of a future body, but is itself the effect of a past body. Thus karman and body being related to each other as causeeffect, their streams are beginningless: and so the stream of karman is definitely beginningless. It may be questioned here that this discussion aims at establishing the facts of bondage and emancipation; and it is simply irrelevant to prove that the stream of karman is beginningless. But it is not so. 'Karma' is derived from the root 'k?', to do. What is not done is not karma; and the 'karma' done is itself the bandha or bondage. And if the stream of karman is beginningless, bondage too is such. True, it may again be argued, but this is an attempt to prove the cause-effect relationship between body and karma. What has it do with jiva? And how can this prove that the union of jīva and karma is beginningless ? But the one advancing this argument has not grasped the link properly. The cause-effect relationship does exist between body and karman, but neither would be produced in the absence of kartā, an agent, a doer. Hence it has to be admitted that jīva is the kartā, that it creates the body through the instrumentality of karman; the jīva creates karman also through the instrumentality of body Thus jīva is the kartā of both body and karman, as the potter creating a pot through the instrumentality of the staff is the
20

Page #243

154
kartă of the jar. Thus if the stream of body and karman is beginningless, jiva too will have to be looked upon as beginningless, and its bondage too will be such (1813-15).
It should not be said here that karman being supersensuous is not established, much less can its instrumentality be established. Karman is proved through its effect. Body, etc. must have an instrument, for they like jar etc. are made; pot, etc. being effects cannot be produced without the instrumentality of staff, etc.; so the body being an effect cannot be produced without the instrumentality of something and this is karman. Or soul and body being agent-effect, must be related to some instrument; as the potter and pot standing in the relation of agent-effect have the staff as the instrument. If soul is the agent and body the effect, karman must be accepted as the karana or instrument. Moreover, acts of charity, etc. of sentient beings must have a fruit as agriculture, etc. have. Karman is this fruit of acts of charity, etc. of sentient beings. This point has been discussed earlier in the discussion with Agnibhūti, and the existence of karman should similarly be admitted by Mandika too (1816).
As to the argument that the continuity of the union of jīva and karman being beginningless is also endless, this is no absolute rule. At times the continuity is seen to come to an end, as seen in the case of seed-sprout. If either the seed or the sprout perishes before it has produced the effect, the continuity or the stream would be snapped off. This is true of hen-egg, father-son relationships and so on. The union of gold and soil even though handed down in a beginningless line can be cut off on account of the heat of fire, etc.. Similarly the union of jiva and karman though it may have come down in a begninningless line can be terininated by such means as austerity, self-control, etc. Thus it should not be said that if bondage be beginningless there could not be emancipation (1817-19).
Lord Mahāvīra further clarifies that the mutual relationship of jīva and karman which is beginningless is like that of jīva and sky and also like that of gold and soil and there is no contradictionin this. The former type which is beginningless and endless

Page #244

155
can be seen in the case of abhavya souls who will never be emancipated; the latter type--beginningless but having an endis true of bhavya souls. It may be questioned that when all are alike souls, why should there be this distinction of bhavya and abhavya : The distinctions of nāraka (denizens of hell) etc. among souls are due to karman, they are not natural. The distinctions of bhavya-abhavya, on the other hand are not on account of karman, but are intrinsic. How can this be accounted for ? (1820-22).
But the answer to this doubt is that jīva and a kāśa are alike in both being dravya (substance). They have other attributes in common, e.g. existence, knowability, etc. yet they are essentially different inasmuch as one is jiva, the other is nonjīva, one is sentient, the other is not, and so on. Similarly, even though all may be jīva, there should be no difficulty in some being bhavya and others abhavya (1823).
It may argued that bhavyatva being the very nature of the soul is eternal exactly as 'soulness' is, and hence nothing can put an end to it and therefore there can never be emancipation; and that if this is so it is useless to distinguish between bhavya and abhavya souls; as perfect (siddha) souls know of no such distinction (siddho na bhavyo nāpyabhavyaḥ). This argument is not correct. Even what is beginningless can have an end. The prior non-existence of jar (ghata-pūrvābhāva) is essentially beginningless, but it comes to an end as soon as a jar is produced; similarly bhavyatva, though beginningless can be put an end to by acts of austerity, etc. (1824–25).
This prior non-existence of jar can very well serve as an illustration, as it is not non-existent like the ass's horn. It is positive character. It is of the nature of the assemblage of pudgala (matter), only this assemblage has not assumed the form of a jar, and hence is called prior non-existence of jar (1826).
It should not be thought that if there can be an end to bhavyatva, bhavya souls would go on decreasing in the world and a time would come when there would be no bhavya soul, just as however enormous the amount of grain in a granary,

Page #245

156
it is reduced to nothing if it is drawn upon continually. This will not be the state of things. The bhavya souls are infinite in number, and a time will never come when there will be no bhavya soul. For instance, time keeps on passing, but we find that even with the subtraction of time-points, the infinite future always persists, or even if we keep on subtractiny space-points, the infinite äkāśa will never come to an end, Similarly bhavya souls being infinite in number there will never be an end to them even if every moment some of them are emancipated (1827).
The effect or result of the past and the future is the same. If only an infinitesimal part of the assemblage of bhavya souls has become siddha (perfect), has reached the state of perfection in the past, an equal number will be emancipated in the future. Hence there will never come a time when the number of bhavya souls will be exhausted. One may feel like asking as to how it can be ascertained that the bhavya souls are infinite in number and that only an infinitesimal part of it has reached the stage of perfection, have become siddha, Mahāvīra's reply is that this is exactly as in the case of Time and Akāśa (ether or space) which are infinite and are never exhausted. Moreover Mandika should have faith in Lord Mahāvīra's words, as he has reason to do so on the basis of Mahāvīra's veracity right till then starting from his knowledge of Mandika's doubt. Mahāvīra is omniscient and free from likes and dislikes, so his words should be accepted as true like those of a dispassionate
is in the know of facts. Mahavira has removed the doubts of all, hence this claiin of his. If still there is any doubt, it is open to all to seek of Mahāvīra a solution to whatsoever doubt they have and make sure for themselves of Mahā vīra's omniscience (1828-32).
It may be questioned that is, as Lord Mahāvīra says, even the bhavya souls will not be emancipated in all time, then they are abhavya and there is no sense in distinguishing them as bhavya as against the abhavya ones. But there is a misunderstanding here. By 'bhavya' is meant one who is capable

Page #246

157
of attaining the stage of perfection or becoming a siddha, not one who will attain siddhi (perfection) without fail. That one is worthy of siddhi does not by itself imply that he will attain siddhi; this can happen only when factors leading to siddhi are favourable. For instance, each one of gold, jewel, stone, sandal-wood, etc. is capable of being turned into an image; yet all do not turn into an image, but only those which the necessary implements reach. But this does not mean that the others cannot be transformed into images. Similarly the bhavya souls will become siddha only when the factors leading to siddhi are favourable. But this does not make them abhavya, for at some time or the other they will be emancipated, but the abhavya souls never. Or, as in the case of the union of gold and rock (or soil) in all cases there is the possibility of their being separated, but they are separated only when the apparatus for separation is available. But things which are not capable of dissociation will never be separated even when the means are available. Similarly, emancipation which is characterised by the extinction of all karman will occur as a rule in the case of bhavya souls only, not in the case of abhavya souls. This is the distinction between bhavya souls and abhavya ones (1833-36).
It should not be argued that emancipation is not eternal because it is caused by means, or because it comes after effort or because it has beginning etc. like jar. All the reasons adduced are inconclusive (anaikantika), because they are present even in vipakşas (dissimilar-cases),-posterior non-existence of jar etc. (ghatādi-pradhvamsābhāva ) even though caused is eternal. Pradhvarsabhāva like prāgabhāva, should not be regarded as a non-entity or negation of being and therefore as no example at all; for it is positive, of the nature of an assemblage of pudgalá (matter) which is characterised by the destruction of jar. This discussion keeps in view the caused nature or artificiality of mokşa, but mokṣa is not in reality artificial or caused. Mokşa is the separation of soul and karmic matter. When at the time of mokşa, karmic matter is separated from

Page #247

158
jiva by austerity, restraint etc. what change is really wrought in the essential being of jīva that mokṣa should be regarded as krtaka, caused or artificial ? When the jar is destroyed with a stick, there is no special change by way of addition, in the sky or space. Mokşa is destruction of karma; on this ground it should not be regarded as non-eternal, the destruction being caused by austerity, etc. like the destruction of jar brought about by a stick. Such an argument would mean that one has not understood the conception of destruction of jar or of karma. Destruction of jar means nothing else than the existence of ākāśa alone, and no change is brought about in akāśa thereby, since it remaining the same is eternal. Similarly in the present. case, destruction of karma signifies the jiva existing by itself; it is not different from the soul, nor is there any change brought about in the jiva by it, for it too like the sky or space is eternal. Hence emancipation is neither caused (or artificial) nor non-eternal. If it is said that mokṣa is in a way non-eternal, Mahāvīra has no objection to it, for each and every thing is eternal-cum-non-eternal, being of the nature of both dravya (basic substance) and paryāya (modes). But mokṣa is not absolutely non-eternal (1837-39).
Mandika should not have any suspicion lurking in his mind that the karmic matter which has been thrown away by the soul after its dissociation from it will continue to exist in the loka (cosmos, inhabited universe) in which the jiva also exists and so they will come into relation, even as ákāśa dissociated from jar comes into contact with its kapā las (potsherds); and again the soul will be bound by karmic matter. The free soul will not be bound again, since there is no cause for bondage as is the case with a guiltless or innocent person. The activities of mind-speechbody are causes of bondage and an emancipated person not having a body will not indulge in these. Bondage does not occur simply on account of contact (relation) with the matter of karma-groups, for such a bondage exists in all kinds of souls and this would be ati-prasanga (absurd over-extension). Mere relation of jīva and karmic matter is not bondage which occurs only on account

Page #248

159
of defects (doșa) like perversity of attitude and on account of activities (yoga) (1840).
Here a further question arises. The Buddhists believe that an emancipated soul comes to worldly life over and over again. What is Lord Mahavira's view in this respect? An emancipated soul is not reborn, does not come back to worldly life, since there is no cause for it, as a sprout cannot come up when there is no seed. The cause or seed of rebirth is karman and that is not not present in the case of an emancipated soul. Hence mokṣa is eternal and the emancipatel soul too (1841).
The emancipated soul is eternal also because being a substance it is incorporeal, like the sky. The contingency of its being ubiquitious also like the sky should not be urged because inference goes against this. Soul cannot be ubiquitous because it is karts, doer, agent, like a potter. That it is an agent is established by the fact that it is enjoyer, seer, etc. which it would not be if it were not kartr (doer) (1842).
Lord Mahāvīra does not insist on the absolute eternality of the soul. He has to take the trouble of proving that it is eternal only to counteract the Buddhist view of its being non-eternal. But, in fact, for the Jainas all things are of the nature of origination, destruction, persistence. The jar, for example, from the point of view of the mode of lump of clay can be said to perish, from the point of view of the mode of jar to have been produced and it can be said to have persisted in its existence as clay. When we refer to a thing as destroyed, etc. it is only because we have only one aspect of the thing prominently in view. So the emancipated soul can be said to have perished from the point of view of its worldliness, it persists from the point of view of its soulness, its upayoga (conscious activity), etc; and can also be said to have perished from the point of view of its perfection of the first time-point, to have been originated from the point of view of the perfection of the second timepoint and to have persisted as substance, soul, etc. Hence it is sometimes referred to as being eternal, etc. but this is only from different points of view (1843).

Page #249

160
If the emancipated soul is not ubiquitous, where does it stay? It stays on the summit of the loka (cosmos, inhabited universe), that is to say, at its uppermost limit. Of course, all activities of the soul are on account of karman, but here there is this movement to the uppermost limit of the loka because when the soul on the removal of karmic matter becomes light, this transformation in the form of upward motion occurs exactly as it attains siddhatva (status and nature of a siddha). On account of this upward movement the soul reaches its destination in a single time-point. Besides we have scriptural passages in support of the upward movement of the emancipated soul: "lau ya erandaphale aggi dhūmo ya isu dhanuvimukko; gai puvvapaogenam evain siddhana vi gai u." (As there is momentum in a gourd, castor-seed, fire, smoke, an arrow shot from the bow on account of former activity, such also is the movement of the siddha).
If a gourd is besmeared all over with mud and drowned in water, it comes to the surface of the water as soon as the mud is washed off, so the soul moves upwards when the karmacovering is removed. The castor seed shoots upwards as soon as its outer covering or sheath breaks off, so the soul shoots upwards as soon as it emerges from the sheath of karman. Fire and smoke move upwards naturally, so also the soul. The arrow shot from a stretched bow keeps on moving on account of the initial act, so also the soul moves upwards. Another illustration is the potter's wheel which when once set in motion keeps on moving for some time even when no fresh movement is given to it. Thus one should not have any doubt as regards the upward movement of the emancipated soul for one timepoint (1844).
Our experience tells us that incorporeal things are devoid of activity, e.g. akāśa, kāla (Time). If it is so, it may be argued, Atman being incorporeal cannot have any activity and so cannot move upwards. But we forget that things have their own peculiar attributes. Things, for example, which are incorporeal are also non-sentient e.g. äkāśa; and still we

Page #250

accept the incorporeal emancipated soul as sentient. Though the soul and ākāśa, etc. have incorporeality in common, still sentiency is a peculiar attribute of the soul, similarly motion or activity also can be its peculiar attribute and there should be no objection to this (1845).
161
That the soul has activity can also be demonstrated by inference. The soul is active, because like the potter, it is a doer or because it is an enjoyer. Or the soul is active, because movements of the body are directly perceived as in the case of a machine-man (1846).
If it is urged that the effort of atman is the cause of the bodily movement, but not the activity of atman and hence the atman cannot be shown to be active, the reply is that even effort is not found in inactive things e. g. ether or space and so if we want atman to make efforts for the movement of the body it itself must be active. Further if the incorporeal effect is the cause of bodily movement, what is it that makes this effort capable of being the cause of bodily movement? And if this effort can be such irrespective of any other force why cannot the atman by itself be the cause of bodily movement? It is not necessary to bring in effort. If it is further argued that some unseen (adrsta) is the cause of bodily movement and not the atman which is inactive, this hypothesis should be examined. Is this adṛsta corporeal or not? If it is incorporeal there is no reason why the incorporeal atman should not be accepted as the cause of bodily movement. If it is corporeal it cannot be anything other than the karmic body. And this karmic body can be the cause of bodily movement only if it itself has movement, not otherwise and there must be some cause of this movement of its and so on ad infinitum. If it is said that this karmic body has movement by its essential nature, in that case, even the external body can have movement just naturally and it is not necessary to recognise the existence of even the karmic body. But this position is not acceptable because the external body is insentient. Further we know that that which is spontaneous
21

Page #251

162
and so has not the expectancy of any cause is either always existent or always non-existent (nityam sattvam asattvam vā hetor anyānapekṣaṇāt). If accordingly the body has movement naturally, that movement will persist eternally. What we find is that the movements of the body are of a specific kind. This can be explained only by the functioning of the atman along with karman. Hence ātman has movement. It can be easily. understood that the transmigratory soul associated with karman is active; but even the emancipated soul free from karman is active for, as explained above, it is so on account of transformation into movement, exactly as by the destruction of karman the soul attains siddhatva (or state of perfection). It can thus have motion also in the state of emancipation (1847-1849).
But a further question arises. Why does not the emancipated soul move beyond the abode of the siddhas ? Beyond the abode of the siddhas is aloka and dharmāstikāya (the principle of motion which has spatial existence) that helps motion does not exist there. It follows that the soul cannot move beyond the abode of the siddbas (1850).
Some may be inclined to question the existence of aloka. The rule is that if a word is uncompounded and derivative the counter-entity of the thing denoted by it must exist. For instance, ghata (jar) is one such word. So aghata, the counter-entity of ghata does exist. Similarly loka must have its counter-entity aloka existing. But this aloka can be anything other than loka, e. g. jar, etc.. Is it necessary to recognise the existence of another entity called aloka? The difficulty can be resolved thus-na lokaḥ alokah; paryudāsa niședha (negation by exclusion) is intended here by 'nañ(a'in aloka). The counterentity must be a fitting one for the thing negated. The thing negated here, loka is a particular ákāśa, space; and so its contradictory must be befitting it; as by apandita we mean fa sentient person alone who is bereft of a particular knowledge' and not just jar, etc. So here too aloka must be a worthy counter-entity of loka. It has been said:

Page #252

163
"Nañyuktam ivayuktai vā yadi kāryam vidhiyate; tulyādhikarane 'nyasmimlloke' py arthagatis tathā.” (If in a grammatical formation 'nan' or 'iva' is employed, a thing which is similar to it but distinct from it is understood to exist in the world) and "Nan-iva vuktam anvasadrsadhikarane tathā hy arthagatih (“A word to which ‘Nañ' or 'iva' is affixed denotes a thing different from it but similar to it'). It follows that the existence of aloka, the counter-entity of loka must be admitted (1851).
From this it follows that dharma (principle of motion) and adharma (principle of rest) exist since it is they that determine loka and render it distinct from aloka. Otherwise ākāśa being the same everywhere it would not have been possible to divide it into loka and aloka and distinguish between them. That ākāśa in which the astikāyas, dharma and adharma exist is loka; that in which they do not exist is aloka (1852).
If dharma and adharma do not exist and do not divide the loka from the aloka the souls and matter which had once started moving would continue to do so infinitely in space as there would be no obstruction to their motion; they would move into aloka too and that being infinite souls and matter would not have any mutual relation. If this were to happen there would not be the different arrangements gross or other of matterskandhas, and in that case there would be no, what are called, bondage, emancipation, pleasure, pain, transmigration etc. for the souls and the souls too would not come together and so there would be no help or obstruction, etc. caused by them. Hence jīva and pudgala have no motion in aloka beyond the loka, for there is the absence there of the principle that helps motion, just as the fish cannot move out of water there being nothing to help its movement there. That principle which helps the movement of jīva and pudgala is dharmāstikāya which is co-extensive with loka. There can be an inference to this effect: There must be something that measures or determines loka, because it is measurable or knowable as knowledge exists for the knowable object. Or jīva and pudgala are called loka, hence there must

Page #253

164
be some entity that determines because it is determinable (knowable), as there is the prastha measure for rice, etc.. That which determines here is dharmāstikāya. The existence of dharma can be justified only if the existence of aloka is recognised since ākāśa is the same everywhere. Hence it has to accepted that the siddhas remain stationary at the summit of the loka and do not go beyond (1853-55).
A further point to be considered in this context is: ‘sthiyate'sminniti sthānam', that where one stays is place. Thus the word 'sthāna' denotes a substratum: Siddhasya sthānam siddhasthānamsiddhasthāna is the place of the siddhas. If it is so, the siddhas are likely to fall off, topple down from this place as Devadatta falls down from his lofty position on a mountain or a tree, or as fruit falls down. But this fear is unfounded. The genitive in 'siddhasya sthanam' is in the sense of the subject, it means 'the siddha stays', siddha and sthāna are identical; there is no sthāna other than it (1856).
Even if siddha and sthāna are not identical, this sthāna is nothing other than ākāśa and that being eternal cannot be destroyed and hence there is no likelihood of the emancipated soul's falling. Again, karman is the cause of such activities as falling, etc. on the part of the soul; the soul has no karman and so there is no possibility of its falling off. The upward movement for one time-point is, as pointed out earlier, on account of previous momentum. That movement cannot be repeated as there is no cause for it. Moreover, its own effort, attraction, repulsion (vikarşaņa), etc. are the causes of falling, and there is no possibility of these in the case of the emancipated soul and hence there being no cause for falling, the siddha will not fall off from its sthāna (1857).
That because a thing is in a place it should fall is quite inconclusive, is not an absolute rule. On the contrary there is an inherent contradiction in the statement that a thing falls from its place; for a thing can fall from what is not its place, not from its place. If you want a thing to fall from its station then the akāśa etc. should be continually falling from their

Page #254

165
eternal place. But this is not what we find. Hence 'fall because of location' is definitely inconclusive (1858).
Someone may have a doubt that a siddha is emancipated from the worldly existence, and siddhas have thus a beginning. as far as their emancipated state of existence is concerned; hence there must have been someone who was the first to become siddha. But this is not true; there is no such rule that whatever has a beginning, is an effect, must have someone entity which is the first of its kind. Day and night have a beginning; but Time is infinite; so there is nothing like 'first night' or 'first day'; all bodies have a beginning, yet there is no 'first body'. Similarly there is no one like the first siddha' (1859).
There is likely to be still another doubt. Souls have continued to become siddha from time beginningless and the abode of the siddbas (siddhi-kşetra) is finite in dimension; how possibly could this infinite number of siddhas be accommodated in this limited space ? There should be no difficulty here since the souls are not corporeal. Every thing becomes the object of the pure and perfect knowledge and intuition (kevalajñana-darśana) of siddhas; that is to say, as an infinite number of jñānas and darśanas can stay in one limited thing; glances of thousands of spectators can be accomodated in one dancing girl; so there should be no dilliculty in an infinite number of incorporeal siddhas being accomodated in a place of finite dimensions. Even a number of corporeal things like the light of a lamp and so on can stay in one small place, then what to say of incorporeal things (1860).
Lord Mahāvīra explained in the beginning the concept of bondage-emancipation by means of reasoning. Then he explained it with the help of Vedic passages. Mandika had not understood the meaning of such Vedic passages as 'Na ha vai saśarīrasya priyā priyayor apa hatir asti, aśarīram vā vasantam priyā priye na sprsatah; and hence his doubt as regards bondageemancipation. But there is no ground for this doubt. It is obvious that the embodied and the disembodied states refer to bondage and emancipation. The embodied state means bondage

Page #255

166
of the nature of a series of bodies external or internal (adhyātmika); and the disembodied state means emancipation which is characterised by the removal of all kinds of body. Likerwise Mandika took such statements as "Sa eșa viguņo vibhur na badhyate' to mean that there is no bondage or emancipation for a soul in worldly existence or in the transmigratory condition. But such passages refer not to the transmigratory soul but to the emancipated soul which has no bondage, etc.. Thus there is no mutual conflict in the Vedic passages about bondage - emancipation (1861-1862).
When Mandika's doubt was thus dispelled by Lord Mahavira, he became a monk along with his 350 pupils and followers (1863).

Page #256

7. MAURYAPUTRA- REGARDING THE EXISTENCE
OF GODS
Hearing that Mandika and others had become monks, Mauryaputra decided to approach Mahā vīra. Mahāvīra accosted him by his name and gotra as Mauryaputra Kāśyapa and told him about his doubt as to the existence of gods on account of there being Vedic statements in support of either side. 'Sa eşa yajñāyudhi yajamāno'ñjasā svarga-lokam gacchati' (The sacrificer with sacrifice as his weapon decidedly goes to heaven), 'Apāma somam amặtā abhūma aganma jyotir a vidama devān, kim nūnam asmān kặnavad arātih kim u dhūrtir amặta martyasya'* (We drank soma and became immortal; we approached light and knew the gods. What possibly, oh Immortal One, could the enemy do to us; of what efficacy is the cunning of mortal men? —RV. 8.48-3) --- such Vedic statements lead us to recognise the existence of gods in heaven. On the other hand, we find a statement like 'Ko jānāti māyopamān girvāṇān Indra-Yama-Varuņa-Kuberādīn' (Who knows the existence of gods like Indra, Yama Varuna, Kubera who are Maya-like ?). But the truth is that Mauryaputra did not know the true meaning of these statements which Mabāvīra explained to him later on to dispel his doubt (1864-1866).
Mauryaputra's argument to prove the non-existence of gods is as follows: The denizens of hell undergo great torture and are dependent on a number of factors, so it is understandable that they cannot come to the earth. Hence we should l'ecognise their existence even relying on the words of others if we cannot perceive them. But the gods are said to have the freedom to go wherever they like and to have celestial powers and yet
*The text in the printed edition of Ganadharavāda is corrupt. The meaning given is according to the correct text.

Page #257

168
they never flit across our span of vision. Even then they are referred to in Sruti and Smrti works. Hence the doubt as to their existence (1867-8).
Mahavira tells Mauryaputra to entertain no such doubt, for even if he set aside Sruti and Smști works, he could apprehend directly four kinds of gods — Bhavanapati, Vyantara, Jyotiska, Vaimānika -- who had come to attend the Samavasarana in order to pay their homage to him (Malāvīra) (1869).
There was no reason for Mauryaputra to doubt the existence of the gods even carlier for the jyotiska gods, sun, moon, etc. can be perceived by him; and if he directly perceives one group of gods it is not reasonable to doubt the existence of the different types of gods. Moreover no one doubts the existence of a king who shows favour or disfavour to his subjects; the gods too are known to make some people prosperous and to ruin others and hence one cannot possibly have any doubt as to their existence (1870).
It may be questioned that sun, moon, etc. are but abodes and so it cannot be said that the jyotiska (stellar) gods are directly perceived, as these abodes like cities may be just vacant, devoid of inhabitants. It is not so; an abode is always seen to be occupied by someone, is Devadatta and others live in the aboles of Vasantapura, etc.. Sun, moon, etc. to be abodes must have some inhabitants and these should be gods. Men cannot live in these abodes which are distinct and different from the abodes of men and so which must have inhabitants too of a distinct type, viz gods as distinct from men. Å bodes are, it is true, not always occupied by inhabitants, they may be at times vacant as are the abodes of men. But they are not always unoccupied. Abodes certainly have inhabitants in them some time or the other in the past, in the present or in the future; so they are occupied by inhabitants and are not always unoccupied. Hence gods can be looked upon as the denizens of such abodes as moon, etc. if not now at least in the past or in the future (1871).

Page #258

169
Another difficulty may be considered here. It may be argued that sun, moon, etc. may not be abodes; the sun may be just à ball of fire, the moon may be just pure water; and thus the jyotişka vimānas (abodes) may be just balls made of shining gems. But it is not so; they are decidedly vimānas, because like the abodes of the vidyādharas they are made of gems and move in the sky. Clouds and wind are not vimānas as they are not made of gems (1872).
Sun, moon, etc. cannot also be illusory fabrics projected by some magician. Even if they are such, we will have to recognise the existence of gods who would be the magicians projecting this illusion, for men could not have brought it about. But it is not proper to regard sun, moon, etc. as illusory, because like cities like Pataliputra they are always found while a magical illusion is not found to be permanent, it disappears after a short time. So sun, moon, etc. are as real as Pāțaliputra and other cities (1873). " Still another reason may be adduced to prove the existence of gods. People who commit very great sins go to hell to experience the fruit of their sinful actions and the existence of denizens of hell is accordingly recognised. Similarly those who perform highly virtuous actions must be recognised as becoming gods to enjoy the fruits of their actions. It is true that we see men and lower creatures whose condition is highly miserable and as such they are experiencing the fruit of their sinful actions, and at the same time there are men who are very happy and so may be looked upon as enjoying the fruit of their virtuous actions. Then why should one posit the existence of denizens of hell and of gods whom we cannot see? But there is a difference. We never see anyone on this earth experiencing unalloyed pain or unalloyed pleasure; there is always an adulteration however small of pleasure or pain as the case may be. Very happy persons suffer from some disease of the body or on account of the pain resulting from old age, etc., while even the very miserable have a tinge of pleasure in their lives at some time, e. g. enjoyment of a cool breeze. Hence we have to 22

Page #259

170
admit the existence of denizens of hell experiencing only pain as the fruit of their highly sinful actions and of gods experiencing only pleasure or happiness as the fruit of their highly virtuous actions (1874).
But if the gods exist why do they not come to the mortal world even when they are free to go wherever they like? As a rule they do not come as they have transferred their affections to celestial things, they are attached to the objects of pleasure there, they have not completed all their duties there, there is no special reason for them to come here as the work of mortals is not dependent on them. Moreover the world of mortals is ugly and they would not be able to bear the foul smell emitting from it. For these reasons jointly or severally gods as a rule do not visit the mortal world (1875).
But it is not true to say that they never come. They come on joyous occasions like the birth of a tirthankara, his initiation, his attaining omniscience, his nirvana. Some gods like Indra come instantaneously out of a sense of devotion, other gods follow him; still others come to dispel their doubts. There are other reasons also for their coming, viz. attachment to a son, friend, etc. of a previous life; appointment given to a friend, etc. for giving enlightenment, by being attracted by the severe austerity of great beings and ascetics; intention to harm a foe of a previous life or to favour a friend, son etc. of a previous life; solely for pleasure, to test good persons, and so on (1876-7).
The following inferences can prove the existence of the gods: One must have faith in the existence of gods, because
(i) Reliable persons, who have the power to know their previous existence, say that in a previous existence they were gods, (ii) there is direct perception of the gods in the case of some persons possessed of such attributes as austerity, etc; (iii) some persons get their work accomplished through the gods by means of vidya (lore), mantra (prayer, incantation) upayacana (entreaty), etc;

Page #260

171
(iv) the bodies of some persons are possessed by some unseen spirit other than the soul, because abnormal activities are observed;
(v) there must be the fruit of the great merit accumulated by acts of austerity, charity, etc; and
(vi) because there is the nomenclature 'deva' ('god').
Moreover all the agamas are unanimous about the existence of gods. Hence one should have no doubt whatsoever on this point.
A few points may be clarified here. How can it be said that certain actions of the body of man are the result of the influence of graha (possession)? This is easy to understand; a machine-man cannot walk, but if a man enters into it, the machine starts moving; similarly the body may not be able to perform a certain act and yet if it is seen doing it, it must be so on account of the fact that it is inspired by some unseen spirit other than the soul; and this spirit is some god. Persons are thus seen performing extra-ordinary actions. As regards the nomenclature 'deva' (god), it must have a meaning, for like 'ghata' it is a derivative, uncompounded word. Deva is derived from 'div', to shine. 'Deva' can mean 'man', it may be argued, e. g. accomplished ganadharas and others and cakravartins (sovereigns) and others possessed of prosperity who are called gods, and so it is not necessary to imagine the existence of gods who are not seen. But it is should not be forgotten that ganadhara, cakravarti, etc. are called 'gods' only figuratively. If, for example, a real lion does not exist at all, a man cannot be called a lion 'figuratively'; so if the gods did not exist at all, ganadharas, etc. would not be called gods figuratively. Hence 'deva' must mean 'a god different from man' (1878-81).
The Vedic statements do not seem to be conflicting if they are correctly understood. If the gods do not exist, the fruit of Agnihotra and such rites as is laid down in statements like 'Agnihotram juhuyāt svargakāmaḥ' (one desirous of attaining heaven should perform Agnihotra), the fruit of sacrifices and

Page #261

172
of acts of charity as are well-known in the world would all be in vain. Heaven is the fruit, but how could heaven be there if there were none to dwell in it! Sentences like 'Sa eșa yajñāyudhi... establish the existence of the gods--as is accepted by Mauryaputra too. And sentences like 'ko jānāti māyopamān.. do not maintain that the gods do not exist; they only emphasise that even the gods are illusory and transient, much more so other kinds of prosperity, etc.. If this be not so the statements about the existence of gods, and the invocation, by the mantras, of the gods would be meaningless. Statements like "One attains victory over the heavenly kingdom of Yama, Soma, Sürya, Sura-guru (Yama-Soma-Sūrya-Suragurusvā rājyāni jayati) by kratus like uktha, sodasin, etc." take for granted the existence of the gods and so would be meaningless if the gods did not exist. Kratu is a sacrifice in which the yūpa (sacrificial post) is used, while a sacrifice in which the yūpa is not used and in which there are acts of charity, etc. is called a yajña. There are invocations of Indra, etc. by the words of Vedic mantras like 'Indra ägaccha medhātithe meşavịşana'. All this would be meaningless if the gods did not exist. Thus the existence of the gods has to be recognised on the basis of th3 scriptures as also on that of reasoning (1882-3).
When Mahā vira free from old age and death thus dispelled the doubt of Mauryaputra, the latter became a monk along with his 350 pupils (1884).

Page #262

8. AKAMPITA REGARDING THE EXISTENCE
OF DENIZENS OF HELL NÄRAKAS)
Hearing that Mauryaputra and others had become monks, Akampita decided to approach Lord Mahavira and pay bis respects to bim. Mahāvīra accosted him by his name and gotra as Akampita Gautama, and told him straightaway that he had a doubt in his mind as to the existence of hellish beings. On account of Vedic statements like "Nārako vai eșa jayate yaḥ sūdrānnain aśnāti' (He, who partakes of the food of a sūdra is born a heilish being), be was led to have faith in the existence of hellish beings; on the other hand there is a statement: "Na ha vai pretya nārakāḥ' (Jivas do not become nărakas after death or there are no nārakas in the other world) which suggests that there are no hellish beings. Hence the doubt of Akampita as to their existence. But the truth is that Akampita had not grasped the true meaning of these Vedic statements which Mahā vīra proceeded to show later, after arguing with him on the ground of reason (1885–87).
Akampita's argument in favour of the non-existence of nārakas is as follows: Gods like moon, etc. are known by direct perception; the existence of others can be demonstrated by inference from the accomplishment of the fruit or desired end by vidyā (lore) mantra (prayer incantantion) upayācana (entreaty, request, etc.). But we merely hear the word 'nāraka'; the object denoted by it is not directly apprehended anywhere, nor can its existence be demonstrated by inference. Therefore the existence of ‘närakas' who cannot be cognised by any means of knowledge and so must be different from lower beings, human beings and gods cannot reasonably be accepted. But Akampita should bear in mind that though he himself cannot directly apprehend these närakas, Lord Mahavira on account of his omniscience can and so they

Page #263

174
must be existent. Akampita should not obstinately urge that his pratyakṣa, direct perception alone is pratyakṣa; the pratyakṣa of others also is pratyakṣa. We find in the world that the pratyaksa of reliable persons is given as much importance and validity as one's own pratyaksa. All do not have the direct knowledge of lion, sarabha, hamsa (swan) and yet no one regards them as not known or uncognised or uncognisable. Akampita himself has not seen all places, times, villages, towns, rivers, oceans and yet he recognises them as existent and cognisable, and he also recognises the pratyakṣa of others as pratyakṣa. Therefore, if narakas are, directly cognised by Mahāvīra, they should be recognised as directly knowable (1888-91).
*
Moreover, is it true to say that sensuous perception is the only perception and that Mahavira's perception being supersensuous cannot be accepted as such? In fact it is only by courtesy that sensuous perception is called perception. It is supersensuous perception that is the only true perception as it does not depend on extraneous help and pertains to the soul alone. Sensuous perception is really indirect, but it is called direct perception only figuratively inasmuch as it does not have to depend on the knowledge of an extraneous object, as inferential knowledge of fire depends on the knowledge of an extraneous mark, viz. smoke. But sensuous perception too is, as a matter of fact, not direct, because as in inference we do not have the cognition of fire directly but through smoke, so here also the akṣa (perceiver) i. e. atman does not have the knowledge of a thing directly but through sense-organs which are other than the soul. Hence what is called direct perception is really as much indirect as inference. Super-sensuous perception is the only real perception. Hence the narakas must be recognised as perceptible on the basis of Lord Mahavira's pratyakṣa (1892).
It should not be argued that even though in sensuous perception the soul does not know the object directly, yet the
*A mythological creature supposed to have eight legs and to inhabit snowy tracts. Sarabha also means camel, young one of an elephant, butterfly, locust, etc.

Page #264

175
sense-organs are the cognisers and they cognise the object directly and so perception by the organs is perception in the primary sense of the term. It is not so; sense-organs cannot be the cognisers of things, because being of the nature of aggregate of matter, they are corporeal, or because they are insentient and so on, like jar. Cognition produced by them is not, therefore, direct perception. Sense-organs are merely the doors to cognition and soul is the agent of the cognition, the cogniser, as Devadatta sees through the five windows even though the windows themselves cannot see anything. The five sense-organs are merely instruments and with their help the soul cognises things (1893).
Sense-organs and soul cannot be regarded as identical, because even when the sense-organs have stopped functioning, there is memory of the object cognised through them; and a person if he is absent-minded does not cognise a thing even when the sense-organs are functioning. This shows that the cogniser soul is distinct from the instruments, the sense-organs, as a person looking through five windows is distinct from them (1894).
One should not for a moment have a doubt that supersensuous cognition cannot give as much knowledge as sensuous perception, since in the latter the soul gets help from the senseorgans. In fact, the soul which gets no help whatsoever from the sense-organs i. e. an omniscient soul perceives much more than the soul functioning with the help of the sense-organs, or to be exact, perceives everything. A person sitting within the house and gazing through the five windows of the house sees a few things; but if the man goes out he is not obstructed by anything and he sees many more things. This is true of the soul also which perceives unobstructed, without the help of the senseorgans (1895).
Other reasons can be adduced to prove that sense-perception is not direct perception. A thing has infinite attributes, yet one can cognise through the organ of sight, etc. only a particular object with the attribute colour, etc. only. Hence

Page #265

176
sense-perception is indirect like inference in which through a mark of inference e g. the attribute artificiality, one can only demonstrate an object as characterised by only one attribute viz. ‘non-eternality'. In sense-perception too through the organ of one attribute one can establish a thing as characterised by that attribute alone. Sense-perception does not give us a full knowledge of its object (1896).
Inferential knowledge of fire through the knowledge of smoke with the help of the remembrance of the relation cognised earlier is indirect; so sensuous perception too is indirect as in it the memory of convention grasped earlier is indispensable. On account of familiarity, this memory of convention takes place so immediately at times that one loses sight of it; still it is indispensable; otherwise one who has not the knowledge of the convention, would not have the knowledge 'This is jar' on seeing a jar. But this is not what we find. One perceives a jar as jar. Memory is thus as much indispensable to sense-perception as it is to inference, and so both are indirect. That knowledge alone is direct in which the soul does not require any help from any instrument, e. g. visual intuition (avadhi), intuition of mental modes (manah-paryaya) and pure and perfect knowledge (kevala-jñāna); but in sense-perception the soul requires the help of the sense-organs which are thus the instruments of the perceiver (akşa), soul and hence sense-perception is indirect like inference (1897).
It comes to this that leaving aside pure and perfect knowledge (kevala-jnana), intuition of mental modes (manahparyāya) and visual intuition (avadhi) all other cognitions are but inferential, indirect as have for their object a thing that is not directly perceived. The above mentioned pratyakşa and also inference establish the existence of hellish beings. Therefore they exist. The pratyakşa is in this particular case the pure and perfect knowledge of Mahavira's The inference is as under : There must be some enjoyers of the fruit of extremely sinful actions, for that too is fruit of karma like the fruit of the low and middling types of karman. Lower Creatures and human

Page #266

177
beings are the enjoyers of the low and middling types of karman, so we must accept that it is the narakas who are the enjoyers of the fruit of extremely sinful actions. We cannot regard those lower creatures and human beings as the enjoyers of the fruit of extremely sinful actions, as we do not see that same climax of misery amongst the lower creatures and human beings as we see the climax of happiness amongst the gods. There is no lower creature or human being who experiences only pain or misery unalloyed with some happiness, for such a one also has the pleasure however little of enjoying cool breeze or the shade of a tree and so on; and we never see such a one experiencing the well known extreme tortures of hell, e. g. piercing, cutting, baking, burning, hurling on a stone, etc.. So we must recognise the existence of hellish beings (nārakas) as distinct from lower creatures and human beings. It has also been said:
Satatam anubaddham uktam duhkam närakeşu tivrapariņāmam; tiryakṣiṣṇa-bhaya-kṣut-trḍādi-duḥkham sukham calpam. sukhaduḥkhe manujānāṁ manaḥ-sariráśraye bahuvikalpe; sukham eva tu devanām alpam duḥkham tu manasibhavam. (It is said that there is continually enduring pain of severe consequences amongst the narakas. Among the lower creatures there is the pain of heat, fear, hunger, thirst, etc. and little happiness. There are mental and physical pleasures and pains of many kinds amongst the mortals; but the gods have pleasure alone and little of mental unhappiness) (1898-1900).
Akampita should recognise the existence of narakas relying on Mahavira's word, for he is omniscient and therefore his word is authoritative like the word of other omniscient beings, Jaimini and others - recognised as such by Akampita (1901).
There can be no doubt regarding Mahavira's omniscience since there is the absence in him of fear, likes, faults, infatuation, etc. which actuate a person to utter lies and malicious words. Mahavira's words should be accepted as truthful and free from malice like those of an arbiter who is in the know of facts. That Mahavira is omniscient can be seen from the fact that he has
23

Page #267

178
dispelled all the doubts and because there are no fear, likes, dislikes, etc. in him an account of which a person becomes ignorant or stupefied. There are no external signs of these and hence Mahā vīra's words are those of an omniscient being and so authoritative (1902).*
As for the Vedic statement 'Na ha vai pretya nārakāḥ santi' which led Akampita to doubt the existence of närakas, it does not mean that the nārakas do not exist at all, but that there are not in the other world such nāraka beings as are eternal like Meru, etc.; those who commit very great sin become nārakas after death; hence one should not commit such sin as would make one go to hell after death. The emphasis is on the teaching that one should not commit sin and not on the non-existence of hellish beings (1903).
When Akampita's doubt was dispelled by Lord Mahavira, free from old age and death, he became a monk along with his 300 pupils and followers 1904.
* This Gathā has occurred earlier, Gāthā 1578,

Page #268

9. ACALABHRĀTĀ REGARDING THE REALITY
OF PUNYA-PAPA (GOOD-EVIL)
Hearing that they had become monks, Acalabhrātā decided to approach Lord Mahāvīra with the intention of paying his respects to him. As he approached, Mahāvīra accosted him by his name and gotra as Acalabhrātā-Harita and told him that he had a doubt as to the reality of merit (punya) and sin (papa). There are Vedic statements like 'Puruşa evedam gni sarvam'* which Acalabhrātā interpreted as meaning that there is nothing in the world except the Puruşa; on the other hand most people believe in punya and păpa. Hence his doubt. But the truth was that he did not understand the true meaning of this Vedic statements (1905-7).
Moreover a number of views were set forth by different thinkers as to punya and pāpa and Acalabhrātā, not being able to decide which was acceptable, was confounded:
(i) Punya alone exists, not på pa. (ii) Pāpa alone exists, there is nothing like punya,
(iii) There is only one thing of the nature of both punya and pāpa. As the mecaka-maņi (a jewel) has a number of different colours and yet is one, similarly being one this thing yields both pleasure and pain.
(iv) Pleasure - yielding punya and pain-giving pāpa are different entities;
(v) There is nothing like karma or pāpa-punya; the manifold worldly existence just goes on by itself, by its own nature (1908).
The arguments in favour of these views, are respectively as follows:
* See Gañadharavāda, 2

Page #269

180 (i) Punya alone can explain pleasure and pain, and so it would be superfluous to recognise the reality of pāpa. As punya goes on increasing there is increase in pleasure and good and when punya reaches its height it gives rise to the pleasure of heaven. As it goes on declining, decreasing, pleasure also decreases and pain increases and when the the least possible punya is left it results in the pain of hell. But if punya is completely destroyed, there is mokṣa or emancipation. The case is similar to that of wholesome food. The more one partakes of it, the more healthy and strong one becomes, but by gradually giving it up health starts disappearing and a person becomes unhealthy; and when it is completely abandoned a person dies; similarly when there is no punya, there is mokṣa or liberation from this world. Thus pāpa does not figure at all as the cause of pain and hence punya alone is real (1909).
(ii) Those who recognise the reality of pāpa . alone give the analogy of unwholesome food. The more one partakes of it, the more prone to disease one becomes. So also as pāpa increases, one suffers more and more pain, and when it reaches its climax one experiences the greatest posible pain viz. that of hellish beings. But as pāpa declines, there is decrease of pain and gradual increase of pleasure or happiness and when pāpa is at its lowest ebb there is the pleasure of heaven, exactly as by decreasing the quantity of unwholesome food there is more and more of health and less of disease. When unwholesome food is completely given up there is the gain of perfect health, so when pāpa is completely eradicated one attains emancipation or mokşa. Pápa alone can explain pleasure and pain; punya is superfluous (1910).
(iii) Punya and pāpa are not distinct, but are one entity. Different colours form one variegated colour-pattern; the mecaka-maņi with many colours is but one; bearing the forms of man and lion, Narasimha is but one; so there is only one entity which bears the names punya and pāpa. When the proportion of pāpa goes up that same thing is called pāpa, and when the punya-element increases, it is called punya (1911).

Page #270

181
(iv) Pleasure and pain which are effects do not occur simultaneously, so they must have separate causes; these are punya and pāpa which are therefore independent entities.
(v) There is nothing like pāpa or punya; the manifold worldly existence goes on by its own essential nature (svabhāva). . Of these the fourth view alone recognising the independent existence of punya and păpa stands to reason; the others are faulty and can be sublated by reasoning. Svabhāva, to take the view mentioned last, cannot explain the existence of pleasure and pain in all their variety. What is this Svabhāva ? Is it a thing or non-causality or attribute of a thing.* Svabhāva cannot be recognised as a thing because it is not apprehended like sky-flower (1912–3).
Andt if its existence is recognised even when it is not apprehended, then there should be no objection to recognising the existence of karma of the form of punya-păpa. Whatever reason is put forth to account for svabhāva even though it is not apprehended the same will be the reason for the existence of karma (1914). . Or there is no harın in regarding svabhāva as but another name for karman. I Moreover, syabhāva being uniform in nature, cannot give rise to the manifold effects like body, etc. which have a fixed shape. The potter cannot make jars of a specific shape without the help of his manifold apparatus; so the variety of pleasurepain cannot arise without manifold karma; svabháva, uniform in character, cannot be regarded as their cause (1915).
Again, if this syabhāvas is a thing is it corporeal or incorporeal. If it be corporeal, it would differ only in name from
* Same as Gātha 1786. For the refutation of Svabhāvavada, see Gathā 1643 commentary.
+ Same as Găthá 1787
Same as 1788 ab.
$ The same questions have been raised in Gáthás 1789-90 but answered differently. And we have the same discussion as we have here in the commentary on Gātha 1643.

Page #271

182
karman; svabhäva would in essence be the same as karman. If it be incorporcal, it could not, like akaśa (ether), give rise to any effect, much less produce body, etc. or pleasure-pain. As the effects, body, etc. are corporeal, the cause svabhāva too must be corporea), and if it be corporeal, it would be the same as karma as explained above, only with a different name.
If svabhäva is looked upon as non-causality* (that is to say, effects have no cause-), then ass's horn should also be produced as much as jar, etc.; but this is not what we find, since ass's horn has no cause; hence every effect must have a cause and svabhāva cannot be interpreted as non-causality (1916-7).
If svabhäva be an attribute of a thing, it would be a transformation of jīva and karman, called punya-pāpa. This transformation can be established as the basis of the inference of the effect from the cause and of the cause from the effect. This is as follows: Acts of charity etc. and injury etc. are causes, therefore they must have their effects and these effects are nothing but the transformations of jīva and karman in the form of punya and pāpa as the act of ploughing etc. has rice, barley, wheat, etc. as its effect. It has been said : "Samāsu tulyam viņa māsu tulyar satışv asac càpy asatīşu sac ca; phalam kriyāsy ity atha yannimittam tad dehinām so'sti nu
ko'pi dharmaḥ. -'Like activities bear like fruit, and unlike activities too yield like fruit; at times there is no fruit even when activities are undertaken and at other times there is the fruit even without activities. This shows that the fruit of activities does not depend entirely on them; it must be dependent on some attribute of embodied beings; karman is this attribute.'
Inference from effect is as follows : Body, etc, must have a cause because they are effects, like jar, etc.. Karman is this cause of body, etc.. This has been discussed at length in the conversation
* This alternative has been differently answered in the comm. on Gātha 1643 and in Gāthā 1791.

Page #272

183
with Agnibhūti. It may be argued that we directly apprehend parents etc. as the cause of body, etc. and so there is no need to imagine the existence of invisible karma. But it is not so, Children of the same parents are unlike one another; some may be good to look at, while others may be ugly and it is on account of this that karman as distinct from the visible causes, parents, etc. has to be recognised. And this karman has again to be recognised as of the form of punya and pāpa; for punya - karman can be inferred as the cause of subha (good) body, etc. and păpa-karman as the cause of aśubha (bad, inauspicious) body, etc.. Moreover the cause in the form of good action gives rise to good karman or punya and foul action as the cause gives rise to bad karman or pápa. Hence the two types of karman—pāpa and punya-are different by their very nature. It has also been said :"Iha dřstahetvasambhavikāryavišeşāt kulālayatna iva; hetvantaram anumeyam tat karma śubhāśubham kartuḥ”. --"When a particular effect does not arise from visible causes, another cause has to be inferred like the effort of the potter, and that is the śubha (good) or aśubha (bad) karman". Moreover, Acalabhrātā must recognise the existence of subha and aśubha karman relying on the words of Mahavira who is omniscient (1918-20).
The two-fold classification of karma into punya and papa can be established in a different way also. Pleasure and pain are effects and they must have a befitting cause (agreeing with their nature). Atoms are the befitting cause of jar and threads of cloth; similarly punya-karma is a befitting cause of pleasure and pāpa-karma of pain, and the two should be regarded as distinct (1921).
One may raise an objection here that if karman is the cause of pleasure and pain and if it is in conformity with the effect, then it too should be arūpin (without form ) and if it has form, it is not a befitting cause, since pleasure and pain are not corporeal, whereas karman would be corporeal (1922).

Page #273

184
The answer to this is that cause and effect are not in absolute agreement, nor also do they completely differ. If they be regarded as absolutely agreeing with each other, they would be identical and both would be of the nature of cause or both of the nature of effect, but would not stand to each other in the relation of cause-effect. If they be different from each other in entirety, if the effect be regarded as real existent entity, the cause would not be one at all. Hence the cause and the effect are neither in absolute conformity, nor are they completely different. Hence the cause, karman need not be formless, because its effect, pleasure-pain is such (1923).
a
Of course it remains to be explained why the cause is said to be one befitting the effect, when not only cause-effect but everything in the world is both similar and dissimilar. Even when everything in the world is both similar and dissimilar to every other thing in the world, the effect is an essential mode of the cause and hence it is required that the cause should be befitting the effect; the things other than the effect are alien modes, and hence the cause does not agree with their nature. That is to say, while the cause is transformed into the effect, it is not transformed into any other thing, and hence it is said that the cause is in conformity with the effect; the cause may be similar to other things in other ways but from this particular paint of own and alien modes, the cause is not in conformity with things other than its own effect. In the present context, pleasure and pain are the essential modes of their cause as follows: the conjunction of soul aud merit is the cause of pleasure and the latter is its mode; and the conjunction of soul and demerit is the cause of pain which is its mode. As pleasure is said to be good, auspicious, etc. these very attributes are applied to its cause-the material punya also; and the material papa is called bad, inauspicious, etc. because its effect pain is said to be such. Hence it is from this particular point of view that merit-demerit are said to be befitting causes of pleasure-pain (1924).

Page #274

185
The corporeal blue object is the cause of the incorporeal cognition illuminating or presenting it, so corporeal karman of the form of merit-sin can be the cause of incorporeal pleasure-pain; our experience tells us that corporeal food, garland, sandal-wood, woman, and serpent, poison, thorn, etc. are the causes of pleasure and pain, so is karman their cause. It may be argued that if this is what Lord Mahā vīra's view amounts to, then let these food etc. which are directly perceived be the cause of pleasure-pain; it is not necessary to posit the existence of karman which is not seen. But it is not so. Even in the case of persons with the same resources in respect of food, etc. there is seen to be a great difference in the resulting pleasure and pain. The same food confers health on one while it brings illhealth to another. This difference in results must have some special cause; if there were no cause it would be eternally existent like ether; or eternally non-existent like ass's horn. Karinan is this cause and it can be seen that it is highly necessary to posit its existence, even though it may not be seen (1925–6).
Karman is regarded as corporeal though it is not seen, because difference in results in the case of persons with the same resources is caused by it and because it imparts strength to the corporeal body, etc. as a jar does. The jar as an instrumental cause imparts strength to body, etc. and is corporeal.* Or karman is corporeal because its store is strengthened by corporeal things like garland, sandal-wood, etc., just as the jar is strengthened, made firm by corporeal things like oil, etc.. Or karman is corporeal, because its effects, body, etc. are corporeal, as atoms are corporeal since their effects-jar, etc.-are corporeal. It can be urged here that if the effect should determine for us the nature of the cause, then karman as the cause of the corporeal body, etc. should be corporeal and as the cause of the incorporeal pleasure-pain should be incorporeal.
*This seems to mean that the body by itself cannot fetch water, but if it is helped by a jar, which serves as an instrumental cause, it attains the strength or capability of bringing water,
24

Page #275

186
But it is not so. Lord Mahā vira does not intend to state that if the effect is corporeal or incorporeal, all its causes should be accordingly corporeal or incorporeal. Karman alone is not the cause of pleasure-pain; soul too is the cause; and of the two it is the soul which is the material or constituent cause and the karma is the asamavāyi-kāraṇa (non-constituent cause); hence t is but proper that the soul, the material cause should be incorporeal as its effects, pleasure-pain are incorporeal; and it is not at all necessary to infer that the asamaváyi-kāraņa, karma should be incorporeal because pleasure, etc. are such. Hence there is no difficulty in establishing that the cause viz. karma of body, etc. which are corporeal is corporeal (1927-1929).
If karma though corporeal is established as the cause of pleasure and pain, it is not reasonable to state that there is abundance of pain simply on account of the decline of merit. But abundance of pain is certainly on account of the abundance of its corresponding karman, viz. pāpa-karma, because there is abundant experience of pain; just as the experience of the abundance of pleasure is caused by the abundance of the corresponding karma, viz. punya-karma (1930-31).
Moreover the abundant pain experienced by embodied souls is not caused merely by the decline in merit; but an external factor, viz. abundance of undesired food, etc. too is necessary. If it be caused merely by the decline in punya, then it should appear even when there is the decline of desired food alone which accrues on account of punya, and would not depend on the abundance of the force of external means like undesired food, etc. which accrue on account of pāpa and which are opposed to it. The purport of this discussion is that if pain were caused merely by the decline of punya, then it would be brought about merely by the decline in the means such as desired food, etc. which are attained by the rise of punya, but this is not what we find; on the contrary it is caused by virtue of the abundance of the means like undesired food, etc. which are opposed to it. Decline of merit can cause decline of desired resources, but never increase of undesired

Page #276

187
resources. An independent cause, viz. sin has to be supposed for it (1932).
Again if the happy body were determined by abundance of punya alone and the miserable body by only the decrease of punya alone, and if there were nothing like sin (papa), then the body being corporeal it would be huge on account of the abundance of punya and small on account of the decrease in punya. And the big body should be pleasurable and the small one painful. But we do not find this. The body of an elephant is bigger than that of a sovereign lord, and yet there is abundance of merit in the case of the sovereign lord. If, as said above, decline of merit were to determine the body, then the elephant's body should be very small, but it is very big. Again punya is good and auspicious, and even a small amount of punya should bring about a good effect; in no case can it become inauspicious. Gold, for example, in a small quantity makes a small golden jar, but never an earthen one or a copper one. The elephant's body too should be small and auspicious, but not big and asubha (foul, inauspicious, ugly). But if it is such, an independent papakarma should be responsible for this (1933).
The same discussion in the reverse form applies to the view that there is sin alone and no good or merit; pleasure cannot be caused by decline of demerit or sin; for if poison is fatal, even a little poison should cause harm, but never good. But punyakarma has to be postulated to account for pleasure. Karma cannot be of a mixed nature too, as there is no cause of such a karma. Yoga (activity) is the cause of karma. Yoga can be either good or bad at one time, but not of a mixed good-cum-bad nature; its effect too should be good, viz. punya or bad, viz. papa, but not of a mixed form-punya-cum-papa. Perverted attitude, non-abstinence, spiritual inertia, passion and activity (yoga) are the causes of bondage; of these yoga alone is such that it is invariably connected with karma-bondage; that it to say, karma-bondage is not possible without yoga. Hence yoga alone of all the causes has been mentioned here. Yoga is three-fold according as it pertains to mind, speech or body (1934-1935).

Page #277

188
It may be objected that activities of the mind, speech and body are seen to be of a mixed nature-to be goodcum-bad-, so the above statement is not correct. To wit, some one thinks of giving in charity, in a way not in accordance with what is prescribed, then the mental activity is both good and bad inasmuch as the pious attitude is indicative of good, but the non-observance of the enjoined method is indicative of 'bad'. Similarly if one instructs another to give in charity, not in the prescribed way, there is the activity of speech which is good-cum-bad. And if one worships the Jina by bowing down, etc. not according to the prescribed way, that is good-cum-bad bodily activity. True, but it should not be forgotten that yoga is two-fold - dravya (physical) and bhāva (psychical). The material substances inspiring the activities of the mind, etc. are dravyayoga and so also all the vibrations of the mind, etc.. Adhyavasāya (determination, motive, intention) is the cause of both these kinds of dravya-yoga. Dravya-yoga may be of a mixed nature both good and bad. But the cause of it viz. adhyavasāya can be at a time either good or bad, but can never be of a mixed nature. Dravya-yoga too is said to be of a mixed nature only from the vyavahara-naya i. e. the empirical point of view; but from the ultimate point of view (niscaya-naya), it can be only good or bad at a time. In the inquiry into the real nature of things, it is the niscaya-naya that is more important than the vyavahāra-naya and it constitutes the import of the scriptures. In the case of bhā va-yoga, the mixed state is not possible from any point of view. Adhyavasaya can be either gocd or bad; in no scripture do we find a reference to a third type of adhyavasāya of a mixed nature-good-cum-bad. When the adhavasāya is good there is the binding of punya-karma and when the adhyavasāya is bad there is the binding of pāpa-karma; but there being no adhya vasa ya of a mixed nature-good-cumbad, there can never be any karma which is of a mixed nature-punya-cum-pāpa. Hence punya and papa should be regarded as independent and not of a mixed nature (1936).
Now it should be explained why bhāva-yoga is not of a mixed nature. Bhäva-yoga is two-fold--of the nature of dhyāna

Page #278

189
(concentration) and leśyà (coloration). Dhyāna can be righteous (dharma) or pure (śukla) and auspicious (śubha) or mournful (ärta) or cruel (raudra) and inauspicious (aśubha); but never of a mixed nature. On the cessation of dhyāna, the coloration is good--taijasa, etc. or bad-kāpota, etc. but not of a mixed nature. Bhāva-yoga also which is of the two-fold nature of dhyāna and leśyā, thus cannot be of a mixed nature; karma too which is bound by this bhāva-yoga can be auspicious, of the nature of punya, or inauspicious, of the nature of pāpa, but not of a mixed nature. Therefore pāpa and punya should be regarded as independent entities (1937).
An objection can be put forth here: If karma is not of a mixed nature, why is the nature of mohanīya-karma of the form of right-cum-perverted attitude and so good-cum-bad? The fact is that the nature of mixed mohanīya is not mixed from the point of view of binding; that is to say, the karma that is bound by yoga is from that point of view either good or bad; but this previously bound karma-prakrti can be turned by the force of adhyavasaya (determination) from good into bad and from bad into good. The formerly bound aśubha karman of the nature of perverted attitude can be transformed into the nature of right attitude by purifying it by good adhyavasāya (determination). Similarly bad or impure adhyavasāya can transform the good pudgalas of (karma of) right attitude into the nature of perverted attitude, and some karma-pudgalas of perverted attitude can be half-purified. Thus from the point of view of the existing karman (persisting after being bound), mixed mohanīya-karma is possible; but at the time of binding, there is never the binding of mixed mohanīya karma (1938).
As to the transformation of one kind of karma-p:akşti (karmic matter) into another there is no possibility of such transference as far as the eight basic karma-prakstis are concerned – viz. jñā nāvarana, darśanā varaņa, vedaniya, mohaniya, āyu, nāma, gotra and antarāya; i.e. one karmapraksti cannot be transformed into another. But transformation among the sub-types of each basic karman is possible except in

Page #279

190
the case of aya and mohaniya karmans. To wit, manusya, deva, nāraka, tiryaīca are the four sub-types of ayu-karma; they cannot be transformed into one another; similarly of the two-types of mohanīya kurma---darśana-inolanīya and caritra-mohanīya-one cannot be transformed into the other. In the case of others, transformation is possible in the case of the sub-types of karman. This is how the transformation is to be considered: There are 47 dhruva-bandhini uttara-prakrtis (sub-types of the bondage of karman), viz. 5 jñanavaranas, 9 darśanävaraņas, 16 kaṣāyas, mithyātva, bhaya, jugupsă, tai jasa, kārmaņa, colour, taste, scent, touch, agurulaghu, upaghata, nirmāņa, 5 antarāyas. These sub-prakstis which are non-disferent from the mūla-prakstis (basic karmic matter) keep on being transformed from one sub-type to another. About the adhruva-bandhin prakstis it should be noted that the non-bound prakřti is transformed into the bound; but the bound is never transformed into the non-bound. This is the way of transformation of prakrti (karmic matter). The remaining process of the transformation of pradeśa (numerical strength), etc. can be seen from ‘mūlaprakstyabhinnāsu vedyamānāsu samkramah bhavati - There is transformation into one another amongst those that are known to be non-different from the original prakrti' (1939).
Punya and papa can be distinguished as follows: That which has such attributes as good colour, scent, taste, touch, and that which has good fruition is punya. That which is just the reverse of this, that is to say, has foul colour, etc. and foul fruition, is på pa. These papa and punya are both pudgala (matter); but they are neither very gross like the mountain Meru, etc. nor are they very subtle (1940).
The universe is full of pudgalas and yet the soul binds (catches) only such matter of the karma-group as is fit for karman in the form of pāpa and punya; it does not bind paramäņus subtler than the substance of the karma-group and substance of the very gross (aulārika) group and such other groups. If a man besmears his body with oil and sits in the open, particles cling to his entire body in proportion to the oil

Page #280

191
.
besmeared, so the soul besmeare with likes-dislikes catches only such pudgalas as are fit for karma as punya, papa. Again the soul catches all over its expanse only thoso pudgalas as are within the pradeśa (space-points) it occupies. It has been said :
Egapaesogācłhari sav vapaesehi kammino joggai; bandhai jahuttaheum sāiyamaņāiyum vāvi. ,
(Pascasangraha, Gāthả, 284) "The soul binds with all its space-points as much matter fit for karman as is situated in the spaca, occupied by it. This is accounted for by the causes mentioned above (i. e. perversity, etc.). This bondage has a beginning or is beginuingless from the point of view of the series”.
The soul which has fallen off from the path of subsidence, (upaśama) starts binding the mohanīya and other karmans afresh; and in the case of the jiva who has not yet sturted on the path of subsidence, the bondage is said to be beginningless (1941).
A point can be raised here to the following effect : All the space-points are crowded with pudgalas irrespective of whether they are subha or aśubha; there is no division like space reserved for śubha pudgalas or for aśubha pudgalas. Just as the body besmeared with oil can distinguish between dust-particles big and small, but not between auspicious and inauspicious, so the soul can bind unto itself karnic matter by distinguishing between gross and subtle, but it cannot distinguish while binding karmic matter, between auspicious and inauspicious pudgalas and take unto itsell only the auspicious ones (1942).
This can be answered as follows: As long as karma-pudgala is not bound by the jiva, it is neither auspicions nor inauspicious; but as soon as jīva binds it it transforms it into auspicious or inauspicious by virtue of the peculiarity of the transformation in the form of adhyavasāya (determination) and also of the support, as in the case of food. That is to say, the jiva while binding karman produces in it auspiciousness or inauspiciousness in accordance with the transformation of the jiva into auspicious or inauspicious adhyavasāya; again, the jiva

Page #281

192
which is the support of karman has such a peculiar nature on account of which it can transform karma even while binding it; the karma too has such a nature that it is thus transformed even while being bound by the jiva with auspicious or inauspicious adhyavasáya. In the same way jīva produces also the manifoldness of type, duration, intensity of fruition, scantiness of spacepoints or extensiveness of space-points, even as it binds it. This has been pointed out in the following Gathäs : (i) Gahaņasamayammi jīvo uppãei guṇe sa paccayao;
savvajīvāṇantagune kammapaesesu sav vesu.
(Karma-prakrti, Bandhana-karana, Gathā, 29) (ii) Āyugabhāgo thovo náme goe samo tao ahigo;
å varanamantarãe sariso ahigo ya mohe vi. savvuvari veyaņie bhāgo ahio nu kāraṇam kimtu; suhaduḥkhakāraṇată țhii visesena sesāsu.
(Bandha-śataka, Gā. 89-90).* [(i) The soul while binding karma-pudgalas produces in the
karma-pradeśas, on account of its transformations, infinite
attribute-units, infinitely times the souls. (ii) In the karma-pradeśas the smallest portion is that of the
àyul-karman; more than that, but equal amongst themselves, is that of jñānā varana, darśanavarana and antarāya karmans. More than that is the portion of mohanīya, but the greatest of all is the portion of vedanīya, because it is the cause of pleasure and pain. The portions of ths other karmans is in proportion to their duration] (1943).
The case of karman pudgala is parallel to that of food. Even when the food is the same, there are different modifications caused by the peculiarity of modification and of the support or receptacle. Even if a cow and a serpent are given the same food, the cow's food turns into milk and that of the serpent into poison. As there is this peculiarity in the nature of the food that it undergoes different modifications in different
*Compare Karma-prakști Cūrņi, Bandhana-karaņa, Gā. 28.

Page #282

193
receptacles (āśraya), so the support or the receptacle of the food also has the peculiar capability or efficiency of transforming it differently. Karma, similarly, has the energy or capability to undergo an auspicious or inauspicious transformation on resorting to a jīva with an auspicious or inauspicious adhyavasāya (resolution); and the supporting jīva too has the capability to bind karman and to transform it into auspicious or inauspicious i.e. into punya (merit) or pápa (sin) (1944).
This example cannot be stretched to the extremest possible end because it can only prove that some jīvas can transform karman into auspicious (subha) and other jivas can transform karma into inauspicious (aśubha) but it cannot be said that one and the same jiva has the capability to produce in karman both subha and aśubha transformations. Another example can be given for this. Even in the same body, the same food immediately undergoes modifications both substantial and unsubstantial, good and foul. It is well known that our body turns the food eaten into substantial things like juices, blood, flesh and into foul things like urine, faeces. So the jīva can transform the karman it has bound into śubha or aśubha in accordance with its own modifications or adhyavasāya--śubha or aśubha (1945).
It is easy to see that subha karman is punya and aśubha karman, pāpa. But it remains to be seen as to which of the types of karma-bondage are subha and which aśubha. Comfortgiving (sātavedaniya), right belief (samyaktva, a particular state of purity of the mithyātva-pudgala), laughing, male sex, rati (improper and confirmed prejudicial liking), good quantum of life (äyu), good name (náman), good lineage (gotra), —these types are called punya. In the subha-ayu (quantum of life) are included deva (god), manuşya (man) and tiryañca (lower beings), that is to say, hellish beings are excluded. Subha-nāma includes 37 types, viz, devadvika i. e. devagati and devānupūrvī, yaśaḥ-kirti (fame), tirthakara (potency of revealing truth and establishing religious community), etc.. Subha-gotra means high lineage. These 46 types being auspicious are punya and the remaining are pāpa. Some ācāryas regard all the sub-types of inohaniya-karman as
25

Page #283

194
pāpa because they bring about some harmful effect or the other for creatures. Thus by excluding samyaktya, laughing, male-sex, and rati there are 42 punya-prakstis: sātavedaniya, uccagotra (high lineage), manusya-deva-tiryañc-ayu and 37 types of näma-karman, viz. devadvika i.e. devagati and devānupūrvī, manusyadvika i. e. manuşyagati and manusyānupūrvī, beings with five sense-organs, 5 bodies, viz, gross, subtle, ahāraka (of ascetics), luminous, karmic; triad of argopānga, viz. gross, subtle, āhāra angopāngas; prathama-samhanana - vajra-rşabha-nārāca, caturasra-sarsthāna (symmetrical structure), auspicious colour, taste, scent, touch; agurulaghu, parāghāta, ucсhvāsa, á tāpa, uddyota, prašasta-vihāyogati, trasa, bādara, paryāpta, pratyeka, sthira, subha, subhaga, susvara, adeya, yaśaḥ-kīrti, nirmāņa, tirthakara. These have been enumerated as the 42 punya-prakrtis by the Jina."*
The remaining 82 karma-prakrtis are inauspicious í. e. pāpa. -- the 5 samsthānas viz. nyagrodha parimandala, sādi, kubja, vāmana, hunda; aprašasta vibāyo-gati; 5 sainbananas. viz. fşabha-nārāca, nārāca, ardhanárāca, kilikā, chedavștta; tiryaggati, tiryagānupūrvī, asāta vedaniya, low lineage, upaghāta, birth with one sense-organ, with two, three, four sense-organs, naraka-gati, narakānupūrvī, naraka-ayu, sthå vara, sūksma, aparyāptaka, sādbāraņa, asthira, aśubha, durbhaga, duḥsvara, anādeya, ayasah-kirti, asubhavarna, aśublagandha, aśubharasa, aśubhasparsa, kevalajñānāvaraņa, kevaladarśanā varana, nidrā, nidrānidrā, pracalā, pracalāpracalā, styānagrddhi or styānarddhi, anantānubandhi-krodha, anantā omāna anantā māyā, anolobha, apratyākhyānāvaranakrodha, apromāna, apromāyā, aprolobha, pratyakhyunavarana Krodha, prom na, ptomaya, prolobha, * Sāyam uccāgoyam nara-tiri-devāuyajm taha nāme;
devadugam maņuyadugam panidajai ya taņupanagam. angovangānā tigam padhamam samghayanameva samthanam; subhavaņņāicaukkam agurulahū taha ya paraghāyam. usāsam āyāvam ujjoya vihagai viya pasatthā: tasa-bäyara-pajjattain patteyathiram subham subhagam. sussara kejja jasari nimmiņa tittbayaram eva eyão; bāyālam pagaio punnam ti jiņehim bhaņião.

Page #284

195
mithyātva, matijñānā varana, śrutajñānā", avadhijñānão, manah-paryayajñānā", cakṣuḥ-darśanao, acakṣuḥ-darśana', avadhidarśanao, samjvalana - krodha, samomāna, samomāyā, samolobha, hāsya, rati, arati, śoka, bhaya, jugupsā, strīvedà, pumveda, napumsakaveda, dánāntarāya, labhantarāya, bhoga”, upabhogā°, vīryao.
The status of samyaktva is rather a puzzling one. That too is regarded by Lord Mahāvīra as aśubha — pāpa. But then how is it called samyaktva ? The samyaktva in the form of the ruci or predilection of the jīva is subha; but that is not the point of consideration here. Here samyaktva is a particular state of the purity of mithyātva-pudgalas; and as these cause undesirable states like doubt, etc., they are aśubha, and hence pāpa. These pudgalas are figuratively said to be of the nature of samyaktva inasmuch as they do not very much obscure the good predilection of the soul. They are in reality the pudgalas of mithyātva. Both these pāpa and punya are also classified as with fruition and without fruition. The type-bondage which fructifies in the same form as it was bound in is called savipākaprakřti; it affects the soul. The soul can lessen the intensity of fruition and when the lessening is so much that the karman almost loses its effect on the soul, the fruition of that karman is non-effecting and only its space-units are experienced. This is the avipāki praksti.
Thus it can be seen that punya and papa are independent of each other. Had they been mixed, all the souls would have experienced their effect in a mixed form; that is to say, no one would have experienced pleasure alone or pain alone; but only pleasure-pain in a mixed form. The gods experience only pleasure and hellish creatures and others experience only pain; if the cause punya-pāpa were of a mixed form, the effect pleasure-pain too would be of a mixed form; it can never be that one of the constituents of the mixture is generated in an intense form in the effect and the other has no effect whatsoever. Hence the cause of abundance of pain viz. pāpa must be quite distinct from the cause of the abundance of pleasure viz. punya. The

Page #285

196
effect resulting from the meca ka-maņi does not reveal intensity of one of the colours. It may be argued that pāpa-punya as mixed can appear as one, but when there is increase of punyaconstituent and a corresponding decrease of papa-constituent, abundance of pleasure is experienced and when papa-constituent increases and punya-constituent correspondingly decreases, there is the experience of abundance of pain; this can explain the experience of gods and hellish beings etc., even when punya and pāpa are of a mixed form. But this argument is not correct. If punya and pāpa were one in form, when one increases, the other should also increase; but what we find is that when one increases, the other decreases. Hence they must be independent and different entities, as Devadatta and Yajñadatta are different in that the prosperity of one does not affect the other. Thus punya and pāpa are different entities, though there is no objection to their being regarded as of one form (one) in as much they are both of the form of karma. The three alternatives as to punyapápa have been quashed, hence the fourth one alone that punya and pāpa are independent entities holds ground. Hence too Svabhāvavāda is not acceptable, as proved earlier in the discussion with Agnibhūti (1946).
The Vedas do not intend to say that the Puruşa-Brahman alone exists, and nothing external to it; for if there were nothing like punya and pāpa, the injunction regarding the performance of Agnihotra in the case of one desirous of heaven would be meaningless. Moreover, people believe that acts of charity, etc. yield punya and the fruit of injury is papa; this too would have no consistency. Hence the Vedas cannot be interpreted as negating punya and päpa (1947).
When Acalabhrātā's doubt was thus removed by Lord Mahāvīra free from old age and death, he became a monk along with his 300 pupils and followers (1948).

Page #286

10. METĀRYA REGARDING THE OTHER-WORLD
Hearing that they had become monks, Metārya too decided to approach Lord Mahā vira and have his doubt dispelled. As he approached, the Jina accosted him by his name and gotra as Metārya Kaundinya and told him that he had a doubt in his mind regarding the existence of the 'other world'. This was because he found what seemed to him conflicting statements in the Veda viz. The mass of consciousness rising from these elements, etc. * But he did not know the true import of the Vedic passages and hence his doubt (1949-51).
Metārya's argument is that as the wine-spirit emerges from molasses, dhátaki, etc. being identical with them, so consciousness emerges from the material elements-earth, etc. and is non-different from them. If these elements are perishable, consciousness too would perish along with them being their attribute, as the colour of the cloth perishes with it. So no other-world need be imagined (1952).
Even if consciousness be regarded as a distinct entity, not identical with the elements, it would be non-eternal since it arises out of them, as fire arising out of fire-wood is perishable. What is non-eternal perishes after some time, so there is no question of its going to another world. Hence too there is no other-world (1953).
If a number of consciousnesses (one in each body) and of the form of the attribute of material elements be not recognised, but only one Atman, the abode of all consciousness, pervading all the worlds and inactive be accepted as is said in: 'Eka eva hi bhūtātmā bhūte bhūte vyavasthitaḥ; ekadhā bahudbā caiva dřśyate jalacandravat.' --Brahmabindu Upanişad.
* See Gañadharavāda, 1.

Page #287

198
[There is only one elemental self stationed in each and every being (bhūta) and it appears as one or many like the reflection of the moon in water], even then the other-world could not be established. This Ātman being all-pervading and inactive would be present in all bodies everywhere like the ether and hence would not be able to move, and hence the question of going to other-world' does not arise (1954).
The world of gods, of hellish beings, etc. can be said to be ‘other-world' from the point of view of the world of human beings, but it is not perceived. Metārya's arguments naturally lead him to deny the other-world; but there are references to the existence of the other-world in the Vedas, and hence Metārya's doubt as to its existence or otherwise (1955).
Mahavira proceeds to dispel this doubt of his. Consciousness is an attribute of the soul which is different from the material elements, sense-organs, etc. and this soul (ātman) is eternal from the point of view of the basic substance on account of remembrance of previous birth, etc. and non-eternal from the point of view of the modes. This point has been discussed earlier with Vayubhuti (1956).
It is not proper to accept one all-pervading, inactive atman, since there are differences of characteristics as in the case of jar; so like the many jars, etc. we must accept many souls. This has been discussed at length with Indrabhūti. Upayoga (conscious activity) is the characteristic of the soul. This upayoga is seen to be diverse on account of the infinite different transformations occasioned by likes-dislikes, passions and objects, etc.. So their substrate, ātman too must be accordingly infinite in number. The ätman is confined to the body, it cannot be all-pervading, as its qualities are found only within the body; the sensation of touch, to take a parallel instance, is found all over the body but not elsewhere, so the sense-organ of touch is said to be co-extensive with the body, but is not said to be elsewhere also. The soul again cannot be inactive, because like Devadatta, it is an enjoyer. This too has been discussed with

Page #288

199
Indrabhūti. Hence the souls must be regarded as many, not ubiquitous and not inactive (1957).
That the other world—the world of gods, and hellish beingsexists has been established in the discussion with Maurya who doubted the existence of the world of gods, and with Akam pita who had a doubt as to the existence of the world of hellish beings (1958).
It may be argued : Whether jīva (soul) and consciousness are looked upon as identical or not, the existence of the other world' cannot be proved. If the jiva is of the nature of consciousness, that is to say, identical with consciousness, then the latter being non-eternal and destructible, jiva too would be such and therefore there would be no otherworld characterised by going to another life. If it is said that the jīva is distinct from consciousness, and so eternal, and therefore there is another world, then soul would be non-knower like the akāśa which is different from knowle Ige, or like a block of wood (1959). And if the jiva being different from non-eternal consciousness be looked upon as eternal, then it could not be the doer and the enjoyer, for if being eternal it were doer-enjoyer it would be such always, since eternal things are uniform in nature. But this is not what we find. If soul were not the doer, there would be no other-world, because if it were there, there should be ‘other world' even for the siddhas (perfect souls). Even if soul is not enjoyer, it is futile to imagine ‘other world' because that which is non-enjoyer has not to enjoy any fruit of action in the other-world. If the soul were non-knower it would not transmigrate, move from one life to another as a log of wood does not move. Again being incorporeal like a kāśa, it would not transmigate. In the absence of transmigration, how could the other world' be established (1960)?
Lord Mahāvīra answers these arguments as follows: Metărya takes it for granted that whatever is capable of being produced is non-eternal like jar, etc.. Vijñāna (consciousness)

Page #289

200
can be produced, so it is non-eternal and the soul being identical with it must also be such. He also believes that the modes are non-eternal and so on' in the Gathā), e.g. the modes-newness, oldness of post, etc. which are non-eternal. Vijñāna (consciousness) being a mode is non-eternal and the soul too identical with it is non-eternal and so there is no other-world. But this argument is not sound. The very reasons that prove the soul to be non-eternal can also be adduced to show that the soul is eternal. Thus they are fallacious ones, Inconclusive. Everything is of the nature of origination-destruction-duration (utpăda-vyayadhrauvya). As an account of its having an origin, a thing is proved to be perishable, so an account of its having duration, it can be proved to be in a way eternal too. Hence it can be argued : Vijñāna (consciousness) is eternal because it is produced, like jar. Jiva (soul) too being identical with vijnana is in a way eternal and hence there cannot be the negation of 'other-world' (1961).
The argument advanced by Metārya is fallacious, for there is a counter-inference viz. Vijñāna cannot be absolutely perishable because it is a thing like jar. A thing is perishable. from point of view of modes, but imperishable or eternal from the point of view of the basic substance. It may appear strange that a jar is looked upon as imperishable even when it has a beginning, an origin. Now what is a jar ? It is a conglomeration of the aggregate of four qualities, viz. colour, taste, smell, touch, of the number one, structure, material viz. clay and potencies or capabilities to carry water, and the like. Colour, etc. are of the nature of origination-destruction - duration, so the jar can be called as well imperishable as it can be called perishable. And this illustration can establish the soul to be imperishable. To explain at length, the lump of clay is produced in the form of the modes, viz. shape of the jar, potencies, etc. simultaneously with the destruction of the modes, viz. shape of the lump, its potencies whatever they be. But from the point of view of colour, taste, scent, touch, and the substance clay, the lump of clay is neither produced nor destroyed; so from this point of view it is called

Page #290

201
eternal. The lump of clay perishes in the form of its own shape and potencies, is born in the form of the shape and potencies of the jar, and persists in the form of colour, etc. and substance clay and so is of the nature of utpåda-vyaya-dbrauvya (originationdestruction-duration). Thus the jar also perishes in the form of the previous modes, is originated in the shape of a jar and persists in respect of colour, etc. and substance clay; so it too is recognised to be of the nature of utpäda-vyaya-dhrauvya. Hence as the jar is proved to be perishable on account of its having been produced, so it can be proved to be imperishable too. This is true of all things without exception. Vijnana is thus imperishable even because it is produced. Hence soul which is one with vijñāna is in a way eternal and so there cannot be the negation of other-world (1962-5).
This is how vijñāna is of the nature of utpäda-vyayadhrauvya. Knowledge of ghata (jar) is ghata vijñāna or ghatacetanā, and knowledge of pata (cloth) is pațavijñāna or pațacetană, and so on. We observe that pata-cetanā is produced simultaneously with the destruction of ghata-cetan, but the continuity of cetană in general (the basic cetana) of the form of jīva persists. This is how souls of this world are of the nature of utpăda-vyayadhrauvya; the souls of the other-world also are such. To wit, when a man dies in this world and is born in the world of gods, etc., the this-worldly existence in the form of man perishes, the other-worldly existence in the form of god is produced, but jīva in general persists throughout. There is nothing like this. world or other-world from the point of view of the pure basic substance soul; it is called merely jiva. Thus if the jīva is of the nature of utpäda-vyaya-dhrauvya, there cannot be the absence of other-world (1966–7).
It may be questioned as to why the duration-aspect should be recognised when things are not seen to be existent before their production and after their destruction. But it should not be forgotten that what is absolutely non-existent can never be produced, as otherwise we would have to recognise the origination of ass's horn too. Therefore, everything must be existent in 26

Page #291

202
some form or the other. Nor can a thing be absolutely destroyed, for in that case in the course of time there would be the extinction of everything. Therefore, the existent thing is produced, in some one form and destroyed in another. The existent or persisting jīva is destroyed as a human being, but is produced as a god, etc.; absolute extinction is not recognised by the tīrthakşts (teachers, founders of schools), because in that case all empirical behaviour would come to an end. To take an example, if the pitcher of gold a princess plays with is broken up and a ball of gold is made for the prince out of the gold, then there is distress on the part of the princess, joy on the part of the prince, but only indifference on the part of the king--the owner of the gold, as the gold is not lost in any of the conditions, but persists through them. All such empirical behaviour would come to an end if the utpāda-vyaya-dhrauvya nature of things is not accepted. Therefore even after death, the soul persists in a way and there cannot be the absence of other-world (1968-9).
Even the Vedas cannot possibly deny the existence of otherworld, since were they to do so, their injunctions regarding the performance of agnihotra, etc. for one who is desirous of heaven would be lacking in consistency. And it is popularly believed that the fruit of acts of charity, etc. is heaven; that too would lose its meaning. Hence it is obvious that no Vedic statement can have negation of other-world for its import (1970).
When Metarya's doubt was thus dispelled by Lord Mahāvīra, he became a monk along with his 300 pupils and followers (1971).

Page #292

11. PRABHASA REGARDING NIRVANA (SALVATION)
Hearing that they had become monks, Prabhāsa decided to approach Lord Mahavira, pay his respects to him and wait upon him. As he approached he was accosted by the Jina by his name and gotra as Prabhāsa Kaundinya (1972-3).
The Lord told him straightaway that his doubt was as to niryāņa (emancipation). In there anything like nirvāṇa or not? Prabhāsa found conflicting statements in the Vedas. It is said in the Vedas : "Jarāmaryam vaitat sarvam yad agnihotram."* --( One must perform agnihotra as long as one lives). The rite of agnihotra is the occasion for the slaughter of creatures, so it is of a mixed forin; there is a drawback in it. It can lead to heaven but cannot bring about emancipation. If one has to perform the agnihotra as long as one lives, there is no scope for anything which can bring about apa varga or emancipation, and so there is nothing like mokşa (emancipation). On the other hand, we find statements like 'Saişa guhā duravagāhā' (This cave one can enter with great difficulty) and "Dve brahmani param aparam ca, tatra para satyam jñānam anantaram brahma" (There are two Brahmans — higher and lower; of these the higher Brahman is Truth; the other is Knowledge); these appear to be saying that there is mokṣa or nirvana (emancipation). Guhā (cave) here stands for mokşa, that presents a tough job to those who are attached to worldly things. Of the two Para and Apara Brahmans, Para Brahman means Satya (Truth), Moksa (Salvation). The other Brahman is Knowledge. If Prabhāsa thus found Vedic statements which maintain the existence of mokṣa and also deny it,
* The reading in the Sata. Br. (12-4-1-1) is : "Etad vai jaramaryam sattvain yad agnihotram, jarayā vā hy evasmān mucyate mộtyunā vā."

Page #293

204
it was but natural that he should have entertained a doubt as to its reality. But the truth was that he did not understand the true meaning of the Vedic statements which Lord Mahā vīra explained to him and thus dispelled his doubt (1974)
Prabhāsa, moreover has a doubt as to the nature of nirvāņa. Is nirvana the destruction of the soul like the nirvana (extinction) of a lamp as nirvāṇa can only mean blowing out? Some Buddhists say: Dīpo yathā nirvștim abhyupeto
naivăvaniin gacchati nāntarikşam; disan na karcid vidišarı na kārcit
snehakşayat kevalam eti sāntim. jivas tatha nirvrtim abhyupeto
naivävanin gacchati nantarikşam; disam na kālicid vidisain na kámcit
klešakṣayāt kevalam eti śāntim.
(Saundarananda 16. 28-29) -As a lamp when it attains nirvana does not go to the earth or to the sky, not to any direction or any intermediate direction, but simply becomes santa (quiet) because the oil is exhausted--that is to say, the lamp is extinguished-similarly the soul when it attains nirvānı does not go to the earth or to the sky, not to any direction or any intermediate direction, but simply becomes śānta (quiet) because the afflictions are exhausted or removed, i. e. is extinguished.
Or, is nirvaņa a particular state of the soul which is an existent entity on account of the destruction of such duḥkha (pains or evils) as rāga (likes, passion), dveşa (dislikes, hatred), mada (pride), moha (ignorance), janma (birth), jară (old age), roga (disease), etc? The Jainas describe it as such. It has been said :
Kevalasari vid-darśanarūpāḥ sarvartiduhkhaparimuktāḥ;
modante muktigatā jīvāḥ kṣīņāntarāriguņā”. The souls who have attained moksa, who are of the nature of perfect knowledge and perfect intuition, who are free from

Page #294

205
pains of all kinds, whose internal (psychological) enemies have been set at nought, rejoice.
Thus Prabhasa came across statements which corroborated the concept of Nirvana as sheer extinction and also as a particular state of an existent thing, and hence his doubt (1975).
Moreover, Prabhasa also believes that the connection of soul and karma, like that of soul and akasa is beginningless and so it will never come to an end; there will not be an end to samsara, or the transmigratory condition or mundane condition, and so there is not the slightest scope for nirvana. There is nothing like nirvana (1976).
Mahavira resolves this problem of nirvana. As he had explained to Mandika, the connection of jiva and karman which has no beginning, can be dissociated by true knowledge and action, as the connection of gold and kanaka-paşana (ore) can be brought to an end even though it is beginningless, by contact with fire, etc.. This sets at nought the suspicion that there cannot be nirvana (1977).
It may be urged that the soul is always in the state of a hellish being, lower being, god, etc and that is its state of samsara (mundane existence); we have no knowledge of any soul which is not in one of these states; that is to say, the jiva is never known as a basic substance devoid of these paryayas (modes). So when the samsara in the form of the state of hellish being, etc. is destroyed, the soul itself will be destroyed. Then whose would this mokṣa be? (1978).
But there is no ground for any such apprehension. When the hellish state and such other states which are merely modes (paryayas) perish, it is not true to say that the soul too absolutely perishes, as when a ring is destroyed, the gold is not absolutely destroyed. As when the ring-mode of gold is destroyed, the ear-ring-mode comes into existence, so when the naraka and other modes of the soul perish, the mukti-paryaya (salvation-mode) comes into existence; but the basic substance persists all throughout (1979).

Page #295

206
It is not true to say that as sarisara perishes when karman is brought to an end so the soul also should perish and there can be no moksa since sansara is brought about by karman; it is but proper that it should perish in the event of the destruction of its cause; but the soul is not caused by karinan, and so it can persist even when there is no karman. It is a rule that when the cause and the more extensive (vyāpaka) entity are not there, the effect and the less extensive entity respectively cannot exist. Karma is neither the cause of jīva, nor is there any relation of concomitance between them wherein karma is more extensive than jiva. So the latter can persist even when karma is no more, and thus there is no difficulty in recognising mokşa (1980).
The imperishableness of the jīva can le proved by an inference: "Jiva is not perishable, because as in akaśa, so here too no change or divisibility is observed. What is perishable undergoes change or is divisible, like jar etc. divided into potsherds. The soul is eternal and so mokşa too should be eternal" (1981).
It can be argued that whatever is krtaka, caused, is brought about, caused, and invariably perishes, e.g. jar; mokṣa may not be perishing every moment of its existence, but being caused, it must perish with the pilssage of time. But this is not true; there is no invariable rule that whatever is caused must invariably be perishable. The posterior non-existence (pradhvamsăbhāva) of jar, for example, is křtaka, caused and yet it is eternal. So mokṣa too can be eternal, even when it is krtaka. If it be said that posterior non-existence is no example, as it is tuccha (a non-entity) like iss's born, this is not true, as it is not tuccha; ghata-pradhvatusabhava is a positive (existent) substance characterised by the destruetion of jar (1982–3).
Till now it has been assumed that mokṣa is krtaka. But in reality, the soul is not at all affected when it is dissociated from karinic matter and so mokşa should not be looked upon as something caused. If a jar in space (akāśa) is destroyed, this has no effect whatsoever on space wliich remains as it

Page #296

207
was before or always was, so even when karmic matter is dissociated from the soul, that is to say, when the contact of karmic matter is brought to an end, the soul regains its pure unaffected nature; nothing more then this happens, nothing is added to the soul. So mokṣa cannot be regarded as non-eternal (1984).
That the emancipated soul is eternal can be proved by the reason (linga, hetu) that even though it is a substance it is incorporeal, like akaśa which is a substance, and is incorporeal and eternal. But akaśa is all-pervading also; in that case should the emancipated soul be regarded as all-peryading ? No, because inference contradicts this: The soul is as extensive as the body up to the skin, since it is here that its qualities are experienced, like touch. Therefore, the soul cannot be all-pervading, but is co-extensive with the body. Similarly it may be argued that the soul too like ākāśa being a substance and incorporeal, should not also be bound or emancipated, as the akasa is not bound by anything and so is not also freed from anything. But it is not so. Bondage is possible in the case of the soul; it is bound by punya and papa, because its actions like acts of charity, injury, etc. bear fruit, like agriculture, etc.. This bondage can be ended because it is of the nature of sanyoga or contact, like the contact of goll and dhâtu-päşāņa (mineral). The contact of karma, which is the bondage of the soul, can be destroyed by true knowledge and actions. If the soul is eternal, mokșa also is established to be eternal (1985).
But there should not be an obstinate insistence as to mokşa being eternal; for everything being of the nature of originationdestruction-persistence, moksa may be anity: (non eternal) also from one point of view as it is nitya (eternal) froin another. This has been discussed in the conversation with Mandika (1986).
The Buddhist view may be considered here, which believes that as the lamp is completely extinguished, so the soul completely perishes in the state of mokşa. The Buddhists are mistaken; the flame (fire) of the lamp does not absolutely perish, it merely undergoes pariņāma (transformation); it gives up its pariņāma as light and assumes that of darkness, as milk turns into curds,

Page #297

208
or pot into potsherds and these turn into dust. So it should really be said that just like a lamp the soul does not absolutely perish; it only assumes another form. The lamp is not seen as lamp (fire) when it is extinguished because its modifications become subtler and subtler and are ultimately not seen even when they do exist, though the modification as darkness is certainly perceptible. We may take a few instances to illustrate this dark clouds when scattered are not seen though they exist because they have assumed a subtle form; eye-ointment too when it is blown of by the wind is not visible as it is in the form of very subtle particles. Similarly the lamp also after extinction is not visible not because it does not exist, but because it has undergone transformation and become subtle (1987-8).
It is the very nature of pudgala (matter) to undergo various modifications. Gold-leaf, salt, dry ginger, haritaki (myrabolan), citraka (castor-seed), molasses-these compounds (skandhas) are in the beginning perceptible by such sense-organs as those of sight, etc. but coming into contact with other collocations of substance, place and time become cognisable by other organs such as those of touch, smell, etc. or even become incognisable. For example, if gold-leaf is made, its gold is perceptible by the eyes; but if in order to purify it, it is thrown into fire and gets mixed up with ashes, it can no longer be perceived by the but it eyes, can be felt by touch; if it is separated from the ashes, it can again be perceived by the eyes. Salt etc. also are perceptible by the organ of sight; but if they are mixed with other medicines to form decoction, powder, electuary, etc. they can only be known by the sense-organ of taste. Musk, camphor and such substances are perceptible by the eyes, but if they are blown off elsewhere by the wind, they can be perceived only by the organ of smell; and if the distance is very great they may not be perceived by any sense-organ; the organ of smell can detect them if they are at the most nine yojanas (i. e. 36 kośas or 81 miles) away. Similarly, every thing must be known to undergo diverse kinds of modifications; and we should not feel surprised if the lamp is not perceived after its nirvana (1989).

Page #298

209
Moreover our experience tells us that air is perceived only by the sense of touch, taste by the tongue, smell by the nose, colour by the eyes and word by the ear alone. But if these undergo a transformation, they may be cognised by other senseorgans. So in the present case, the fire-matter of the lamp is perceived by the eyes, but when it is extinguished it can be perceived by the organ of smell, and so one cannot say that the lamp completely perishes (1990).
As when the lamp is said to be niryāņa (extinguished) it only undergoes a modification but does not utterly perish, so when the soul is said to attain ‘parinirvana', it attains another transformation of the foum of unobscured perfect happiness. This means that mokṣa or nirvana is a particular state of the existent soul which is characterised by the destruction of misery (1991).
One point should be clarified here. We do not believe that absence of duḥkha (pain) is happiness; and so if a soul is just free from pain in the state of moksa, it cannot be looked upon as experiencing happiness. None the less, the emancipated soul does
erience bliss. The emancipated soul enjoys natural (spontaneous) perfect bliss or happiness free from a false sense of ego. This is so because it has excellent knowledge and is free from all afflictions such as birth, old age, disease, death, separation from a loved one, arati (prejudicial dislike), sorrow, hunger, thirst, cold, heat, desire (kama), anger, pride, deceitfulness, desire, likes, hatred, anxiety, eagerness (autsukya), etc. A sage is free from these and enjoys perfect bliss which a log of wood and such inanimate things cannot enjoy though they are free from these, since they have no knowledge. But what is the criterion for deciding that the emancipated soul has perfect knowledge and is free from afflictions ? This can be determined from the absence, on account of removal, of the causes of obscuration of knowledge and from the absence of the causes of these afflictions, viz. vedanıya (feeling producing) karman, etc.. This can be demonstrated by an inference thus:
27

Page #299

210
The emancipated soul is luminous by its own natural light, because it is free from all the factors that obscure light, like the moon. It is said : "Sthitaḥ śītāmśuvaj ji vaḥ prakřtyä bhāvasuddhyā, candrikā vac ca vijñānam tadā varanam abhravat." --Yogadrştisamuccaya, 181 (The jīva in its naturally pure state is like the moon; its consciousness is like the moonlight; and its obscuration is like the clouds). The emancipated soul enjoys unobstructed bliss, since all its afflictions have been dispelled, like a perfectly healthy man who has got rid of his ailment. It has been said : . Sa vyābādhābhāvāt sarvajñatvāc ca bhavati paramasukhī; vyābā lhābhāvo’tra svacchasya jñasya paramasukham. ( Tattvārtha-bhāșyaţikā, p. 318, Part II) – The emancipated soul is perfectly happy as there are no obstructions and it is omniscient; the absence of obstructions is itself the highest happiness of the pure knower (1992).
A point may be raised here; The emancipated soul has no sense-organ, so it, like ākāśa, must be non-knower. But it is not so, for thuis one could also say that, like akāśa, emancipated soul is ajīva (non-soul), and in that case the hetu 'because it has no sense-organs' would be a fallacious one-- viruddha (contradictory), as it denies jīvatva to the emancipated soul which is recognised as a soul by all. The opponent may say that logically he is even prepared to go to the extent of denying jivatva (soulness) to the emancipated soul; because this contingency would go against Lord Mahāvīra's position also and the responsibility of refuting this would devolve on him. Mahāvira answers this by saying that he had posed this contingency only as a retort to the opponent's statement that the emancipated soul should be a non-knower, because it has no sense-organs; if so it should be non-soul also. But, as a matter of fact, the emancipated soul is neither ignorant, nor ajiva (non-soul). The soul in the state of emancipation cannot become a non-soul, since the natural

Page #300

211
genus of a thing cannot be transformed into one just the opposite of it. The universal 'jivatva' is as natural to the soul as are the universals 'substance' (dravyatva) and incorporeality (amurtatva). The soul cannot become adravya from being dravya or mūrta from being amūrta; so the soul cannot become ajīva from being jiva. To take an instance, ‘ajivatva' is the universal natural to 'jīva', so the soul-jiva can never become ajīva. As stated above, Mahāvīra posed the contingency of jiva becoming ajiva only to one who tried to show that the emancipated soul if devoid of sense-organs should be non-knower; if so, it should be ajīva also. But in fact, the reason 'not having sense-organs' does not imply that the emancipated soul is ajiva. Universal concomitance (vyāpti) does not hold good in the case of this hetu (reason). The cause-effect relation and the relation of invariable concomitance, that is to say, of vyāpya (less-extensive, determinate concomitant) and vyā pa ka (determinant concomitant) can determine vyapti. If jivatva were the effect of sense-organs, then it could be said that jīvatva cannot exist in the absence of sense-organs as smoke is not found in the absence of fire, which is its cause. But jivatva being a beginningless endless entity capable of transformation, is uncaused and is not the effect of any cause. Hence the absence of sense-organs cannot determine absence of jīvatva. Again if jivatva were the determinate concomitant of sense-organs, the determinant concomitant, as simšapā is of věkşatva (treeness), then it could be said that jīvatva does not exist in the absence of the sense-organs, as simšapā is not existent when treeness is not there. But this relation does not exist at all between jiva and sense-organs because they are entirely different; the jīva is incorporeal and sentient, while the sense-organs are corporeal and constituted of matter. Sense-organs have this relation of invariable concomitance (vyāpya-vyāpa kabhāva) with body, since both are material. Hence it is not true to say that the emancipated soul becomes non-soul when there is no sense-organ. It remains a soul (1993-4).
The emancipated soul may remain a jīva, but the original question as to how this soul could cognise or know in the

Page #301

212
absence of sense-organs and that therefore in this state it should be non-knower, remains unanswered. The answer to this is that the instruments of knowledge, sense-organ, etc. are corporeal so they cannot be the agents in the act of perceiving or cognising, they are merely windows-instruments -opening out on knowledge; it is the soul that is the agent of the act of knowing. Even when the sense-organs stop functioning, the soul has knowledge of the type of memory, etc.; and even when the sense-organs are functioning the soul may not have knowledge if it is absent-minded. Positive and negative concomitance of knowledge is with reference to the soul and not with reference to the sense-organs. So it is not true to say, that the emancipated soul is non-knower or has no knowledge because there is no sense-organ then. The soul perceives through the windows of the senses as Devadatta would through the windows of his house. But if Devadatta were to leave the house and gaze out in the open, his vision would be very much enhanced, so when the soul is free from the sense-organs when the body perishes, it is able to know all things without being obstructed (1995-6).
The soul can in fact never be devoid of knowledge, since knowledge is its essential nature, as an atom cannot be devoid of form, etc. (corporeality). Hence to say that the emancipated soul exists and that it is devoid of knowledge is to contradict oneself. A thing cannot exist if its essential nature is lost. It has just been explained that a thing having a particular genus cannot be transformed so as to come into possession of a different. genus altogether; the soul can never be jada (insentient). Thus the soul can never be a non-knower (1997).
One would lose all patience if he were questioned as to how it could be determined that the soul is of the nature of knowledge, for this is something that can be known from experience. As said above, the soul can remember things cognised earlier with the sense-organs, even when these sense-organs are not function
See Gathas 1657-1660

Page #302

213
ing; and at times does not have their knowledge if it is absentminded even when the sense-organs are functioning with reference to objects. A person has a vision at times of things not seen or heard of before. This shows that knowledge is the very nature of our own soul. Even the person who raises such a doubt must have this experience and it is surprising that this could possibly be questiond. And as one's own soul is of the nature of knowledge so must be the soul of others also, that is to say, the soul in other bodies also; for we find the same kind of action and inaction, efforts to reach a desired thing and repulsion from a thing not desired. This means that the souls in other bodies are of the nature of knowledge as is our own (1998).
· Not only is the emancipated soul a knower, but it is also omniscient. As long as a soul is in an embodied condition, is not free from passions, etc., there are veils which obstruct its knowledge, and so there are gradations in its knowledge in proportion to the lemoval of this veil, but when it has freed itself from the body and has no sense-organ, all the veils are removed, the soul becomes purer and therefore has perfect illumination of omniscience, like the sun who has freed himself from all the obstructing clouds. The sense-organs, on the other hand, are not of the nature of knowledge, so even when they are not there, there is no lack of knowledge in the soul, which would have been the case if they were of the nature of knowledge. Thus it is clear that the emancipated soul is not a non-knower because there is no sense-organ then (1999).
· If a lamp is covered with a vessel having holes, it can shine, radiate light only through these holes, but can not manifest all its light; similarly the soul's illumination in the bound condition is in an obscured state and can only reveal itself through the outlets of the sense-organs as there is subsidence-cumdestruction of the obscuring factors (2000).
But the emancipated soul has all its veils removed, so its illumination is perfect, that is to say, it is omniscient, it can

Page #303

214
perceive everything, just as a man who stands outside the house can see everything around him, or as the lamp from which the covering is removed can shine forth in all its illumination. But what is essential is that the entity in order to shine forth either partially or completely must be of the nature of illumination, otherwise it would not have any illumination whatsoever. Therefore the emancipated soul is a knower (2001).
The emancipated soul may be a knower, but how can it be established that it is bappy? Punya (merit) brings about happiness, and på pa (sin or dermerit) pain or unhappiness. In the case of an emancipated soul, there is no punya or papa; since all the karman is eradicated, it can have neither happiness nor pain (misery) like a kaša. Moreover, it is the body that is the locus of the apprehension of pleasure or pain, and in the state of emancipation there is no body, nor even the sense-organs; hence the soul like akāśa, can have neither pleasure nor pain (2002-3).
Lord Mahā vīra says it is not so. It is wrong to look upon the fruit of punya as pleasure or happiness; as a matter of fact, the fruit of punya also is pain or misery, because it is caused by karmu, like the fruit of papa. Of course, the retort can be that similarly it can be argued that the fruit of pāpa also is pleasure, because it is caused by karma, like the fruit of punya. Moreover, tlie statement that the fruit of punya is of the nature of pain contradicts our experience inasmuch as the fruit of punya is found to be agreeable, not so that of pāpa. But this is mistaken, because what is regarded on account of intellectual obliqueness as pleasure o: happiness is illusory, unreal, and so it is no contradiction to say that the sensation that arises from the enjoyment of sandalwood, etc. is of the nature of pain. There is no true pleasure or happiness in the world; what people attached to worldly things regard as pleasure is not really such, but is only of the nature of a counter-active force, à remely against pain. If a person is suffering from eczema, he scratches the body and this gives hiin some relief, but in the long run it will only increase his ailment. Similarly what

Page #304

215
we call sensuous pleasure is only such for the time being, as a remedy for longing, attachment etc., but results in pain, and so even the fruit of punya like sovereignty, etc. is of the nature of pain. As has been said:
"Naguaḥ preta ivavistah kvanantim upagrbya tam; gadhāyāsitasarvangaḥ sa sukhi ramate kila."
(A passionate man, becoming naked like a spirit of the dead, embraces a woman who is making a whining sound, and even when he experiences great fatigue all over his body, he enjoys feeling happy). An experienced king like Dusyanta says that kingship is an onerous task, though ordinary people think it something worth envying:
"Autsukyamatram avasadayati pratistha klisnati labdha-paripa lanavṛttir eva;
natiśramā pagamanaya yatha śramaya rajyam svahastagatadandam ivātapatram."
(-Abhijñāna-sakuntalam, 5.6).
(Kingship wherein one holds the sceptre of power and responsibility is not so much for the removal of fatigue as for its augmentation, like an umbrella one holds in one's own hand. The very installation in it eradicates whatever eagerness there was for it and the task of protecting what has been obtained is afflicting).
What a man ingrossed in the world regards as pleasure is in the view of a man of renunciation pain: Bhuktaḥ śriyah sakalakamadughas tataḥ kim samprinitaḥ pranayinah svadhanais tataḥ kin; dattam padam sirasi vidvişatăm tataḥ kim kalpam sthitam tanubhṛtām tanubhis tatah kim.
(What if one has enjoyed prosperity satisfying all desires? And of what use is it if near and dear ones have been pleased by giving them one's wealth? What if one has been able to tread on the head of enemies? And how will it help if the body of the embodied lasts even for a kalpa ?)

Page #305

216
"Ittham na kiñcid api sadhana-sadhyajātam svapnendrajā lasadřsam paramārthasūnyar; atyantanirvștikaram yad apetabādham tad brahma vāñchata janā yadi cetanästi.” (Thus, there is nothing like means and the end to be achieved; everything is like a dream, a magical illusion, void of reality. Oh men, if you have understanding, have a craving for Brahman which brings perfect bliss and which is free from all obstructions) (2004-5).
Thus even punya can yield only pain which may be looked upon as pleasure by worldly beings. This can be proved by inference also: Sensuous pleasure is as a matter of fact only pain, because it is of the form of remedy against pain, like drinking of decoction, etc. as remedies for leprosy, etc.. If it is popularly known as pleasure, it is only secondarily so; and this implies that true pleasure must be something really existent, as otherwise figurative or secondary usage would not be possible, like the figurative use of the words 'lion', etc. for man (2006).
Therefore it is the pleasure or bliss of the emancipated soul that is the true pleasure, because it is natural. It rises out of the removal of all pain, like the blissful state of a sage who is a great knower and is free from all obstruction; that is to say, the rise of true happiness does not depend on any external factor. It is said : Nirjitamadamadanānām vāk-kaya-manovikā rarahitānām; vinivsttaparāśānām ihaiva mokşah suvibită nám. (--Praśamarati, 238).
---They who have conquered pride and love and are free from the depravities of speech, body, and mind, and who expect nothing of others, such men of restraint are emancipated here only) (2007).
Again, as to knowledge, the soul is of the nature of knowledge; the veil of the form of matijñānā varaṇa, etc. obscures knowledge, and the means, the sense-organs, are helpful in removing the obscuration and helping the manifestation of knowledge; as

Page #306

217
the holes in the clouds allow the light of the sun to come out; when all the covering is removed, knowledge shines forth in all its purity, as it is self-luminous. Similarly, the soul is of the nature of inherent infinite happiness; pāpa causes obstruction to this happiness, while punya helps in the manifestation of this inherent happiness; when the entire veil is removed, when all karman-papa and punya-is eradicated, true happiness reveals itself and the perfect emancipated soul enjoys perfect bliss (2008-9).
And as by the removal of all karman, the emancipated soul attains perfection, the culmination of perfection, from even that, it attains true happiness which is beyond the limits of transmigration, and of a nature quite distinct from sensuous pleasure. This is also a fitting answer to the objection that as punya and papa are eradicated, there will be no cause for pleasure and pain and so the emancipated soul will have no pleasure or pain, like the sky. It cannot be said that there is no cause for pleasure, because the eradication of karma is itself the cause of pleasure (2010).
Thus it can be seen that what is commonly regarded as pleasure is, as a matter of fact, of the nature of pain; it is the fruit of punya; and pain, the fruit of pāpa, is obviously such; what is experienced by the body, etc. is pain only and it alone is there in the state of worldly existence; there is no trace of true pleasure or bliss as long as the bodily and other adjuncts are there and it is wrong to believe that there can be no pleasure
the absence of the body, etc. in the state of emancipation or perfectness; on the contrary, there is no bliss as long as the body, etc. are associated with the soul; and absence of body, etc. is indispensable for bliss. Thus the perfect souls, the siddhas experience true pleasure or bliss, even when they have no body, etc. (2011).
The opponent's contention that the state of emancipation would admit of neither pleasurer nor pain in the absence of body and sense-organs is right as far as worldly pleasure or happiness is concerned. Ignorant people delighting in sensuous satisfaction 28

Page #307

218
regard worldly happiness as ultimate; and this contention may hold good in their case; but not in the case of those who have a different attitude altogether--those who mean by 'sukha' happiness quite distinct from the pleasure or pain resulting from punya or pápa, inexhaustible, incomparable bliss of the siddhas, beyond the stage of transmigration. This does not depend on body and sense-organs which on the contrary hinder it or prevent it from manifesting itself (2012).
If proof is demanded for this, it can be provided by way of inference as pointed out earlier.* The siddha has perfect bliss, because knowledge or consciousness being there, it is not obscured, as in the case of a muni (ascetic). It may be said that it can be similarly argued that bliss and knowledge of a siddha must be non-eternal, because they are attributes of a sentient entity, like rāga (passion). They are, moreover, those that have been created by austerity, etc. i. e. are artificial or because they have been newly created, like a jar. But it is not so. Knowledge and bliss would be non-eternal if a siddha did not continue to experience them. If knowledge and bliss seem at any time to be destroyed, it is on account of the rise of a veil over knowledge and of the rise of asā tavedaniya (karma causing unpleasant feeling) and such other factors. These obscurations arise or are bound on account of such causes as perversity of attitude, etc.. These causes being absent in the state of perfection, there cannot be the loss of knowledge or of bliss in the case of a siddha, and so they are not non-eternal. It is not an invariable rule that cetanadharmas-attributes of sentient entities-must be non-eternal for dravyatva (basic substance), amūrtatva (incorporeality) of soul are not such even when they are cetanadharmas. So the reason, 'because they are attributes of a sentient entity' is inconclusive. Again it is not true to say that what is caused and is a new creation is non-eternal, and hence knowledge and pleasure of the siddha are such, because posterior negation of jar is caused and is a new creation and
*Gathā, 2007.

Page #308

219
yet is eternal. Moreover, this reason 'because it is caused and is a new creation' is asiddha (unreal) as knowledge and bliss are inherent in the soul and so it is not proper to regard these as caused, like a jar, or as new creations like lightning; they were only obscured and in the state of emancipation merely the veils are removed; but they were all along existent like sunlight or moonlight revealing itself when the clouds move away from it. They are not caused like a jar, nor are they new manifestations of things non-existent before, like lightning; and hence they cannot be non-eternal. Moreover, in the view of the Jina everything is of the nature of utpadasthiti-vyaya, knowledge and bliss are both eternal and noneternal; they may be regarded as caused and non-eternal from the point of view of the particular mode of manifestation; the object of knowledge from the point of view of the mode perishes every moment, so knowledge also perishes and is from this point of view non-eternal; pleasure too undergoes transformation every moment, so it too can be looked upon as non-eternal. If from this point of view, knowledge and bliss though inherent are looked upon as anitya, there is nothing wrong in it; that is acceptable even to Lord Mahavira (2013-14).
Now we turn to the apparently conflicting statements in the Veda: The sentence 'Na ha vai sasarīrasya......'would have no consistency if there were no emancipation, if the soul were destroyed in that state and if there were no bliss in it. So it should be taken as establishing these. 'Matirapi na prajñāyate...' also cannot establish the absence of the soul in the state of emancipation (2015).
Prabhasa interprets 'Na ha vai sasarirasya...' to mean that when the body, etc. perish the soul too becomes non-existent like ass's horn, because it also is destroyed; so 'asarira' means soul which is non-existent like ass's horn, and the Veda says that pleasure and pain do not affect such a soul. Thus both the Vedic statements are interpreted as having the same meaning, and as being consistent in meaning. Thus he concludes

Page #309

220
that the Vedas recognise mokṣa of the type of the extinction of a lamp (2016).
But Prabhasa has not understood the true meaning; 'asarira' like 'adhana' contains a negation of sarira in the case of an existent entity. As the existing Devadatta is 'adhana' (devoid of wealth), so the existent 'jiva' is 'asarira' (devoid of body). Thus asarira' means the soul without the body. If Devadatta were non-existent like the ass's horn, we would not say of him that he is 'adhana'. Similarly the jiva can be termed 'asarira? only if it is existent. But the term in the Veda is 'asarira' alone which can refer to anything devoid of a body. Why should this epithet be referred to jiva or soul? This difficulty can be resolved thus. The negation is of the type of paryudasa (exclusion), and where this is found the import is that of a thing which is similar to it and not entirely different from it. There is a grammatical rule: 'Nañ-ivayuktam anyasadṛśadhikarane loke tatha hy arthagatiḥ'- In popular usage, the word to which 'na' and 'iva' are affixed, means another but similar thing. To take an instance, abrahmana' means non-brähmana; i. e. one who is not a brāhmaṇa, but yet like a brahmana, e. g. kṣatriya, etc., but it cannot mean mere non-being, a non-entity. Similarly 'asarira' can refer to one who has no body, but yet is like one who has a body, i. e. to the jiva, but not to anything that is utterly non-existent like an ass's horn. That 'embodiedsasarira' and 'unembodied-asarira' denote the same thing is because of similarity, on account, of the 'upayoga' (conscious activity) being identical in both cases. In the state of worldly existence, soul and body get mixed up like water and milk, and it is not possible to separate them in that state, so the body should not be put forth as one of the reasons for raising an objection against regarding the embodied soul as similar to the unembodied soul. This clearly demonstrates that 'asarira' in 'asariram va vasantam...' means the unembodied soul, and not a non-entity like ass's horn, etc. (2017-18).
Moreover, the expression 'va vasantam' suggests that the soul continues to exist, abide (vasantam) in the state of mokṣa

Page #310

221
also; it does not become extinct and because of 'vā it means that even an embodied soul in this-worldly existence can be free from the influence of pleasure and pain, the fruit of punya and pāpa, e. g. a yogin free from passions, etc. who has subdued or even destroyed his moha (stupefaction, ignorance) and who is in the highest stage of samādhi. Such a yogin is not affected by pleasure and pain (2019).
Or the sandhi (coalescence) in the sentence can be dissolved thus: 'aśarīram våva santam', where 'vāva' is the same as 'vā'. It states that pleasure and pain have no effect on the unembodied soul existing in the state of mokşa; 'vā' suggests that it has no effect even on a soul free from attachment, etc. though it be embodied. Or the sentence can be explained as 'aśarīram vā ava santam'. 'Ava’ is imperative second person singular of the root ‘av', to protect, go, love, etc.. Now, roots having the sense of motion are also used in the sense of knowledge. The sentence then means : 0 disciple, know that pleasure and pain do not affect the unembodied soul existing in the state of mokṣa as qualified by such attributes as knowledge, etc.. 'Va' suggests that they do not affect even a 'sasarira'-embodied soul free from passions. (2020).
It can be argued here that Lord Mahāvīra construes the sentence so as to make it yield the meaning he wants from them. But the opponent also could do the same. The statement can be interpreted thus : 'aśarīrain và avasantam....' – the unembodied one which does not exist anywhere.... This would corroborate the stand that the soul does not exist, is annihilated in the state of emancipation. But this is not correct, for as shown above 'asarira' points to the existence of the soul in the state of mokṣa and no interpretation can be accepted which contradicts this. Moreover, the statement about pleasure and pain not having any effect can be consistently explained only with reference to an existent thing; there is no sense in saying that they have no effect on a non-existent soul. We never say, 'Pleasure and pain do not affect barren woman's son' because there is no possibility of it in this case. Therefore the

Page #311

222 subject in question is ‘asarira'--the soul in the state of mokşa and not its non-existence. Thus the statement is 'Asarīram vā vasantam,' and means that the soul does exist in the state of mokşa, which is characterised by the dissociation of soul and karmic body. One should, therefore, not entertain the slightest doubt as to the existence of the soul in the state of mokşa (2021).
There might be yet another difficulty: The soul may exist in the state of mokşit; but it is free from pleasure and pain, and so it cannot be said to be enjoying perfect happiness. To say so would contradict the Vedic statement that it is free from the influence of pleasure and pain. Mahāvīra says that he too agrees that the emancipated soul is devoid of pleasure caused by punya and pain caused by pāpa. These pleasure and pain belong to the worldly state and have no existence in the state of emancipation wherein the emancipated soul is free from all karman of the type of punya and pāpa. But this should not lead us to conclude that it has no happiness whatsoever. Being free from attachment, there is no pleasure caused by punya and being free from hatred, there is no pain caused by pāpa. But there is the perfect happiness or bliss as distinct from these, which is inherent and spontaneous in the soul, which is incomparable and which is not caused by karman, is not sublated by anything and is endless, and this the soul certainly has in the state of emancipation. So it comes to this that even according to the Vedas, there is mokşa, the soul exists in mokșa, and experiences perfect bliss which is unfailing.
As to the statement "Jarā maryam vaitat sarvam yad agnihotram"-on the basis of which Prabhāsa said that if man were to perform agnihotra even in his old age up to death, he could only attain heaven and there would be no scope for the pursuit of emancipation, and therefore, there is, in the opinion of the Vedas, nothing like mokşa, Mahāvīra says it is not correct to say só. Prabhāsa had not understood the true import of the statement. There is 'va' in the sentence, which indicates that man should perform the agnihotra as

Page #312

223
long as he lives and one longing for emancipation should also perform activities which could lead to emancipation. Thus, it can be proved by reasoning and the testimony of the Veda that there is mokşa, and one should not have any doubt about it (2022-23).
When Prabhāsa's doubt was thus dispelled, he became a monk along with his three hundred pupils and followers (2024).

Page #313

Page #314

NOTES
(1549-1553) Mahāsena Vana — This is according to the belief of the Svetāmbaras. The Digambaras believe that Mahavira came into contact with the Ganadharas on Mount Vipulācala near Rajagļha, and it was there that he propounded his teaching and propagated his school of thought.
Doubt (samsaya) - When we have knowledge of characteristics which may be common to two entities, and have no knowledge confirming the cognition of one or setting aside that of the other, there is doubt; e. g. is it a serpent or a piece of rope. Only the length, thinness, etc. which are common to both are perceived, but not the distinguishing characteristics of either. Similarly, here there is no evidence which either positively asserts the existence of the soul or denies it. Hence Indrabhūti’s doubt as to the existence of a soul.
Pratyakşa and other pramāņas-means of valid knowledge. The Cārvākas or Materialists recognise only one pramāņa, viz. pratyaksa or perception, and some among them accept anumana (inference) only if it pertains to objects that are perceptible so that it could be verified. The Buddhists and the Vaišeșikas admit two sources of cognition--perception and inference. The Samkhyas add agama (verbal or scriptural testimony). The Naiyāyikas admit a fourth source of knowledge -- upamāna (analogy ). Prabhakara Mimamsakas recognise arthā patti (presumption--presuming a thing on the basis of a known one which cannot be otherwise explained) as the fifth and the Bhāţta Mīmārsakas abhāva (negation) as the sixth pramāna (means of valid knowledge). This last operates only where the 29

Page #315

226
other five pramāņas cognising positive existence do not operate, and therefore determines the non-existence of things. The Jainas, it may be noted, admit only two pramāņas—pratyaksa (direct) and parokşa (indirect), including all the other pramāņas under the latter. They believe that the perception on the part of the soul without the help of the sense-organs is the only real perception; yet to keep abreast with the views of logicians of other schools they had to recognise sensuous perception also as pratyakşa (direct knowledge), but they termed it empirical direct knowledge (sāmvyavahärika pratyakşa).
Is the soul directly known ? The Cārvākas do not recognise soul as an independent entity, because it is not perceived. Nyaya-Vaišeșika admits the existence of the soul, but believes that it can be inferred from attributes like knowledge, will, hate, etc. (see Nyāya-Sī. 1.1.10; Prasastapāda Bhāşya - Atman), Even then the older Naiyáyikas and Vaišeşikas accept that the soul can be directly perceived by yogic perception (Nyāya-Bhasya, 1.1.3; Vaišeșika Sū. 9.1.11). This means that the soul cannot be perceived by ordinary people, but can be perceived by yogins. But with the setting in of the age of reason, yogic perception was almost reduced to the category of agama or verbal testimony. Consequently Nyāya-Vaišesika regards the soul as something that can be established by inference. But as ratiocination became nicer and subtler, it came to be recognised that the soul can be perceived. Jainas, Buddhists, Vedāntins--as a matter of fact, all except the Cárvāka and the followers of the Nyåya-Vaišeşika regard the soul as directly experienced.
Atom — Compare “Saukşmyāt tadanupalabdhir näbhāvāt kāryatas tadupalabdheh.”—Sarkhya Karikā, 8 (about prakrti).
Inference is based on, or preceded by, perception - see Nyāya Sū. 1.1.5, and Vätsyayana's Bhäsya on it. . Sāmānyatodřsta-anumāna - Everything has two forms or aspects--the universal and the particular or the individual. Sāmānyatodrsta anumana concerns itself only with the general aspect of things, e.g. movement. It also meant inference of supersensuous things. Inference was classified as pūrvavat (from

Page #316

227
cause to effect), sesavat (from effect to cause) and samanyatodṛṣṭa. This classification gradually went out of vogue. See Samkhya Ka. 6. For the history of these vide Pramana-Mimamsa-Notes, p. 139 (by Pandit Sukhlaljee) and Nyayavataravārtikavṛtti, Introduction, p. 71 (Pt. Malavania). See also 'Pre-Dinnaga Buddhist Texts on Logic from Chinese Sources-Tucci (GOS), Introduction, pp. 17-18.
Agama- -see Nyaya-sutra 1.1.8.
Brh. Up, 24.12. Sankara has explained this passage in accordance with his own view of the Absolute Brahman from which everything arises and into which it is merged, like waves, foam, etc. merging into water, the original entity. The Carvakas quote this passage as countenancing their own view. The Naiyayikas regard this passage as the prima-facie view (purva-paksa) of the Upanisads and interpret it in the manner of Indrabhuti. See Yad vijñānaghanadi-vedavacanam tad purva pakse sthitam; paurva paryavimarśaśunyahṛdayaiḥ sortho grhitas tada. Nyaya - mañjarī, p. 472.
Rupa-All matter is called rupa in the Buddhist viewEarth, water, fire, air and everything that can be accounted for by these. See Abhidhammattha-sangaha, 6. Rupa is not pudgala (soul) This has been discussed in Samyutta Nikaya-12.70.32-37; Digha-Nikaya-Mahanidana sutta 15, Majjhima Nikaya, Chakkaka Sutta 148. One after the other all known things are stated not to be soul.
―
-
Pudgala Soul in Bauddha works. See Puggala-paññatti, where the different types of souls are described. Pudgala means matter in Jaina terminology. See Sparsa-rasa-gandha-varṇavantaḥ pudgalah .23. ... Anavaḥ skandhas ca. (atomic or aggregates) 25.Tattvärtha sutra, 5). But we find 'pudgala' used in the sense of 'soul' in the Bhagavati Sü. (8.3.20.2).

-
The text in the Chandogya Up. 8.12.1 is 'Maghavan martyam va idam sariram attam mṛtyunā tad asyāśarīrasya"tmano'dhiṣṭhānam atto vai sasariral priyapriyabhyam na vai sasarirasya sataḥ priyapriyayor apahatir asty asarīraṁ vāva

Page #317

228
santam na priyapriye sprśatah'. See in this connection Gathas 2015–2023. The portion ‘aśarīram vāva santam' can be split in different ways; (i) ‘aśarīram vă va santam'as Sankara and almost all do; even Jinabhadra knew this meaning — Gā. 2020, (ii) 'aśarīram vă vasantam'as is done here, (iii) asarīram và ava santam, (iv) asariram vă avasantam.
For the Samkhya conception of soul see Sāmkhya Ka 17-19.
(1554) Here jiva is established as an entity that can be directly known by showing its identity with knowledge which is self-luminous and therefore can be directly known. Nyaya-Vaišeşika regards knowledge as different from the soul; it can be produced as an attribute of the soul, but is not found in the state of emancipation. The Vedanta (of Sankara) and the Samkhya-Yoga regard the soul as of the nature of pure conscionsness and as non-doer, etc. and knowledge etc. should according to this view, be of the nature of non-consciousness, being attributes of buddhi (intellect). There will be no such difficulty in the case of the other Vedāntins, in whose view the soul is knower, doer, etc.. Jayanta as a Naiyāyika recognises the difference between attribute (guņa) and substance (gunin), i.e. between knowledge and soul in the present case, yet he regards soul as an entity that is directly perceptible (Nyāya-mañjarī, p. 433). Jainas, Bauddhas, Prābhākaras, and Vedāntins regard knowledge as self-luminous and self-cognised, that is to say knowledge manifests itself, no extraneous agency is required to reveal knowledge. On the other hand, the Nyāya-Vaišeşika system of philosophy does not regard knowledge as self-luminous, but believes that another cognition called anuvyavasāya (introspection ) is necessary for the awareness of cognition. This anuvyavasáya is of the form 'I know jar' and follows the knowledge of jar. In the Sāmkhyayoga view all operations of the intellect ( buddhi) become luminous by virtue of the puruşa (soul). Kumárila and his followers regard knowledge as something that can be indirectly known (parokşa ) --- it can be established by inference or presumption (artha patti). See Pramāņa-Mimāmsā, Notes p. 13.

Page #318

229
(1555) We find the soul established on the basis of 'I' notion from very early times. See Nyayabhāşya (3.1.15), Praśasta pādabhāşya (p. 360), Nyāyamañjuri (p. 429), Nyaya-vārtika (p. 341), etc..
(1557) The doubter cannot doubt his own existence. Compare Sankara's argument in his commentary on Brahma-sūtra 1.1.1.
Pakşa—That which has what is to be proved is called the pakşa, e. g. ‘Mountain is fiery, because it is smoky'-here mountain is the pakşa; the presence of fire on it must be doubtful so as to make it a worthy pakşa for the inference (sandigdha-sādhyavān pakṣaḥ). What is to be established is also called pa kşa-thesis; see Pramáņa-naya-tattvalokālankāra, 3.14-17. For a discussion of the constituents of anumāna (inference), see Tarkasangraha.
(1558) In the view of Prasastapāda, pleasure, pain and such attributes of the soul are experienced on account of the contact of soul and mind. He does not accept the view that if the attributes can be directly known, the substance also is directly known.
(1559-60) Substance-attribute-The Nyāya-Vaišeșika regards them as different entities, the Sārkhyas and Vedāntins as identical; the Mīmārsakas and the Jainas believe that there is bhedá bheda (both difference and non-difference) between them. According to the Buddhists there is nothing like a substance in which the attributes inhere, there is only the continuum of attributes.
The attributes cannot exist without their substrate :see Praśasta pāda (p. 360). See also Nyāyabhāşya (1.1.5), Nyāyasutra (3.2.40).
(1561-64) We find a similar argument in Nyāya Sū. 3.2.47ff and in Praśasta pādabháșya.
(1570) The Jainas alone regard the soul as, in a way, corporeal (murta) in the mundane state.
God-Like the Jaina, the Bauddha, the Sainkhya-Yoga, and the Mimarnsaka do not regard God as the creator of the world. Vedānta regards God as both the material cause and the

Page #319

230
instrumental cause of the world. The Nyāya-Vaiseșika regards God as the creator of the world. . (1573-74) We find the same reasoning in Nyāyavārtika (3.11).
(1574) Samyoga-conjunction; e.g. of table and finger, where the two things can be joined or separated without disturbing the identity or existence of either. Samavāya-The relation of inherence is admitted by the Nyaya-Vaišeşika. It is the relation between attribute-substance (guna-guņin ), substance-action (dravya-karma), substance-universal (dravyasāmānya), substance-particular (dravya-višeşa). Here the two things cannot be separated without one of them perishing. It is recognised as eternal, and all pervading.
Others do not recognise this relation, e. g. the Vedāntins regard it as but identity (tādatmya). The Buddhists do not admit any enduring substance, so there is no question of admitting sama vāya.
(1575) Cf. Vyomavati, p. 407—Ahamsabdo bāhyabādhitai(sabdo hyabādhitai)-ka padatvād avaśyam vācyam apekșate. See also Nyāyavārtika, p. 337, Tattvasangraha, p. 81.
(1578) The author of the Nyāyavārtika adduces three reasons as contributing to the authoritativeness of a verbal statement (Sabda or agama)–(i) immediate realisation of a thing, (ii) sense of mercy towards creatures, (iii) truthful nature-the desire to describe things as they are. See Nyāyavārtika, 2.1.69.
(1580) Types of souls :- See Tattvārthasūtra, Chapter 2. We give here a few sūtras:
Samsāriņo muktaś ca (10)-Souls are of two kinds-mundane and liberated.
Samanaskamanaskah (11) Mundane souls are of two kinds those who have a mind and those who do not.
Saisāriņas trasasthāvarāḥ (12)-Mundane souls from another point of view are of two kinds-trasa i. e. mobile or having a

Page #320

231
body with more than one sense-organ, and sthavara, immobile and having only the sense of touch. These latter being in fear do not have the capacity of moving away from the object causing fear.
Prthivy-ap-tejo-vayu-vanaspatayaḥ sthavaraḥ (13)-Immobile one-sensed souls are of five kinds-earth-bodied, water-bodied, firebodied, air-bodied and vegetable-bodied.
Dvindriyadayas trasaḥ (14)-Mobile souls have two or more
senses.
Vanaspatyantānām ekam (22)-The earth-bodied, etc. up to the vegetable-bodied have only one sense-that of touch.
Krmi-pipilika-bhramara-manusyādinām ekaikavṛddhani (23)Worms, ants, bees, men-of these each class has one sense more than the preceding one. Worms, etc. have two senses (touch and taste), ants, etc. three senses (touch, taste, smell), bees, etc. four senses (touch, taste, smell, sight), men, etc. five senses (touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing). We may note here that Jainas believe in four kinds of embodied existence of the soul-naraka (hellish), tiryak (sub-human), manusa (human), daiva (celestial).
(1583) Upayoga corresponds to attention-conscious activity. Dr Nathmal Tatia prefers to render it as 'active consciousness' as opposed to labdhi, 'dormant consciousness'. "The consciousness in its state of dormancy is called labdhi In other words, the dormant capacity of the soul for knowledge is labdhi. Upayoga on the other hand, is consciousness in its state of activity. The soul is called upayukta or upayogavan when it is actually engaged in knowing something. Mere capacity for knowledge without actual knowledge is labdhi"- Studies in Jaina Philosophy, pp. 55-56-Dr. Nathmal Tatia. The Jainas unanimously maintain the impossibility of the simultaneous occurrence of two upayogas. Upayoga is the defining characteristic of a soul. This upayoga can be sakara 'determinate' as also 'anakara' 'indeterminate'. The former is called jñana (knowledge) and the latter darsana (indeterminate intuition). See Bhagavati Su II. 10; Tattvärtha Sutra II. 8-9.

Page #321

232
(1584) All the philosophers except Sankara and his followers regard the souls as many even in the state of emancipation. See Sainkhya-kārikā, 18.
(1586) The soul is of the size of the body - The Jainas regard the soul as of the same size as the body. Nyāya-Vaišeșika, Samkhya-Yoga, Mīmāmsă and Kevalădvaita Vedānta regard the soul as all-pervading: Rāmānuja and the other Vedāntins regard it as atomic. The Buddhists have not given much thought to this aspect of the question as they were more interested in denying the soul as an independent entity. We find many different views in the Upanişads. The Kausītaki Up., for example, describes the soul as pervading all over the body (4.20); we may infer from this that it regards the soul as co-extensive with the body. Bph. Up. 5.6.1 regards the soul as of the same size as a grain of rice or barley. We find the soul also described as of the size of a thumb (e. g. in Katha Up. 2.2.12; Svet. Up. 3.13; 5.8-9); It is at some places said to be of the size of a span; it is very frequently stated to be all pervading. At places in the spirit of mysticism it is described as smaller than the smallest and bigger than the biggest (Katha 1.2.20, etc.).
(1597) Consciousness is not an attribute of the material elements. The Cārvākas regard consciousness as but an epiphenomenon of the material elements. For the refutation of this view see Pramāņa vārttika pp. 67 ff (Rāhula Sāükrtyāyana).
(1600-1) Meaning of a word-see Nyāyasūtra 2.2.60; Nyāyamanjarī, p. 297. This problem is discussed in works on poetics. There is divergence of opinion as to what a word means--individual or universal or shape (akrti) or quality, or action. The Mimārsakas regard jāti (universal, genus) and akřti (shape) as one, and believe that a word means jāti. Nyāyasūtra regards vyakti (individual), jāti and aksti all the three as meanings of a word, one being principal and the other two subordinate according to the context. According to the Jainas, everything is of the nature of both universal and particular and it is such a thing that is the meaning of a word. According to the Buddhist a word means anyāpoha or

Page #322

233
anyavyāvștti i.e. exclusion of other things (e. g. 'jar' excludes all that is non-jar).
The three alternatives inentioned in these gătbās represent the views of the Sabdabrahmavadi Grammarians, the Vijñānādvaitavādi Bauddhas and other philosophers who admit an external object which the word is meant to denote. According to the Sabdabralima vadins, Sabda or Word is the ultimate reality, and all else is a phenomenon of it. Therefore a word can mean Word only. The Vijñā nādvaita vādins regard vijñāna or consciousness as the only reality, even the external things are but external projections of ideas. Therefore, in their view, the meaning of a word is vijnana or knowledge. According to the other philosophers a word means a thing. Words are classified as two-fold-nāman (noun) and akhyata (verb). Nouns åre of four kinds according as they mean genus, substance (dravya), action or attribute. See Nyāyamanījarī, p. 297.
-- XX
(1611) Karma-See Introduction-section on karman, a latent impression deposited by acts, physical or mental. The Jainas regard it as pudgala constituted of matter, and as clinging to the soul. All schools of philosophy, excepting the Cārvākas, accept the doctrine of karma.
(1613) Jayanta bas in his Nyāyamañjarī brilliantly argued out a case for karman. See Nya yamañjari, p. 481.
(1614) The intermediate movement when the soul has abandoned the previous body, but has not taken into itself a new one is called in Jaina thought the antara lagati, wherein the soul moves to its new destination by virtue of its association with the karmic body. The Bauddhas call this karinic body antarabhava-sarira (inter-existence boly) which in their
30

Page #323

234
view also is corporeal. See Pramāņa-vārttika 1.85 (Manorathanandini Tīkā.
Yoga of the karmic body-Yoga means activity of the mind, speech or body. Here the activity of the karmic body is referred to.
(1620) Compare the doctrine of desireless (or selfless ) action in the Gitā, which is not binding and therefore is conducive to the attainment of emancipation.
(1625) Karma is corporeal i. e. possessed of attributes like colour, taste, etc.. See Aşțasahasrī, kārikā 98.
(1643) God is not the cause of the world—not even its creator. For a fuller discussion see Syädvādamañjarī, kā. 6. . Svabhāvavāda — The doctrine that the origination of things is not dependent upon any cause – they just naturally occur. This doctrine is very old and we find it referred to in the Upanişads and in the Gītā. The Gītā states that Arjuna cannot escape activity. Prakřti is by nature active, so Arjuna's body, speech or mind cannot but be active whether Arjuna wills it or not. What is essential is that one must perform all acts in a selfless manner. (See 18. 59-60; 3. 5; 3. 33; 5. 14). Yet there is a difference. The author of the Gītā cannot be called a svabhā vavādin since he admits God and also the soul as controlling prakrti or matter. The svabhāva vādins believe in just the nature of things and do not admit any other cause as guiding, or operating on, it.
Vidhi — Vidhir vidhāyakaḥ – That which enjoins, an injunction - Nyāyasūtra 2.1.63.
Arthavāda — a statement that commends or denounces — ‘Stutir nindā parakytiḥ purā kalpa ity arthavādah’-Nyāyasūtra. 2.1.64.
Anuvāda-Repetition of what is known from other sources; Vidhi-vihitasyānuyacanam anuvādah-Nyāyasūtra 2.1.65.
—X—X

Page #324

235
3
(1649) Soul-body-Is the soul identical with the body or different from it? That the soul and body are identical is a view of some of the Carvakas; it is known as 'tajjivatacchariravada' in early works.
(1650) Vide a Carvaka sutra quoted in the Tattopaplavasimha (p. 1)-Prthvy-ap-tejo-vayur iti tattväni; tat-samudaye sarirendriyavisaya-samjña. Another sutra of the Carvākas is 'Tebhyas caitanyam'. For a refutation of this view of the Carvākas, see Nyayasutra, pp. 301 ff; Nyayamañjarī, p. 437; Vyomavati 391; Ślokavarttika-Atmavada; Pramana-varttika, 1. 37 ff; Tattvasangraha, kā. 1857-1964; Brahmasutra Sankara Bh. 3. 3. 53; Aṣṭasahasri, p. 63 ff; Prameyakamalamartanda, 110 ff; Nyayakumudacandra, pp. 341 ff; Syadvadaratnakara, pp. 1080 ff; Nyāyāvatāra-varttika, pp. 45 ff, Dharmasangrahani, gā 36 ff.. Cf. also the Carvaka sūtra quoted in Brahma Su. Sankara Bh. 3. 3. 53 Tebhyas caitanyam madaśaktivad vijñānam caitanyavisiṣṭaḥ kayaḥ purusaḥ'.
(1657-63) Compare Prasastapādabhāṣya, p. 60 and Nyayasutra 3. 1. 1-3, 19, 22, 25.
(1160) Compare for 'agamas copapattis ca', Yogadṛṣṭisamuccaya, 101.
(1661) Pratijna is the statement of what is to be proved, 'Parvato vahniman'-e. g. Mountain is fiery. Cf. Nyayasara'Pratipipadayisaya pakṣavacanam pratijña yatha sabdo'nityah... tatra sadhyadharmavisistah pakṣaḥ- Pratijña is the first member of a syllogism. It is the statement of the subject (paksa) with the desire of proving something in respect of it; e. g. word is non-eternal (where word' is paksa and non-eternality is the sadhya to be proved. The argument of Vayubhuti in this gatha is that the pratijña is yet to be proved, whereas the hetu (linga, mark of inference) must be an established fact. Therefore a part (ekadeśa) of the pratijña cannot be adduced as a hetu.

Page #325

236
(1671) Cf.
Pratiksina-vinase hi bhavanam bhavasantateḥ; tathotpatteḥ sa hetutvad asrayo'yuktam anyatha. --- Pramanavarttika 1.69.
In this connection, the well-known Buddhist stanza may be quoted
Yasminneva hi santane ahita karmavasana;
phalam tatraiva sandhatte kärpäse raktata yatha. See also Bodhicaryavatarapanjikā, p. 472.
The attack of the rival thinkers against the Buddhist system of thought is that if the point-instants (svalakṣaṇa) alone are real, memory, recognition, fruition of karma etc. would not be possible. This the Buddhists explain on the basis of the stream (santati) of point-instants being the same.
(1674) The Buddhists believe that one source of cognition (pramaņa) can have one object only; for example, perception brings about the cognition of specific particular (svalakṣana) only and inference that of universal (samanya). Perception cannot cognise samanya, nor can inference cognise svalaksana. The Buddhists are thus pramana-vigrahavadins, as against others who are pramana-sampla vavadins; in the view of the latter, one source of cognition (pramana) can have as object even things cognised by other pramāņas. See
Vijanati na vijanam ekam arthadvayam yatha; ekam arthain vijänāti na vijñānadvaya quoted in Sarvarthasiddhi (1.12).
tatha".
Kṣanikah sarvasainskārāḥ-See kṣanikah sarvasamiskāraḥ asthirana
kutah kriyā;
bhutir yaişan kriya saiva karakani saiva cocyate. -quoted in Bodhicaryavata apañjikā, p. 376.
(1676) Tatra paksah prasiddho dharmi-Nyayapravesa, p. 1. In the inference, Mountain is fiery, because it is smoky, mountain is called the paksa, subject of the inference- the minor term. It is also called 'dharmin' the substrate, the attribute (dharma) viz. fire of which is to be proved (sadhya).

Page #326

237
The pakşil in any inference must be a well-known entity, its existence should in no case be doubtful, otherwise nothing could be demonstrated in connection with it. It is only the sādhya that is doubtful and therefore is to be established by inference.
(1682) Compare :-- Atidurat samipyād indriyaghātān mano'na vasthänāt;
sauksmyād vyavadhánād abhibhavāt samānābhibärác ca.Samkhya-kārika, 7.
Note:- We have in this section a reference to different fallacies of the linga (mark of inference), e. g. asiddha, (inadmissible, unreal), vyabhicărin or anaikäntika (inconclusive). For fallacies of reason, see Tarkasangraha. Sce also Nyāyasāra —
Tatrāniścita pakşlvittir asiddhah; pakşa-vipakşıyor eva Vartamā no viruddhal; pakşı-sapakşi-vipaksuvřltir anaikāntikah ... ...; Savyabhica o' naikāntikah - Nyāya-sútra.
-
X-
X
Vyakta ---The name Śacidatta also is found in the Digambara tradition. See Harivarisa Purana, 3.42.
The pur vil-pakşin of the discussion in this section is the Madhyamika Bauddha. What the Buddhists really meant by sünya was 'devoid of any essence of its own', 'devoid of self',
dependent upon another', 'relative'. Things being momentary ale produced anew by the causal apparatus; this being, that is; there is dependent origination (pratītyl - samutpada). What originates in dependence on another is siunya (void). The rival schools interpreted the doctrine of Sinya as Nihilism denying the existence of everything - which the Buddhists did not intend to propound. What they wanted to deny was the basic entity

Page #327

238
persisting through change and the reality of things as they are empirically described and understood. See Saiyutta Nikaya, 35.85, Bodhicaryāvatāra p. 356; also Sa yadi svabhāvataḥ syad bhāvo na syāt pratitya samud bhūtalı; yaś ca pratītya bhavati grāho nanu šūnyată saiva. 67. yaḥ śunyatām pratītya-samutpādam madhyamam pratipadam ekārtham; nijagāda praṇamāmi tam apratimasambuddham iti. 72. – Vigrahavyāvartani.
We find the word used in the later Upanisads also in connection with the absolute or quality less self which does not fall within the scope of any of the worldly categories, is devoid of phenomenal attributes, but yet is existent. See Tejobindu Up. 3.27; 4.43; also Maitri Up. 3.5.
(1690) Things of the world are comparable to a dream :Compare:
Dřśyate jagati yadyad yadyaj jugati viksyate; vartate jagati yadyat sarvam mithyeti niścinu. 55. idam prapañcam yat kiñcid yad yaj jagati vidyate; dụśyarūpam ca dřgrūpa in sarvai sasavişāņavat. 75. bhūmirā po'nalo vāyuh kham mano buddir eva ca; ahamkāraś ca tejaś ca lokam bhuvana-mandalam. 76. - Tejobindu Up. 5; also
Yathā māyā yathā svapno gandharva-nagarain yathā; tathotpādas tathā sthānam tathā bhang, udährtalı. - Mūlamā dhyamika Kārikā. 7.34.
phena pindopamai rūpam vedanā budbudopamā; maricisadļši sainjñā sainskārāḥ kadalīnibhāh.
māyopamam ca vijñānam uktam adityabandhuna - quoted in Madhyamika-vștti p. 41.
Yathaiya gandharvapuram maricikā, yatlaiva māyā supinam yathaiva; svabhävašunya tu nimittabhāvanä, tathopaman janatha sarvabhāvān.-Madhyamika-vrtti, p. 173.

Page #328

239
We have a similar pūrva-pakṣa in Nyāya-sūtra, 4.2.31-32— Svapnavişayābhimănavad ayam pramāņaprameyābhimānaḥ; māyā-gandharvanagara-mrgatrşņi kävad vă.
(1692) Things are relative (sāpeksa), e. g. short-long. -- Yo'pekşya sidhyate bhāvaḥ tam evāpekşya sidhyati; yadi yo'pekşitavyaḥ sa sidhyatāṁ kam apekşya kaḥ. yo'pekşya sidhyate bhávaḥ so'siddho' peksate katham,
athāpy apekșate siddhas tv apekşā’sya na vidyate. — Mūlamādhyamika Kārikā, 10.10-11.
We have a similar pūrvapakşı (p:ima-facie view) and its refutation in Nyāya-sūtra, 4.1. 39-40.
See Tejobindu Up. 5. 21--29 for similar arguments to prove the unreality of everything except Brahman. Not by themselves, nor by others .... ... Also --
Na svato napi parato na dvābhyam na'py ahetutaḥ, utpannā jātu vidyante bhāvāḥ kvacana kecana. 1.1. na svato jāyate bhāvaḥ pirato naiva jāyate;
na svataḥ parataś caiva jāyate jāyate kutaḥ. 21.13. – Mūlamādhyamika Kárikā.
(1694) — Produced, non-produced ........ cannot be produced:Utpadyamānam utpădo yadli cotpadayaty ayam; utpā layet tam utpādam utpădaḥ katamaḥ punaḥ. 18. anya utpadayaty enam yady utpado' navasthitih; athānutpā da utpannah sarvam utpadyate tatlā. 19. svataś ca tā vad utpattir asataś ca na yujyate;
na sataś căsataś ceti purvam evopapāditam. 20. --- Mülamadhyamika Kārikā, 7.
(1695) Compare :Hetupratyayasāmagryam prthagbhā ve’pi madvaco na yadi,
panu śünyatvam siddham bhāvānām asvabhā vatahVigrahavyā vartanī, 21.
hetoś ca pratyayānāṁ ca sāmagryā jāyate yadi; phalam asti ca sāmagryām sāmagryā jāyate katham. 1. hetoś ca pratyayānam ca sämagryā jāyate yadi; phalam năsti ca sāmagryām sāmagryā jāyate katham. 2.

Page #329

240
Hetes ca pratyayanam ca samagryām asti cet phalam; grhyeta nanu samagryain samagryam ca na grhyate. 3. hetcs ca pratyayanam ca samagryam nästi cet phalam; hetaval pratyayaś ca syur ahetupratyayaih samah. 4. -Mülamadhyamika Kārikā, 20.
(1702) Compare: Smṛti-sankalpavac bhimanah-Nyaya Su. 4.2.34 and Bhasya on it.
(1703) - Dream See Prasastapada Bhāṣya, pp. 91-3. (Kashi Sanskrit Series).
(1705 6) Syllogism of three members pratijna (thesis), hetu (reason), udaharana (example). Syllogism of 5 members the above three and upanaya (application) and nigamana (conclusion).
ca svapnaviṣaya
-
Parvato vahniman-Mountain is fiery (pratijna); Dhumat-Because it is smoky (hetu);
Yatra yatra dhumas tatra tatra vahnir yatha mahanaseWhere there is smoke, there is fire, as in a kitchen (udaharana); Vahnivyapyadhumavan ayam (parvatah)-This Mountain has smoke which is invariably concomitant with fire (upanaya); Tasmat tatha (-parvato vahniman) - Therefore the Mountain is fiery (nigamana).
The rule of invariable concomitance (vyapti) forms a part of the syllogism-udaharana. The illustration can be either similar or dissimilar, and accordingly the vyapti is stated positively or negatively. The above is an example of positive vyapti (anvayin); the negative (vyatirekin) being expressed as follows -Yatra yatra vahnyabhavaḥ tatra tat a dhumabhavaḥ' or 'yatra vahnir nästi tatra dhumo'pi nästi yatha sarasi'- Where there is not fire, there is not also smoke, as in a pond.
(1710) Samantabhadra has in his Aptamīmāsā (kā. 73-75), refuted the extreme views that everything is relative (sapeksa), dependent upon others, and that everything is self-sufficient.

(1713) Svabhava:- Aguir dahati nākāśam ko'tra paryanuyujyatām........ The whole stanza is as follows:

Page #330

241
Idam evain na vety etat kasya paryanuyojyatām; agnir dahati nākāśain ko'tra paryanuyujyatām. --Pramāņavārtikālankāra, p. 43.
(1718) Vyavahāra and Niscaya (empirical and real standpoints) - Acarya Kunda Kunda has distinguished between these. See his Niyamasāra, 11 ff and other works. For a discussion of these, see Nyäyávatāratīkāvịtti, Introduction, pp. 139 ff by Pt. Dalsukh Malvania.
(1737) The Nyāya-Vaišeșika regards an atom as devoid of parts (niravayava) and indivisible. See Nyāya Sū. (4.2.16) and Bhāsya of Vatsyāyana. The Buddhists find fault with this as they regard every atom as an aggregate of six units. If the six were to occupy the same space, everything in the world would be of the size of an atom. See “Satkena yugapad yogāt paramāņoh șadarśatā;
şaņnām samanadeśatvāt pindah syad anumătrakah.” --Vijñaptimătrată-siddhi, kā. 12. For å rejoinder to this, see Vyomavati, p. 225.
Dvyaņuka--binary-According to the Nyāya Vaišeşika, two atoms form a dvyaņuka. As regards the composition of tryaņuka, etc. there is difference of opinion, - according to some, three atoms form a tryaņuka, four a caturaņuka and so on; whereas others believe that three dvyaņukas make a tryaņuka, four tryaņukas a caturaņuka and so on.
Murtair aņır apradeśah...... — A similar stanza is quoted in Tattvārtha-bhāsya, 5.25. - Kāraṇam eva tad antyam sūksmo nityaś ca bhavati paramāņuh; ekarasagandhavarno dvisparśah kāryalingaś ca.
(1740) Non-perception of a thing cannot prove its nonbeing -- This is a stock argument of many darśanas, esp. the Buddhists. Compare Nyāyabindu, pp. 59-60; also Pramānivārttika, 2.85 ff; Tattvasangraha 3270 ff.
(1749) For arguments proving the existence of väyu (air), see Vyomavatī, p. 272.
31

Page #331

(1750) The Nyaya-Vaiseṣikas argue that the quality 'sound' must have a substratum, and sound could not possibly be a quality of earth, water, fire, and air, and therefore there must be ākāśa to serve as the substratum of sound (sabda). See Vyomavati, p. 322. The Jainas do not regard sound as a quality, so they infer the existence of ākāśa on the ground of the argument that the corporeal elements earth, etc. must have something to support them and ākāśa is such a supporting substance, and so on.
242
(1759) Struck by a weapon-See Acaranga, 1 for a discussion as to which soul is struck by which weapon.
(1765) Five samitis and three guptis-Jaina thinkers have suggested certain means for the stoppage (samvara) of the inflow of new karmic matter and also for the dispersion or dissociation (nirjara) of the accumulated karmic matter from the soul. See "Asrava-nirodhaḥ samvarah; sa gupti-samiti-dharmanuprekṣāparisahajaya-caritrail; tapasa nirjara ca; samyag - yoganigraho iryabhaṣaiṣaṇādānanikṣepotsargah samitayaḥ"
guptiḥ;
Tattvartha-sutra IX 1-5.
The first condition for the stoppage (samvara) of inflow of karmic matter is the three-fold gupti, control of thought, speech and physical movements. This is aided by (i) the five-fold samiti (regulation of the five main activities for the maintenance of life; (ii) the ten-fold moral virtues (dharma), (iii) twelve-fold contemplation (anuprekṣa), (iv) patient endurance and conquest of the twenty-two afflictions (parişahajaya) and (v) five-fold conduct (caritra)*. The five-fold samiti consists in proper regulation and care in walking (samyag irya samiti), speaking (samyag bhāṣā samiti), eating (samyag eșana samiti), lifting and laying things (samyag adana-nikṣepa samiti) and excretion (samyag utsarga samiti) so as to cause no injury to anything or anyone. Gupti means desisting from any evil activity or movement of thought, speech and body.
*See Tattvärthasutra IX.

Page #332

243
The point at issue in this section does not seem to represent the stand-point of any particular school of thought. It might have been something about which all were anxions to know. Under the pretent of the treatment of the similarity of thi worldly life to the other-worldly life, the relation of similarity of cause and effect is discussed. Even those who do not accept the view that the effect is latent in the cause, recognise the similarity of the cause and the effect; the Cārvākas would recognise sentiency as a dissimilar effect of the aggregate of material elements. The Samkhya accepts everything as evolving out of Prakřti and the Vedānta as evolving out of Brahman, irrespective of the later differentiation in respect of the guņas or Māyā. No system of thought has any objection to the effect being similar to the cause. Only those who do not believe that the effect is latent in the cause recognise dissimilar effects also.
(1800) Nama (body-making) and gotra (status-determining) karman-See Introduction.
-X-X
The Cārvāka is the only darśana (system of philosophy) that does not accept the concept of bondage and emancipation. All the other systems of philosophy believe that the soul must be liberated from its bondage or metempsychosis, and that mokṣa or liberation is or should be the goal of all human effort. The Sāinkhya-Yoga is of the view that it is Prakrti, that is bound or liberated, because the soul is just an unattached witness of the

Page #333

244
dance of Prakrti, while other systems believe the bondage to be that of the soul. But this is a matter of interpretation, and the concept of bondage and liberation is acceptable to it also.
(1804) Sa eşa vigunah ... ... This statement cannot be traced, but it has a Sārkhya tinge. Compare — karmādhyakṣaḥ sarvabhūtādhivă sah sākşi cetā kevalo nirguņaś ca-Svet. Up. 6.11.
(1821-1822) This division of the souls into bhavya -- those that are capable of being liberated, and abha vya- those that are not — is one for which no thoroughly rational explanation has been given. Acārya Siddhasena recognises it as something that is to be accepted on faith or on the authority of the scriptures.
(1827) If all the bhavya souls are emancipated, there would be an end to all sainsara, mundane existence. Will such a situation ever arise? The Jainas say it will not, as explained in the body of the text. The same problem is attempted to be tackled in the Yogabhāşya, where it is said that this cannot be answered but one thing is certain that the kušala (good, pure) are emancipated, not so the akušala (impure); but it is not possible to say anything of the world as a whole. There is quotation in the Bhāsvati commentary of the Yogabháşya saying that there will never be an end to all mundane existence, as at the present. —'Idānim iva sarvatra nātyantocchedaḥ. Bhāsvati also quotes “Pūrṇasya pūrņam ādāya pūrņam evāvašisyate' of the Upanişads and also,
'Ata eya hi vidvatsu iucyamăneșu sarvadā;
brahmāndajivalokānām anantatvād aśūnyata' - to the same effect. See Yogabhāsya. 4.33.
(1839) Is mokṣa (emancipation) křtaka (caused or brought about)? We may note briefly the views of different darśanas in connection with this problem. The Buddhists regard everything as made, as composite (krtaka), except nirvana and äkāśa (space). In the Milindapañha, it is recorded that King Milinda once asked Nāgasena if there was anything that was not caused by action (karma) or cause (hetu) or season (rtu). Nāgasena replied that there were two things--akāśa and nirvana that complied

Page #334

245
with this condition. But then naturally the question arises that if nirvāṇa is something uncaused, why did the Buddha give instructions regarding the path leading to liberation and also discuss its causes. The answer is that to realise something and to produce are two different things. The causes mentioned by the Buddha are for the realisation of mokşa, not for its origination. One can go to the Himalayas, but one can never by the same effort take them elsewhere. One can go to the other bank of a river with the help of a boat, but can never bring the other bank physically to himself. Similarly, Lord Buddha can give instruction regarding the path leading to the realisation of mokşa, but can never point out the causes bringing about mokşa, because mokṣa or nirvana is something uncaused, it cannot be brought about. Nirvāņa, in fact, does not fall within any of the categories of empirical thought, still it is not non-existent as it is the object of mental -- l'ather, transcendental — cognition, it can be cognised by the undefiled, pure Mind. See Milinda pañha. 4. 7. 12-15.
Even in the Vedānta, mokṣa has only to be realised, for it is eternally present. The ignorance regarding the nature of the pure, undefiled soul has only to be dispelled for the realisation of its true nature which is eternally existent. The path of mokşa pointed out consists not of originating (utpadaka) factors but of jñāpaka .(cognitive) ones that only show the facts as they are. All the Brāhmaṇical systems of philosophy regard the soul as eternally unchanging and pure, and mokşa as uncaused. The Bhatta school of thought alone specifically regards the soul as capable of evolution, and consequently recognises change or modification in it. The Buddhists regard citta as naturally luminous and the impurities as adventitious (Prabhäsvaram idam cittam prakệtyā "gantavo malāḥ - Pramāņa-vārttika, 1. 210).
The Jainas regard mokşa as both krtaka (caused) and akştaka (uncaused, natural) from different points of view. It is kệtaka from the point of view of modes, as it gets rid of impurities and attains a state of perfection, but from the point

Page #335

246
of view of the basic substance there is no change in it and so it is uncaused. The soul is existent from time beginningless, it was never brought about.
(1841) Saugata—The Buddhists of the Mahāyāna school believe that the Buddha--the Sugata returns to his mundane life repeatedly for the good of the creatures of the world. Compare the theory of Avatāra (Incarnation) in the Bhagavad Gītā and in Vaisnavism.
(1844) The emancipatel perfect soul is stationed in the uppermost part of the loka (cosmos). In the Sámkhya, NyayaVaiseșika and Sankara schools of thought, the soul is all-pervading so there is no possibility of the emancipated soul moving to another place, only its connection with the body, etc. is cut off. The theistic schools of thought believe that the emancipated soul (which is atomic) goes to the world of Vişnu (or of the God recognised by them). The Buildlists of the Hinayāna do not recognise any place to which the emancipated go. See Milinda-pañha, 4. 8. 93, but those of the Mahayana believe that there are places like Tuşita Heaven, Sukhāvatī Heaven where the Buddha resides and from which he returns to the world assuming the nirmānakaya.
Låū ya-This is Gātha 957 of the Avaśyaka Niryukti.
(1845-46) Soul is active. Those who regard the soul as vibhu, ubiquitous and kūtastha, eternally unchanging, do not recognise any activity on the part of the soul. But in the Jaina view the soul is capable of expansion and contraction and so it is quite consistent to accept activity of the form of movement in the soul.
(1847) Effort-The Nyāya-Vaišeșika believes that effort (prayatna) is an attribute of the soul, and being a quality it is different from karman or kriya (activity).
(1848) Nityam sattvam — This is part of a kärikā in Dharmakirti's Prämáņavārttika
Nityain sattvam asattvam vā betor anyā napekṣaṇāt; apeksātaś ca bhāvānām kādācitkasya sambhavaḥ (3.34).
--X—X—

Page #336

247
All the schools of thought except the Cārvākas recognise the existence of gods. See Introduction.
(1869-79) The gods can be directly perceived – This statement also has in a way to be taken on faith and the authority of the scriptures. We find in early works the tendency to identify the sun, moon, etc. with the power supposed to preside over them, though we find passages where a clear distinction is drawn between the two, and the thinker wants to know the true nature of the presiding power as against the outward appearance.
Gods—See Tattvartha-sūtra, IV
Devāś caturņikāyāḥ (1) - Celestial beings are of four groups or classes — bhavanavāsi (residential), vyantara (peripatetic), jyotiska (stellar), vaimānika (heavenly).
Bhavanavāsino' sura-nāga-vidyut-supaiņāgni-vāta-stanitodadhidvīpa-dik-kumā rāḥ (10) Vyantară” kinnara-kimpuruşa-mahoraga-gandharva-yakşarākşasa-bhūta-piśācāḥ (11) Jyotişkāḥ sūryācandramasau graha-nakşatra-prakırnaka-tārakaś
ca (12) — (The sub-classes of stellars are sun, moon, planets, constellations, scattered stars). Meru-prada kşiņā nityagatayo nộloke(13); tatkştah kālavibhāgaḥ(14); bahir avasthitā) (15). [In the human region (i. e. the 23 dvipas), the stellars eternally move round their respective Mount Meru. Divisions of time are caused by these movements of the stellars. The stellars outside the 23 dvipas are fixed ).
Vaimānikāḥ (16); kalpopapannāḥ kalpātītāś ca (17) - (The heavenly beings are of two kinds — kalpopa panna, born in the 16 heavens, and kalpātīta, born beyond the 16 heavens).
(1869-70) Even in Buddhist works we find the belief that gods come down to the human world. See Kathāvatthu, 4. 7.

Page #337

248
All the schools of thought, except the scoool of the Cārvākas admit the existence of nā rakas (denizens of hell).
(1892) Sensuous perception is, as a matter fact, not direct perception-The Jainas are the only philosophers who believe that the soul's perception is the only pratyaksa (direct apprehension), sensuous perception being, as a matter of fact, indirect. In their view faksa' denotes the soul, and therefore the soul's perception alone is pratyakşa in the literal sense of the term. Other systems of thought take 'aksa' as denoting sense-organ, and thus for them pratyakşa is sensuous perception which for the Jainas is parokşa (indirect knowledge). To keep abreast with the times and on the same plane of thought as the others the Jainas also called sensuous perception pratyakşa, but qualified it as sāmvyavahārika (empirical). Sensuous perception--samvyavahărika pratyaksa.
(1897) Avadhi, manah-paryāya, kevala-jñāna – Mati-śrutā vadhi-manaḥpāryaya-kevalani jñānam (9) - Knowledge is of five kinds—mati (sensuous knowledge), śruta (scriptural knowledge), avadhi (visual intuition), manaḥ-paryāya (intuition of mental modes ), kevala (perfect knowledge -- omniscience). Tat-pramāņe; adye parokşam; pratyakşam anyat (10-12) Tattvārtha-sūtra, I-Mati and śruta are indirect or mediate cognition (pyrokşa) and the other three-avadhi, manah-paryaya and kevala are direct or immediate intuition (pratyakşa). For details see Tattvartha-sūtra, 1 and Studies in Jaina Philosophy, Ch. Il-Nathmal Tatia (Jain Cultural Research Society, Benares, 5, 1951).
-XX

Page #338

249
Of the different alternatives discussed here, the view of Svabhāvavāda and the view accepting pāpa and punya as distinct are well-known; but it cannot be said as to whose the views recognising the existence of pāpa alone, or of punya alone, or of their mixture are. It may be that all possible alternatives are discussed here, without any reference to the schools to which they belong. We may note in passing that Máthara has in his introduction to karikā 13 of Samkhyakārikā raised a problem similar to the pūrvapakşa here, viz. Why are sattva, rajus and tamas recognised as three different guņas, why cannot only one guna be admitted ?
(1935) Yoga-activity of mind, speech or body. Cf. "kāyavāúmanahkarma yogaḥ; sa ásra vaḥ. - Tattvārtha Sū. 6. 1-2.--Yoga is the channel of asrava (inflow of karmic matter into the soul).
Mithyātva (perversity of attitude), etc. .... CI. Mithyādarsunăvirati-pramāda-kaşāya-yogā bandhabeta vaḥ-Tattvārtba Sū. 8.1Mithyadarśana (wrong belief ), non-abstinence, spiritual inertia, passion, and yoga (activity of mind, speech and body) are the causes of bondage.
Mithyātva-perverse attitude, wrong belief. It may be of the nature of ekānta (one-sided view of a thing of many aspects), viparīta (perverse belief, e.g. animal sacrificees lead to heaven), sansaya (doubt, scepticism), vinaya (credulity, taking all religious and views to be equally worthy of pursuit), ajñāna (wrong belief caused by ignorance, indiscrimnation of good and bad). Pūjyapăda Davanandin also notices a two-fold classification of mithyādarśına - (i) naisargika (inborn) and (ii) paropadeśapūrvaka, acquired from instructions by others. There are four varieties of the latter according as it belongs to a kriyā-vadin (believer in moral and spiritual action), akriyā vādin (nonbeliever in moral and spiritual action), ajñāpin (agnostic) or vainayika (credulous person).
32

Page #339

250
Mithyādarśana may be abhigrbīta (obstinately held) and anabhigņbīta (lightly held). See Tattvārtha Sū. Bhāsya 8. 1; Sarvărtha-siddhi of Pujyapāda Devanandi on Tattvārtha Sū. 8. 1; also Siddhasenagaņin's commentary on it and Samayasāra, 96.
For a clear exposition in English see Studies in Jaina Philosophy, pp. 144ff -- Dr. Nathmal Tatia.
It may be noted that mithyadarśana lies at the root of all evils anl whatever misery there is in the life of a soul is ultimately due to it (sainsāramūla-biam micchattam -- Bhattapariņnaya, 4.59) though yoga may, as pointed out by Maladhāri Hemacandra, be the immediate antecedent of karma-bondage.
Avirati-non-abstinence from sinful behaviour e.g. injury, falsehood etc.. It is of twelve kinds—lack of compassion for six classes of embodied souls, and lack of restraint of five senses and mind.
Pramăda-carelessness, spiritual inertia, not being mindful of what is to be done or not done.
Kaşāya--passions--anger, pride, deceit, greed.
(1936) Adhyavasāya, the gool or bad modifications-motives intentions-of the soul.
Leśyā-coloration. See Studies in Jaina Philosophy, p. 253 foot-note --Dr. Nathmal Tatia—"Leśyā is a transformation of the soul, dependent upon the activity of the mind. There is leśyā so long as there is association of the soul with the mind. The soul has infinite-fold transformations due to the infinitefold activities of the mind associated with it. But these transformations are classified for the sake of convenience into six main types which are known as kysna (black) leśyā, nila (blue) leśyā, kāpota (grey) leśyā, tejo (yellow) leśyā, padma (pink) leśyā and sukla (white) leśyā. They are thus nothing but the states of the soul brought about by the various conditions of the mind”. Cf.
"Liśyante iti leśyāḥ, manoyogāvastambhajanita-pariņāmaḥ... anekatve'pi pariņāmasya paristhūra-katipayabhedakathanam eva

Page #340

251
sujñānatvāt kriyate, na tvasesapariņāma-bhedākhyānam
asakyatyātTattvārtha Sūtra Bbāșya Tīkā, 2. 7.
See also the Doctrine of Karman in Jaina Philosophy by Dr. H. Von Glasenapp.
The leśyās from krsna to kāpota are aśubha (inauspicious) and those from tejas to śukla are subha (auspicious).
Dhyana-concentration, meditation. See Uttamasamhananasyaikāgracintānirodho dhyānam antarmuhūrtāt (27), ärta-raudra-dharmya-suklāni (28), pare mokşahetū (29) -Dhyāna is confining one's thought to one object. In a man with the best constitution of bones, etc.) it lasts at the most up to one antarmuhūrta(period less then forty-eight minutes). It is of four kinds — (i) artadhyāna — mournful or painful concentration, (ii) rudra or cruel, (iii) dharma, righteous, (iv) śukla, pure concentration, i.e. concentration on the soul. The last two are the causes of liberation.
Ārtadhyāna is four-fold-(i) On attainment of an unpleasing object, repeatedly thinking of getting dissociated from it or rid of it (ārtam amanojñasya samprayoge tadviprayogāya smặtisamanvābāraḥ-Ibid, 30); (ii) repeatedly thinking of reunion with a pleasing object on being separated from it ( viparītam manojñasya - Ibid, 31); (iii) on being afflicted by disease or any other source of pain and anxiety, repeatedly thinking of becoming free from it (vedanāyāś ca --- Ibid, 32); (iv) on being over-anxious to enjoy worldly objects and not getting them in this world, repeatedly thinking of gaining them (nidānam ca-Ibid, 33).
Raudra dhyāna is four kinds — (i) delight in hurtfulness, (ii) delight in falsehoods, (iii) delight in theft, (iv) delight in preservation of objects of sense-enjoyments (himsā'nţta-steyavişayasamrakşaņebhyo raudram aviratadeśaviratayoḥ-Ibid, 35). Dharma-dhyāna is of four kinds — Contemplation (i) of the principles taken on the authority of the scripture as being the teachings of the Arhats, (ii) as to how the universal wrong faith, knowledge and conduct of people can be removed,

Page #341

252 (iii) of the fruition of the eight kinds of karman, (iv) of the nature and constitution of the universe (ajña pāya-vipaka-samsthānavicayāya dharmyam-Ibid, 36).
Sukla-dhyāna also is of four kinds, the first two kinds being possible only for saints possessed of a knowledge of the 14 Purvas and the last two kinds are peculiar to the man of perfect knowledge (kevalin) (śukle cädye Purvavidah; pare kevalinaḥIbid, 37-38).
The four kinds of sukladhyāna are (i) absorption in meditation of the self, but unconsciously allowing its different modes to replace one another, (ii) absorption in one aspect of the self, without changing the particular aspect concentrated upon; (iii) the very fine vibratory movements in the soul, even when it is deeply absorbed in itself, in a kevalin; (iv) total absorption of the soul in itself, steady and undisturbably fixed without any motion or vibration whatsoever. (Prthaktvaikatva-vitarka-sukşmakriya- pratipā tivyaparata - kriyanivartini-Ibid, 39). See Tattvārthasūtra 9. 27ff and commentaries.
(1938) Mohaniya karma of a mixed nature :
Mohaniya ( deluding karman) is of two kinds--darśana mohanīya (right-belief deluding) and caritra-mohanīya (rightconduct deluding). Darśana-mohaniya is of three kinds-mithyātva (wrong belief which does not allow a person to have a correct knowledge of the nature of things), samyag-mithyātva (mixed wrong and right belief wherein there is wavering knowledge as to the nature of things), samyaktva-mohaniya (right belief clouded by slight wrong belief ). See Tattvārtha-sūtra, 8. 9.
(1939) Sankrama — Transformation of one karman into another. Transformation is a process by which the soul transforms the nature, the duration, the intensity and the numerical strength of one kind of karmic matter into those of another kind which it is binding at that time by means of the manifestation of a particular kind of potency. Sankramyante' nyakarmarūpatayā vyavasthitaḥ prakrti-sthityanubhāga-pradeśā anyakarmarūpatayā vyavasthāpyante yena tat

Page #342

253
sankramaņam-Karmaprakřti (1937), Bandhana-karaṇa, p. 19 (1). By this process the soul either deposits a formerly bound karman into one which it is binding at the time and then transforms it into the latter, or of the many kinds of karmic sub-types that it is binding one karmic sub-type is transformed into another [Badhyamānāsu prakștişu madhye abadhyamānaprakstidalikam praksipya badhyamāna-prakrtirūpatayā yat tasya pariņamanam, yac ca vă badhyamānānām prakřtinās dalikarūpasyetaretararüpata yā parinamanam tat saryam sankramanam ity ucyate-Karmaprakrti p. 1 (2)]. In the case of the three sub-types of the darśana-mohanīya (belief-deluding) karman, however, transformation is possible even in the absence of bondage. A person of right belief (samyag-drsti) transforms the perversity-producing (mithyātva) karman into the two karmans that produce respectively right-cum-wrong belief (samyagmithyātva) and right-belief (samyaktva), even though the latter two are not bound. Similarly he transforms the karma that produces right-cum-wrong belief into one that produces right belief. It may be stressed again here that samyagmithyātva and samyaktva are only the two particular states of purity of the mithyātva-pudgala (i. e. the karmic matter producing perversity). The soul can bind only the karman that produces perversity (mithyātva). It does not bind the karman producing samyag-mithyātva, or the karman producing samyāktva, but only purifies the mithyātva-karman into samyag-mithyātva and samyaktva. [Sea Karmaprakşti, p. 2 (2)].
It is to be noted, as Dr. Tatia has drawn our attention, that a person of perverted belief (mithyā-dęsti) cannot transform his perversion-karman (mithyatva) into the karman that produces right-cum-wrong belief or into one that produces right belief, nor can a person of right belief transform his karma producing right belief into one that produces right-cum-wrong belief or wrong belief [Ibid, p. 3 (2)].*
*See 'Studies in Jaina Philosophy', pp. 255-7—Dr. Nathmal Tatia. We are highly indebted to Dr. Tatia's lucid exposition of the states and processes of karman in his book.

Page #343

254
(1939) Dhruvabandhini prakyti is that karmic matter which is invariably bound when the conditions of bondage are present; while adhruvabandhini is that which may or may not be bound even when the conditions of bondage are present.
47-fold Dhruvabandhini prakrti -(1-5) Jñanavaranīya-viz. matiśruta-, avadhi-, manah-paryāya-, kevala-jñanā varaniya (knowledgeobscuring) karmans; (6-14) 9 darśanā varaniya--cakşur-, acakşur-, avadhi-, kevala-darśanāvaraniya (undifferentiated-cognitionobscuring) karmans and nidrā karman, nidrānidräkarman, pracalakarman, pracalā pracalā-karman, styānagrddhi; (15-30) 16 kaşāyas (caritramohaniya karman)-The passions are krodha (anger), māna (pride) māyā (deceitfulness), lobha (greed). Each of these is four-fold according to the intensity of manifestation(a) anantānubandhin-of life-long duration, (b) aprátyākhyānāvarana-obscuring the energy for even partial abstinence, (c) pratyakhyānāvaraña-obscuring only the er ergy for complete abstinence, (d) samjvalana-flaming up and effective only occasionally; (31) mithyātva (darśana-mobanīya); (32-33) bhaya (fear), jugupsā (disgust)-two no-kaṣāyas (quasi-passions), (34-42) taijasa (giving fiery body), kārmaņa (giving karmic body), varna (colour-giving), rasa (taste-giving), sparsa (touch-giving), aguru-laghu (making a being neither heavy nor light), upaghāta (causing anpihilation), nirmāna (causing the right formation of the body)—these are different types of nāma-karman; (43-17) 5 antaraya-dāna-, lābha-, bhoga-, upabhoga-, virya-antarāya (energy-obscuring) karmans.
These can be continually transformed into sub-types of their own basic type.*
The remaining sub-types of the different karmans are adhruvabandhini and their transformation even into sub-types of their own basic karman is restricted inasmuch as only the unbound karman (that is to say that which is to be bound) can be transformed into that which is already bound, but that which is already bound cannot be transformed into the unbound.
* See The Doctrine of Karman, pp. 5-19 - Dr. Glasenapp

Page #344

255
(1941) Oil-This is a very popular example with the Jainas even from the time of the early canonical literature.
Karma-varganā (karma-groups). “The Jainas conceive an infinite number of groups called vargaņās, of atoms. The first vargaņā is conceived to contain only such atoms as remain alone and solitary and have not formed composite bodies with others. The second group contains composites of two atoms. The third group contains composites of three atoms. And so on. By this process, we arrive at a group which contains composites of an infinite number of atoms which is fit for the making up of the audārika (gross) body such as of men and animals. This group is followed by an infinite number of groups which are all competent for making the stuff of audārika body. Then follows a number of groups which are incompetent for any kind of body. Again, by the same process we reach an infinite number of groups which are competent to form the stuff of the vaikrisa (subtle) body such as of celestial beings. And by following the same process as above, another infinite number of groups are reached which are capable of forming the stuff of āhāraka body such as of an ascetic having special powers. Similarly by repeating the same process we obtain groups which are competent for taijusa (luminous) body, bhāşa (speech), ānāpāna (respiration), manas (mind) and karman. It is to be noticed in this connection that a composite body of the group that follows consists of greater number of atoms but occupies less space in comparison with a composite body of the group that precedes. Thus a composite body of the karma-Targaņā consists of more atoms but occupies less space in comparison with a composite body of manovargaņā, which, again, consists of more atoms but occupies less space in comparison with a composite body of the ānāpāna-vargaņā. And so on. [ See Āvaśyaka Niryukti, 39. Also see Višeşā vaśyaka Bhāșya, 631-637 and the BỊhadvștti.]”—Studies in Jaina Philosophy, p. 65– Dr. Nathmal Tatia.
Upaśamašreni -- Path of subsidence : For the final consummation the soul has to remove the five conditions of
Tatia

Page #345

256
bondage, viz. mithyātva (perversity), avirati (non-abstinence), pramāda (spiritual inertia ), kasāya ( passions), and yoga (activities of body, speech and mird). The most important activity for spiritual progress is the subduing of the passions. This is possible by the repetition of the three-fold processes of yathapravsttakarana, apūrvakaraṇa and anivrttikranı. Yathāpravịttakarana is the impulse from within to realise the good whose vision, though indistinct, the soul sometimes has in the course of its wanderings. It is a kind of manifestation of energy and is not always effective and consequently does not invariably lead to spiritual advancement. But if the impulse is strong enough to cut the tie of rāga ('ikes, attachment) and dveşa (dislikes, repulsion), the soul is successful in the struggle and is bound to be liberated within a limited time. The struggle consists in the two-fold processes known as apūrvakarang and anivșttikarana. By the yathā pravșttakarana the soul is confronted with the concentrated force of the passions and the other two enable the soul to overpower and transcend the force. The force of the passions is beginningless, but the soul is feelingly conscious of it only on some occasions. This consciousness is the work of the process called yathāpravșttakarana. Daring this process the sonl undergoes progressive purification every instant and binds karmic matter of appreciably less duration. Again there is increase in the intensity of the bondage of auspicious karmans along with decrease in the intensity of the bondage of inauspicious karmans. As a result of this the soul gets an indistinct vision of the ultimate goal. It is only the souls having the necessary energy who can overcome the force of passions. The souls manifest such energy by the two processes of apūrvakaraṇa and anivșttikaraņa at the end of which the soul develops such spiritual strength as is destined to lead it to the goal of emancipation. The duration and intensity of the karmans which were considerably reduced in the process of yathāpravșttakarana* are further reduced in the apurvakaraṇa during which the soul passes through such states as
* The karaņas are spiritual impulses that goad the soul to realise its ultimate goal, emancipation.

Page #346

257
it never experienced before (apurva). During the process of apurvakarana, the duration and intenisty of the bondage of new karmans as well as the accumulated is considerably affected. This is rendered possible by four sub-processes which begin simultaneously from the very first instant of the main process: (i) sthitighata, destruction of duration, (ii) rasaghata, destruction of intensity, (iii) construction of a complex series (gunasreni) of the groups of karmic atoms, arranged in geometrical progression with an incalculable common ratio, transplanted from the mass of karmic matter that would have come to rise after an antarmuhurta, for the sake of their premature exhaustion by fruition, (iv) apurvasthitibandha, an unprecedented type of bondage of small duration whose length is much smaller than that of the duration hitherto bound. The soul undergoes yet another sub-process, viz. guna-sankrama (transference of karmic matter) by which a portion of the karmic matter of the inauspicious types of karman is transferred to some other types of karman. The mass of karmic matter thus transferred increases every moment until the end of the apurvakarana process when the knot (of raga and dveṣa) is cut, never to appear again.
The third process of anivṛttikarana leads the soul to the verge of the dawn of the first enlightenment that comes like a flash on account of the absolute subsidence of the karmic matter of the vision-deluding (mithyatva-mohaniya) karman. The soul undergoes the same five sub-processes, as are described in the process of anivṛttikarana. There also occurs a new process called antarakarana whereby the soul divides into two parts the karmic matter of the mithyatva-mohaniya karman that was to rise after the anivṛttikarana. The first of the two parts the soul forces into rise during the last few instants of anivṛttikarana, while the rise of the second part is postponed for an antarmuhurta during which no karmic matter of the mithyatva-mohaniya karman is allowed to rise and produce its effect on the soul. Thus at the end of the process of anivritikarana, the mithyatva-mohaniya karman has no effect
3833

Page #347

258
on the soul for an antarmuhūrta (a period less than forty-eight minutes). This is its first vision, its first enlightenment which
emporary and disappears within a very short time. The soul now attempts to recapture the vision and make it a permanent possession. The processes the soul bas to undergo for this are quite analogous to the processes already described with slight variations. The processes are related to the removal of the five conditions of bondage-mithyátva, etc.. The most important activity for spiritual progress, however, is the subduing of the passions which is possible only by the repetition of the three-fold processes of yathāpravșttakarana, apūrvakarana and anivșttikaraņa. Threre are now two ways open for the soul. It may climb up the spiritual ladder by suppressing the passions or it may climb it up by totally annihilating them. The former mode of spiritual progress is known as upaśamaśreņi (ladder of subsidence) and the latter as kşapakaśreņi (ladder of annihilation).
While climbing up the ladder of subsidence, the soul suppresses, by the three-fold processes of yathapravịttakarana, etc. the four life-long (anantānubandhin--first type) passions at the cutset and then the three vision-deluding karmans. The soul then attains such purification az enables it to rise from spiritual inertia. But the progress is not steady. It fluctuates a hundred times between the state of spiritual vigour and the state of spiritual inertia before it reaches the state of steady progress through the repetition of the three processes and begins the gradual suppressicn of the following sub-types of the conductdeluding (căritra-mohaniya) karman-the nine quasi-passions (laughter, addiction, dissatisfaction, bewailing, fear, disgust, hankering after women, hankering after men and hankering after both the sexes); the second (apratyākhyānāyarana — obscuring the energy for even partial abstinence), the third (pratyākhyānāvarana, obscuring only the energy for complete abstinence) and the fourth (saijvalana, fickle and meagre and effective only occasionally) types of anger, of pride, of deceit and the second and third types of greed. Then the soul suppresses the fourth

Page #348

259
type of greed and attains a state where all the twenty-eight sub-types of the deluding karman are completely suppressed. The soul's minimum stay at this stage of absolute suppression of the deluding karman is for one instant and the maximum for an antarmuhurta. After this stay the soul invariably falls down to the lower stages on the rise of the suppressed passions. The stronger the rise of the passions, the lower is the fall. A soul can climb up this ladder of subsidence only twice in the same life. But the soul which bas climbed up the ladder twice cannot climb up the ladder of annihilation in that life and so cannot attain emancipation in the same life. The soul which has climbed up the ladder of subsidence only once has the chance of climbing up the ladder of annihilation and thus attaining final emancipation in that very life.
The ladder of annihilation (kşupakaśreni) also is climbed up in almost the same way. Only thc souls encased in a strong body can climb up this ladder. By the three processes the soul annihilates at the outset the four life-long (anantānubandhin) passions. Then the three sub-types of the vision-deluding karman are annihilated. If the individual dies at this stage it has to experience three or four more births before it attains emancipation. Otherwise, the soul proceeds further for the gradual annihilation, by means of the threefold processes, of the second and tbird type of passions, the nine quasi-passions, and the fourth type of apger, pride and deceit. Then last of all the soul annihilates the fourth type of greed and attains a state where all the subtypes of the deluding karman have been annihilatcd. This is the summit of the ladder of annihilation. The soul is now free from passions and immediately attains omniscience and reaches a stage which is known as the state of embodied freedom (jīvanmukti).
[See Karmaprakști with Cūrni and the commentaries of Malayagiri and Upādhyāya Yašovijaya (1937)—Upasamanäkaraņa; also Studies in Jaina Philosophy, pp. 269-276 by Dr. Nathmal Tatia. We are very much indebted to Dr. Tatia’s exposition.]
Rasāvibhāga - The lowest degree of fruition of karma is known as rasā vibhaga. It serves as a unit to measure the other

Page #349

260
graded kinds of fruitions of karma (See comm. 1943, pp. 192, 1. 17).
(1946) 46 Punya types:-(1) Satvedaniya (causing a feeling of pleasure), (2) uccagotra (bestowing high lineage), (3-5) ayu (conferring a quantum of life) as deva (gods), manusya (human beings), tiryak (lower beings); (6-42) 37 sub-types of namakarma conferring devagati (celestial state), manusyagati (human state), devānupūrvi, manusya-anupurvi (-anupūrvi causes that the jiva, when one existence is over, goes from the place of death in the proper direction to the place of his new birth according to the four states of existence as god, etc.), pañcendriyajati (birth as a being with five senses), audarikasarira (gross, physical body), vaikriyasarīra (subtle body), aharaka (translocation body), taijasa sarira (fiery body) and karmana sarira (karmic body); three angopanga nama karmans causing the origin of the chief limbs of the body (e. g. arms, etc.) and their parts (e. g. fingers, etc.), viz. audarika, vaikriya, āhāraka; first saihanana (joining) viz. vajra-rsabha-nāraca wherein the two bones are hooked into one another, through the joining a tack (vajra) is hammered, and the whole is surrounded by a bandage; caturasra-samsthana (symmetric stature of body), subha (good, pleasant) colour (black and green), subha (good) taste (i. e. astringent, sour, sweet), subha-gandha (smell), subha touch (i. e. light, smooth, rough, warm, adhesive), agurulaghu (neither heavy nor light), paraghata (superiority over others), ucchvása (capability of breathing), atapa (emitting a warm splendour), uddyota (emitting cold lustre), prasasta vihayogati (pleasant gait), trasa (voluntarily movable body), badara (gross body), paryapta (complete development of organs, etc.), pratyeka (individual body), sthira (firm teeth, etc.), subha (beautiful gladdening parts of the body above the navel), subhaga (attracting selfless sympathy), susvara (melodious voice), adeya (suggestive, meeting approbation). yaśaḥ-kirti (honour and glory), nirmana (right formation of body), tirthakara (position of a Jaina teacher or saint); (43) samyaktva-mohaniya (correct belief in a preliminary stage), (44) basya (laughing), (45) purusaveda (male sex), (46) rati (improper and confirmed prejudicial liking).

Page #350

261
Some ācāryas believe tbat no sub-type of mobaniya karman (obstructing true faith and right conduct) is auspicious. Hence Eamyaktva-mohaniya is regarded as aśubha (inauspicious). So also the last three and consequently forty-two punya types are recognised.
82 Papa types, viz. those conferring (1-5) five saisthanas (statures), viz. nyagrodba-parimandala (body with upper part symmetrical, not the lower), sādi (body with lower part symmetrica), not the upper), kubja (hunch-backed body), vamana (dwarf-like), hund, (entirely unsymmetrical body), (6) aprašasta vihāyogati (ugly gait), (7-11) five kinds of constituticns or structures, viz. rşabhanārāca (joining like the vajra-rşabba-nārāca, but without the tack or vajra), narăca Cjoining without even the bandage), kilikā (weak joining in which the bones are merely pressed together and tagged), cheda prstha (weak joining in which the ends of bones only touch one anotber), (12) tiryag-gati (lower existence), (12) nāraka-gati (hellish state of existence, (14-15) tiryag-ānupūrvī, nāraka-anupūrvi (leading after death to the place of lower existence or hellish existence), (16) asāta vedaniya (painful feeling), (17) nicagotra (low lineage), (18) upaghāta (self-annihilation), (19–22) ekendriya jāti (birth as a being with one sense), dvindriyajāti (birth as a being with two senses), trindriya jāti (birth as a being with three senses), caturindriya jāti (birth as a being with four senses), (23) narakāyu (quantum of life of hellish beings), (24) sthăvara (immovable body), (25) sūkşma (subtle body), (26) aparyāpta (undeveloped organs, etc.), (27) sadhāraņa (body common with others), (28) asthira (infirm ears, etc.), (29) aśubba (ugly, unpleasant lower parts of the body), (30) durbhaga (causing unsympathy), (31) duḥsvara (ill-sounding voice), (32) anādeya (unsuggestive), (33) ayaśaḥ-kirti (dishonour and shame), (34) aśubha (unpleasant) colour (i. e. red, yellow, white), (35) aśubha (unpleasant) smell, (36) aśubha (uppleasant) taste (i. e. bitter and biting), (37) aśubha (unpleasant) touch (i. e. heavy, hard, dry, cold), (38) kevalajñā dāvarana (obscuring omniscience), (39) kevaladarśanăvaraña (obscuring absolute

Page #351

262
undifferentiated cognition), (40) nidra (light slumber ), (41) vidrānidrā (deep slumber), (42) pracalā (sound sleep when sitting or standing), (43) pracalā pracalā (exceedingly intensive sleep while walking), (44) styānagràdhi (somnambulism); (45-48) anantānubandhin (life-long) krodha (anger), māna (pride), māyā (deceitfulness), lobha (greed), (49-52) apratyākhyānā varana (obscuring the energy for even partial abstinence) krodha, māna, māyā, lobha, (53-56) pratyäkyānā varaņa (obscuring only the energy for complete abstinence) krodha, māna, māyā, lobha, (57-60) sainjvalana (ineagre and effective occasionally) krodha, māna, māyā, lobha, (61) mithyātva (complete disbelief or heterodoxy);(62-65) obscuration of mati (sensuous knowledge), śruta (scriptural knowledge), avadhi (visual transcendental knowledge), manah-paryaya (intuition of mental modes ); (66-68) obscuration of cakşur-darśana (eye-intuition), acakṣur-darśana (non-eye-intui-. tion-intuition by organs other than the eye), avadhi-darśana (visual intuition), (69) hāsya (laughing), (70) rati (improper and confirmed prejudicial liking), (71) arati (improper and confirmed prejudicial disliking), (72) soka (sorrow), (73) bhaya (fear), (74) jugupsā (disgust), (75) stri-veda (female sex and corresponding sex-passion), (76) pum-veda (male sex and corresponding sexpassion), (77) napumsaka-veda (neuter sex and corresponding sex-passion), (78-82) bindrance of energy (antaraya) for dāna (charity), labha (receiving), bhoga (enjoyment), upabhoga (enjoyment of something which can be taken only once), vīrya (will-power).
(For full details regarding the types and the sub-types of karman, see "The Doctrine of Karman in Jaina Philosophy', pp. 5-20,- By Dr. Helmuth Von Glasenapp (Translated by G. Barry Gifford and Edited by Hiralal R. Kapadia, 1942.]
-
X-
X

Page #352

263
Nothing new can be found here in the discussion regarding other-world. The emphasis is on the utpăda-vyaya-dbrauvya nature of the soul, as against the Nyāya, Sāmkhya-Yoga, Vedānta view of its being absolutely unchanging.
(1969) Illustration of a pitcher of gold - Compare : Ghatamaulisuvarņārthi nášot pādasthitişvisam;
śokapramodamådhyasthyam jano yati sahetukamAptamimamsă, 59 of Samantabhadra.
-X--X
The basis of the doubt expressed here is the Mimāmsá belief that Vedic rites ought to be performed as long as one lives. We find a similar doubt expressed in the Nyāya system by way of the prime-facie view. See Nyāya-sūtra 4-1-59, Bhāşya and other commentaries.
(1974) The commentator has put alongside two different upanişadic expressions and has perhaps deliberately changed the text of 'satyam jñānain anantam' into'satyam jñānam anantaram' and construed it so as to get the meaning he wants here by explaining 'anantaram' as equivalent to "aparam’.
(1975) Nirvāņa (extinction) of the lamp--- We find a gātha corresponding to the stanza of the Saundarananda, quoted in the Madhyamikavịtti, p. 216:

Page #353

264
Atha panditu kaści mărgate kuta'yammāgatu kutra yāti vā; vidišo diša sarvi mārgato nāgatir nāsya gatiś ca labhyati.
We find some passages in the works of the Mädhyamikas which seem to corroborate the view that nirvāņa means utter extinction like that of a lamp. See Catuḥsataka, 221 :
Skandhah santi na nirvāṇe pudgalasya na sambhavah; yatra dịşta mn na nirvāņam nirvāņain tatra kim bhavet.
Further the vștti on this very work, p. 59 says Nirvāṇa is but a name, but an empirical expression, a myth, just ignorance.
The Bodhicaryāvatārapañjikā defines nirvāṇa as 'Upaśamaḥ punaranutpattidharmakatayā ātyantika-samuccheda ityarthah' (p. 350), which supports the view that nirvāṇa is total extinction. So also does the following: “Yadā na bhāvo nābhāvo mateh samtişthate purah;
tadanyagatyabhāvena nirālambă praśāmyati”. (Bodhicaryā vatāra, 9.35) and the commentary on it : "Buddhiḥ praśāmyati upaśāmyati sarvavikalpopašamāt nirindhanavahnivat nirvrti( nivștti ?)m upayātīty arthah” (p. 418).
All the same it cannot be stated that nirvāṇa in the view of the Sūnyavādins or Madhyamikas is of the nature of sheer non-being. Recent researches and the discovery of Buddhist works have convinced scholars that Sünya does not mean 'Nothing', but signifies an inexpressible ultimate reality beyond the ken of all empirical cognition. Statements such as the above only deny things as they are known and understood in empirical knowledge. But the Sūnyavādins recognise an ultimate reality and Nirvāņa is of the essence of that. See :
"Bodhiḥ buddhatvam ekānekasvabhāvaviviktam anutpannaniruddham anucchedam aśāśvatam, sar yaprapañca-vinirmuktam ākāśa-pratisamam dharmakāyākliyain paramārtha-tattvam ucyate, etad eva ca prajā páramitā-śūnyatā-tathatā-bhūtakoti-dharmadhătvādi-sabdena samvștim upādāya abhidhīyate"-Bodhicaryavatāra-pañjikā, p. 421. See also Madhyamika-kārikā, 1.1 and its commentary. Candrakirti has repeatedly stressed that the Sūnyavādins

Page #354

recognise an ultimate reality; but the moment an attempt is made to express it in words, the essence of it escapes our grasp and we are left with an illusion. Thus, even Nirvana, as empirically understood and expressed, is a myth, an illusion. See Milindapañha, pp. 72, 265, 306, 309 where also it is stated that Nirvana is a reality, is of the nature of absolute bliss, but details regarding it cannot be expressed in our empirical language with its limitations.
265
(1980) Vyapaka (determinant concomitant) and vyapya (determinate concomitant)-The rule of invariable concomitance (vyapti) is an essential link in inference. One sees smoke, the mark of inference (linga) and infers thereby the presence of fire, that is to be established (sadhya). But for this one must be convinced of the relation between the linga and the sadhya; the invariable concomitance between them must be known. This relation can be of the type of cause-effect or identity according to the Buddhist; or as Nyaya says by repeated experience of their consistency in respect of presence and absence (anvaya-vyatireka) one must know them to be invariably concomitant, one of them being the vyapya and the other the vyapaka. For example, fire is vyapaka (determinant concomitant, more extensive) and smoke vyapya (determinate concomitant, less extensive). Fire is present in all those cases where smoke is present and in many more and so the presence of smoke determines the presence of fire, and the absence of fire can determine the absence of smoke.
(1982-1983) Pradhvamsabhäva (posterior non-being)
If one destroys jar with a stick, there is said to be the non-being of the jar caused by its destruction. But this, in the Jaina view, as also in the Samkhya, is not just non-being; it is the potsherd that is the pradhvamsabhava of the pot.
(1992) The Nyaya-Vaiseṣika holds that in the state of emancipation the soul has no happiness; or pain or knowledge or any other quality.
34

Page #355

Page #356

विशेषावश्यकभाष्यान्तर्गतो
गणधरवादः
The text given here consists of the găthas commented upon by Maladhārī Hemacandra in his Višeşā vaśyakabhāsya-Bșhadvrtti as the present work is based on them alone.
The text as edited by Pt. Shri Dalsukhbhai Malavania in his Ganadharavada (Gujarati), has, with his kind permission, been printed here. This text has been edited on the basis of the following :(i) मु०-Maladhari Hemacandra's commentary on the
Višeşā vaśyaka Bhāșya. (ii) को०-Kotyācārya's commentary on the Vi. Bh. (iii) ato — Copy of a palm-leaf manuscript of the Vi. Bh. found
in Jesalmer Bhandara (-Muni Sri Punyavijayaji got _this manuscript copied by Pt. Amritlal).
The palm-leaf manuscript being comparatively early and more correct, its text has been given here and only the divergent readings affecting the construction or the meaning have been mentioned in the foot-notes.
- [१] जीवे तुह संदेहो पच्चक्खं जण्ण घेप्पति घडो व्व। अच्चतापच्चक्खं च णत्थि लोए खपुष्पं व ॥ १५४९ ॥ ण य सोऽणुमाणगम्मो जम्हा पच्चक्खपुव्वयं तं पि। पुव्वोवलद्धसंबंधसरणतो लिंगलिंगीणं ॥ १५५० ॥ ण य जीवलिंगसंबंधदरिसिणमभू जतो पुणो सरतो।। तल्लिगदरिसणातो जीवे संपच्चओ होज्जा ॥ १५५१ ॥ णागमगम्मो वि ततो भिज्जति ज णागमोऽणुमाणातो । ण य कासइ पच्चक्खो जीवो जस्सागमो वयणं ।। १५५२ ।।
'कस्सा.-ता० ।

Page #357

268
जं चागमा विरुद्धा परोप्परमतो वि संसओ जुत्तो । सव्वप्पमाणविसयातीतो जीवो त्ति 'ते बुद्धी ॥ १५५३ ।। गोतम ! पञ्चक्खो च्चिय जीवो जं संसयातिविण्णाणं । पञ्चक्खं च ण सज्झ जध सुह-दुक्खं सदेहम्मि ॥ १५५४ ॥ कतवं करेमि काहं चाहमहंपच्चयादिमातो य । अप्पा सप्पञ्चक्खो तिकालकज्जोवदेसातो ।। ९५५५ ।। 4 किह पडिवण्णमहं ति य किमत्थि त्ति संसओ किध णु ? । सइ संसयम्मि वाऽयं 'कस्साहपञ्चओ जुत्तो ॥ १५५६ ॥ जति णत्थि संसयि च्चिय किमथि णत्थि त्ति संसओ कस्स ? । संसइते व सरूवे गोतम ! किमसंसयं होज्जा ॥ १५५७ ॥ गुणपच्चक्खत्तणतो गुणी वि जीवो घडो व्व पञ्चक्खो। घडओ वि घेप्पति गुणी गुणमेत्तग्गहणतो जम्हा ॥ १५५८ ॥ अण्णोणण्णो व्व गुणी होज्ज गुणेहिं जति णाम सोऽणण्णो । णणु गुणमेत्तग्गहणे घेप्पति जीवो गुणी सक्खं ॥ १५५९ ॥ अध अण्णो तो एवं गुणिणो ण घडातयो वि पञ्चक्खा । गुणमेत्तग्गहणातो जीवम्मि कतो वियारोऽयं ? ॥ १५६० ॥ अध मण्णसि अत्थि गुणी ण तु देहत्थंतरं तओ किन्तु । देहे णाणातिगुणा सो च्चिय 'ताणं गुणी जुत्तो ॥ १५६१ ॥ णाणादयो ण देहस्स 'मुत्तिमत्तातितो घडस्सेव । तम्हा णाणातिगुणा जस्स स देहाधियो जीवो ॥ १५६२ ॥ इय तुह देसेणायं पचक्खो सव्वधा महं जीवो । अविहतणाणत्तणतो तुह विण्णाणं व पडिवज्ज ॥ १५६३ ॥ एवं चिय परदेहेऽणुमाणतो गेण्ह जीवमत्थि त्ति। अणवित्ति-णिवित्तीतो विण्णाणमयं सरूवे व्व ॥१५६४ ॥
10 जं च ण लिंगेहिं समं मण्णसि लिंगी जतो पुरा गहितो। संगं ससेण व समं ण लिंगतो तोऽणुमेयो सो ॥ १५६५ ॥
__1 तो-मु०। दुक्खा-मु० । 3 °कज्जावएसाओ-को० । 4 कह-को०, मु० । अस्सा-को० 6 तेसिं-मु०, को०। । देहस्सऽमु-को० । पडिवज्जा-मु० । ' सरूवं व-ता। 10 Here in the ता० manuscript, the abbreviation चो० of चोदक (objector ) is inserted. Similarly the abbreviation To of 3119rf is placed in the beginning of the acārya's statement in the ato manuscript.

Page #358

269 सोऽणेगंतो जम्हा लिंगेहिं समं ण दिट्टपुव्वो वि।। गहलिंगदरिसणातो गहोऽणुमेयो सरीरम्मि ॥ १५६६ ॥
देहस्सत्थि विधाता पतिणियताकारतो घडरसेव । अक्खाणं च करणतो दण्डातीणं कुलालो व्व ॥ १५६७ ॥
3 अत्थिंदियविसयाणं आदाणादेयभावतोऽवस्सं । कम्मार इवादाता लोए संदास-लोहाणं ॥ १५६८ ॥ भोत्ता देहादीणं भोज्जत्तणतो णरो व्व भत्तस्स । संघातातित्तणतो अत्थि य अत्थी घरस्सेव ॥ १५६९ ॥6
7 जो कत्ताति स जीवो सज्झविरुद्धो त्ति ते मती होज्जा। मुत्तातिपसंगातो तण्णो संसारिणोऽ दोसो ॥ १५७० ॥ अस्थि चिय ते जीवो संसयतो सोम्म थाणुपुरिसो व्व । जं संदिद्धं गोतम ! तं तत्थण्णत्थ वत्थिं धुवं ॥ १५७१ ॥
१ एवं णाम विसाणं खरस्स पत्तं ण तं खरे चेव । अण्णत्थ तदत्थि चिय एवं विवरीतगाहे वि ॥ १५७२ ॥ अत्थि अजीवविवक्खो पडिसेधातो घडोऽघडरसेव । णत्थि घडोत्ति 10 व जीवत्थित्तपरो णत्थिसद्दोऽ"यं ॥ १५७३ ॥ असतो णस्थि णिसेधो संजोगातिपडिसेधतो सिद्ध । संजोगातिचतुकं पि सिद्धमत्थंतरे णियतं ॥ १५७४ ॥
जीवोत्ति सत्थयमितं सुद्धत्तणतो घडाभिधाणं व । जेणत्थेण सयत्थं सो जीवो अध मती होज्ज ॥ १५७५ ॥
अत्थो देहो च्चिय से तं णो पज्जायवयणभेतातो । णाणादिगुणो य जतो भणितो जीवो ण देहोत्ति ॥ १९७६ ॥
जीवोऽत्थि वयो सच्चं मव्वयणातोऽवसेसवयणं व। सव्वण्णुवयणतो वा अणुमतसव्वण्णुवयणं " व ॥ १५७७ ॥
भयरागमोहदोसाभावतो 13 सच्चमण तिवातिं च । सव्वं चिय मे वयणं जाणयमज्झत्थवयणं व ॥ १५७८ ॥
'आ०-ता० । 2 See Ga. 1667 3 See Ga. 1668 । । संडास को०, मु. घडस्सेव-ता० । 'See Ga. 1669 । 'See Ga 1670 । ०णो दोसो-सु० । . 9 चो०-ता० । 10 य-ता० । 11 सद्दो य-ता। 12 वा-ता० । 13 °भावाओ-को०, मु० ।

Page #359

270
1किध सव्वण्णु त्ति मती जेणाहं सव्वसंसयच्छेत्ता। पुच्छसु व जं ण याणसि जेण व ते पच्चओ होज्जा ॥ १५७९ ॥ एवमुवयोगलिंगं गोतम ! सव्वप्पमाणसंसिद्धं । संसारीतरथावरतसातिभेतं मुणे जीवं ॥ १५८० ॥ 3 जति पुण सो एगो च्चिय हवेज्ज वोमं व सव्वपिंडेसु । + गोतम ! ' तमेगलिगं पिंडेसु तधा ण जीवो यं ॥ १५८१ ॥ णाणा जीवा कुंभातयो व्व भुवि लक्खणातिभेदातो। सुह-दुक्ख-बंध मोक्खाभावो य जतो तदेगत्ते ॥ १५८२ ॥
जेणोवयोगलिंगो जीवो भिण्णो य सो पतिसरीरं । उवयोगो उक्करिसावगरिसतो तेण तेऽणंता ॥ १५८३ ॥ 6 एगत्ते सव्वगतत्ततो ण 7 सोक्खादयो णभस्सेव । कत्ता भोत्ता मंता ण य संसारी जधाऽऽगासं ॥ १५८४ ॥ एगत्ते णत्थि सुही बहूवधातो त्ति देसणिरुयो व्व । बहुतरबद्धत्तणतो ण य मुको देसमुक्को व्व ॥ १५८५ ॥ जीवो तणुमेत्तत्थो जध कुंभो तग्गुणोवलंभातो । अधवाऽणुवलंभातो भिण्णम्मि घडे पडस्सेव ॥ १५८६ ॥ तम्हा कत्ता भोत्ता बंधो मोक्खो सुहं च दुक्खं च । संसरणं च बहुत्तासव्वगतत्तेसु जुत्ताई ॥ १५८७ ॥ गोतम ! वेदपदाणं इमाणमत्थं च तं न याणासि । जं विण्णाणघणो च्चिय भूतेहिंतो समुत्थाय ॥ १५८८ ॥ मण्णसि मज्जंगेसु मतभावो भूतसमुदयन्भूतो। विण्णाणमेत्तमाता भूतेऽणुविणस्सति स भूयो ॥ १५८९ ॥ अत्थि ण य पेच्चसण्णा जं पुव्वभवेऽभिधाणममुओ त्ति । जं भणितं ण भवातो भवंतरं जाति जीवो त्ति ॥ १५९० ॥ गोतम ! पतत्थमेतं मण्णंतो णत्थि मण्णसे जीवं । वक्तरेसु य पुणो भणितो जीवो जमत्थि त्ति ॥ १५९१ ॥ अग्गिहवणातिकिरियाफलं तो संसयं कुणसि जीवे । मा कुरु ण पदत्थोऽयं इमं पदत्थं णिसामेहि ॥ १५९२ ॥
1 कह-को०, मु० । 2 °च्छेई-को०, मु० । ३ चो०-ता। 4 आ०-ता। 5 तदेग-को०, मु० । 6 एगंते-ता० । 7 मोक्खा-को०, मु. । पुण-ता० ।

Page #360

271
विण्णाणातोऽणण्णो विण्णाणघणो त्ति सव्वसो वाऽवि । स भवति भूतेहितो घडविण्णाणादिभावेणं ॥ १५९३ ॥ ताई चिय भूताई सोऽणुविणस्सइ विणस्समाणाई । अत्थंतरोवयोगे कमसो विष्णेयभावेणं ॥ १५९४ ॥ पुव्वावरविण्णाणोवयोगतो विगमसंभवसभावो । विण्णाणसंततीए विण्णाणघणोऽयमविणासी ॥ १५९५ ॥ ण य णाणसण्णाऽवतिद्वते संपतोवयोगातो। विण्णाणघणाभिक्खो जीवोऽयं वेदपत विहितो ॥ १५९६ ॥ एवं पि भूतधम्मो णाणं तब्भावभावतो बुद्धी । तण्णो तदभावम्मि वि जं गाणं वेतसमयम्मि ॥ १५९७ ॥ अत्थमिते आतिच्चे चन्दे संतासु अग्गिवायासु । किंजोतिरयं पुरिसो? अप्पज्जोति त्ति णिद्दिवो ॥ १५९८ ॥ तदभावे भावातो भावे चाऽभावओ ण तद्धम्मो।। जध घडभावाभावे विवज्जयातो पडो भिन्नो ॥ १५९९ ॥ एसि वेतपदाणं ण तमत्थं वियसि अधव सव्वेसि । अत्थो किं होज्ज सुती विण्णाणं वत्थुभेतो वा ॥ १६०० ॥ जाती दव्वं किरिया गुणोऽधवा संसओ स' चायुत्तो ॥ अयमेवेति ण वऽयं ण वत्थुधम्मो जतो जुत्तो॥ १६०१॥ सव्वं चिय सव्वमयं सपरपज्जायतो जतो णियतं । सव्वमसव्वमयं 5 पि य विचित्तरूवं विवक्खातो ॥ १६०२ ॥ सामण्णविसेसमयो तेण पतत्थो विवक्खया जुत्तो। वत्थुस्स विस्सरूवो पज्जायावेक्खता सव्वो ॥ १६०३ ॥ x* छिण्णम्मि संसयम्मी जिणेण जरमरणविप्पमुक्केण । सो समणो पव्वइतो पंचहि सह खंडियसएहिं ॥ १६०४ ॥ एवं कम्मादीसु वि जं सामण्णं तयं समायोज्जं । जो पुण एत्थ विसेसो समासतो तं पवक्खामि ॥ १६०५ ॥
___1सव्वओ वावि-मु०। वेयपयभिहिओ-मु०, को० । ३ वाभा०-ता। 4 संसओ तवाजुत्तो-मु., को० । चिय-ता० । x The gathas marked * belong to the Niryukti.

Page #361

272
तं पव्वइतं सोतुं बितिओ आगच्छती अमरिसेणं । वच्चामि णमाणेमि परायिणित्ताण तं समणं ॥ १६०६ ॥ छलितो छलातिणा सो मण्णे माइन्दजालतो वावि' । को जाणति किधर वत्तं एत्ताहे वट्टमाणी' से ॥ १६०७ ॥ सो पक्खंतरमेगं पि जाति जति मे ततो मि तस्सेव । सीसत्तं होज्ज गतो वोत्तुं पत्तो जिणसगासं* ॥ १६०८ ॥ * आभट्ठो य जिणेणं जाइ-जरा-मरणविप्पमुक्केणं । णामेण य गोत्तेण य सव्वण्णू सव्वदररिसी णं ॥ १६०९ ॥ * कि मण्णे अत्थि कम्मं उदाहु णत्थि त्ति संसयो तुझं । वेतपताण य अत्थं ण याणसे' तेसिमो अत्थो ॥ १६१० ॥ कम्मे तुह संदेहो मण्णसि तं णाणगोयरातीतं । तुह तमणुमाणसाधणमणुभूतिमयं फलं जस्स ॥ १६११ ॥ अस्थि सुह-दुक्खहेतू कज्जातो बीयमंकुरस्सेव । सो दिट्ठो चेव मती वभिचारातो ण तं जुत्तं ॥ १६१२ ॥ जो तुलसाघणाणं फले विसेसो ण सो विणा हेतुं । कज्जत्तणतो गोतम ! घडो व्व हेतू य सो कम्मं ॥ १६१३ ॥ बालसरीरं देहतरपुव्वं इंदियातिमत्तातो। जध बालदेहपुव्वो जुवदेहो पुव्वमिह कम्मं ॥ १६१४ ॥
किरियाफलभावातो दाणादीणं फलं किसीए व्व । 'तं चिय दाणादिफलं मणप्पसादाति जति बुद्धी ॥ १६१५ ॥
किरियासामण्णातो जं फलमस्सावि तं मतं कम्मं । तस्स परिणामरूवं सुह-दुक्खफलं जतो भुज्जो ॥ १६१६ ॥ होज्ज मणोवित्तीए दाणातिकिये व जति फलं वुद्धी । तं ण णिमित्तत्तातो पिण्डो व्व घडस्स विण्णेयो ॥ १६१७ ॥
वाइ-ता० । कह-मु०,को० । ३ वट्टमाणीं से-को। याणसी-मु०,को० । 6 से-को० । 7 दाणादिफलं तं चिय-ता० ।
4 सगासे--को•,मु. ।

Page #362

273

1 एवं पि दिफलता 2 किया ण कम्मफला पसत्ता ते । सा 3 तम्मत्तफल च्चिय जध मंसफलो पसुविणासो ॥ १६१८ ॥
पायं च जीवलोओ वट्टति 4 दिनु फलासु किरियासु । अफिला पुणो वट्टति णासंखभागो वि ॥ १६१९ ॥
सोम्म ! जतो च्चिय जीवा पायं दिट्ठफलासु वति ।
5
'अफिलाओ 'वि हु ताओ पडिवज्ज तेणेव ॥ १६२० ॥
इधरा अदिरहिता सव्वे मुच्चेज्ज ते अपयत्तेणं 7 । 8 अद्दिद्वारंभो चेव १ किलेसबहुलो भवेज्जा हि ॥ १६२१ ॥
जमणिभोगभाजो बहुतरया जं च णेह मतिपुव्वं । refugफलं कोइ वि किरियं समारभते 10 ।। १६२२ ।।
तेण पडिवज्ज किरिया अदिट्ठेगंतियप्फला सव्वा । दिगंतफला सा वि अदिहाणुभावेणं ॥ ॥ १६२३ ॥
11
अधव फलातो कम्मं कज्जत्तणतो पसाहितं पुव्वं । परमाणवो घस्स व किरियाण तयं फलं भिन्नं ॥ १६२४ ॥
12 आह णणु मुत्तमेवं 13 मुत्तं चिय कज्जमुत्तिमत्ताओ । इध जह मुत्तत्तणतो घडस्स परमाणवो मुत्ता ॥ १६२५ ॥
तथ सुहसंवित्तीतो संबंध वेतणुब्भवातो य । झबाधाणात परिणामातो य विष्णेयं ॥ १६२६ ॥
आहार इवाणल इव घडो व्व णेहादिकतबलाधाणो । खीरमिवोदाहरणाई कम्मरूवित्तगमगाई ॥ १६२७॥
अध मतमसिद्धमेतं परिणामातो त्ति सो वि कज्जाओ । सिद्धो परिणामो से दधिपरिणामातिव पयस्स ॥ १६२८ ॥
अब्भातिविगाराणं जध बइचित्त विणा विकम्मेण । तध जति संसारीणं हवेज्ज को णाम तो दोसो ! ॥ १६२९ ॥
कम्मम्मि व को भेतो जध बज्झवखंधचित्तता सिद्धा ।
त
कम्म पुग्गलाण व विचित्तता जीवसहिताणं ॥ १६३० ॥
3
5
1 चो० - ता० | २ किरिया - मु०, को० । ३ तम्प्रेत्त - मु० । 4 दिनुफलासु- मु० । ' अदि-मु० ।
2
समारभइ - मु०, को० ।
'विय ताओ - मु० | त्तेण ता० । 8 अदिडु० - मु० । 11 भावेण मु०, को० । 12 चो० - ता० । 13 आ० - ता०
।
35
१ केस० - पु० । 10

Page #363

274
बझाण चित्तता जति पडिवण्णा कम्मणो विसेसेणं । जीवाणुगतस्स मता भत्तीण व सिपिणत्थाणं ।। १६३१ ॥
तो जति तणुमेत्तं चिय हवेज्ज का कम्मकपणा णाम । कम्मं पि णणु तणु च्चिय सण्हतरब्भंतरा वरं । १६३२ ॥
को तीय विणा दोसो थूलातो सव्वधा विप्पमुक्कस्स । देहग्गणाभावो ततो य संसारवोच्छिती ॥ १६३३ ॥
समोखावत्ती णिक्कारणतो व्व सव्वसंसारो | भवमुक्काणं च पुणो संसरणमतो अणासासो ॥। १६३४ ॥
मुत्तस्सामुत्तिमता जीवेण कथं हवेज्ज संबंधो ? ।
सोम्म ! घस्स व णभसा जब वा दव्वस्स किरिया || १६३५ ॥
अथवा पच्चक्खं चियं जीवोवणिबंधणं जध सरीरं । 'चे कामयमेवं भवंतरे जीवसंजुत्तं ॥ १६३६ ॥
मुत्तणामुत्तिमतो उवघाताणुग्गहा कथं होज्ज 2 । जध विष्णाणादीणं मदिरापाणोसवादी हिं ॥। १६३७ ॥
अथवा गतोऽयं संसारी सव्वहा अमुत्तो त्ति । जमणातिकम्मसंततिपरिणामावण्णरूवो सो ।। १६३८ ।।
+ संतागोऽणातीओ परोप्परं हेतुहे भावातो ।
4 देहस्स य कम्मस्स य गोतम ! बीयंकुराणं व ।। १६३९ ।।
कम्मे चासति गोतम ! जमग्गिहोत्तादि सग्गकामस्स । वेतविहितं विहति दाणातिफलं च लोयग्मि ।। १६४० ।।
कम्ममणिच्छंतो वा सुद्धं चिय जीवमीस 'राई वा । मसि देहातीणं जं कत्तारं ण सो जुत्तो ॥। १६४१ ।।
उवकरणाभावातो णिच्चेडामुत्ततादितो वा वि । ईसर देहारंभे वि तुल्लता वाऽणवत्था वा ॥ १६४२ ॥
अधव सभावं मण्णसि' विष्णाणघणादिवेतवक्कातो । 7 त बहुदो गोतम ! ताणं च पताणमयमत्थो ।। १६४३ ।।
'चिटुइ-को०, मु० । ' जीवमीसरासि वा (?) - ता०
2 होज्जा - मु०, को० ।
6
। ' ' वेयवृत्ताओ - मु०, को० ।
+ This gāthā is repeated later; see 1665.
3 सव्वतो - ता० । 4 जीवस्स य - ता० ।
7 तो- को ० । तह-मु० ।

Page #364

275
* छिण्णम्मि संसयम्मी जिणेण जरमरणविप्पमुक्केण ।
सो समणो पव्वइतो पंचहिं सह खंडियापतेहिं ।। १६४४ ।।
* ते पव्वइते सोतुं ततियो आगच्छती जिणसयासे ।
वच्चामि णं वंदामी वंदित्ता पज्जुवासामि ।। १६४५ ॥
सीसत्तेणोवगता संपदमिदग्गिभूतिणो जस्स । तिभवणकतप्पणामो स महाभागोऽभिगमणिज्जो ।। १६४६ ।।
4 तदभिगमणवंदणोवासणाइणा होज्ज पूतपावोऽहं । वोच्छिण्णसंसओ वा वोत्तुं पत्तो जिणसगासं' ।। १६४७ ।। * आभट्ठो य जिणेणं जाइ-जरा-मरणविप्पमुक्केणं ।
णामेण य गोत्तेण य सव्वष्णू सव्वदरिसी णं ।। १६४८ ।।
* तज्जीवतस्सरीरं ति 6 संसओ ण वि य पुच्छसे किंचि ।
वेतपताण य अत्थं ण याणसे तेसिमो अत्थो । १६४९ ।।
वसुधातिभूतसमुदयसंभूता चेतण त्ति ते संका। पत्तेयमदिट्टा वि हु मज्जंगमदो व्व समुदाये ॥ १६५० ।।
जध मज्जंगेसु मदो वीसुमदिट्ठो वि समुदये होतुं । कालंतरे विणस्सति तध भूतगणम्मि चेतण्णं ।। १६५१ ।।
पत्तेयमभावातो ण रेणुतेल्लं व समुदये चेता। मज्जंगेसुं तु मतो वीमुं पि ण सव्वसो णस्थि ।। १६५२ ।।
भमि-धणि-वितण्हतादी पत्तेयं पि हु जधा मतंगेसु । तध जति भूतेसु भवे चेता तो समुदए होज्जा ।। १६५३ ।। जति वा सव्वाभावो वीसुं तो किं तदंगणियमोऽयं ।
तस्समुदयणियमो वा अण्णेसु वि तो भवेज्जा हि ।। १६५४ ।। ___ 1 संसम्मि वि-ता। संसयम्मि-मु. पंचहिं अखं-ता० । णं not in मु.। 4 तदधिगम-वंदण-णमंसणादिणा होज्ज-ता० । सगासे-मु०, को० । मण्णसे ण-ता० । 7 याणसी-मु०, को० । 8 ता-ता० ।

Page #365

276 भूताणं पत्तेयं पि चेतणा समुदये दरिसणातो। जध मज्जंगेसु मदो मति त्ति हेतू ण सिद्धोऽयं ॥ १६५५ ॥
णणु पच्चक्खविरोधो गोतम ! तं णाणुमाणभावातो । तुह पच्चक्खविरोधो पत्तेयं भूतचेत त्ति ।। १६५६ ।। भूतिदियोवलद्धाणुसरणतो तेहिं भिण्णरूवस्स । चेता पंचगवक्खोवलद्धपुरिसस्स वा सरतो ॥ १६५७ ।। तदुवरमे वि सरणतो तव्वावारेवि णोवलंभातो। इंदियभिण्णस्स मती पंचगवक्खाणुभविणो व्व ॥ १६५८ ॥
उवलब्भण्णेण विगारगहणतो तदघिओ धुवं अत्थि । पुव्वावरवादायणगहणविगारादिपुरिसो व्व ॥ १६५९ ।।
सविदियोवलद्धाणुसरणतो तदधियोणुमन्तव्यो। जध पंचभिण्णविण्णाणपुरिसविण्णाणसपण्णो ॥ १६६० ॥ विण्णाणंतरपुव्वं बालण्णाणमिह णाणभावातो। जध बालणाणपुव्वं जुवणाणं तं च देहधियं ॥ १६६१ ॥ पढमो स्थणाभिलासो अण्णाहाराभिलासपुव्वोऽय ।
जध संपताभिलासोऽणुभूतितो सो य देहधियो ॥ १६६२ ॥ बालसरीरं देहतरपुत्वं इन्दियातिमत्तातो । जुवदेहो बालातिव स जस्स देहो स देहि त्ति ॥ १६६३ ।। अण्णसुहदुक्खपुव्वं सुहाति बालस्स संपतसुहं व । अणुभूतिमयत्तणतो अणुभूतिमयो य जीवो त्ति ॥ १६६४ ॥
3 संताणोणातीओ परोप्परं हेतुहेतुभावातो। देहस्स य कम्मस्स य गोतम बीयंकुराणं व ॥ १६६५ ॥
तो कम्मसरीराणं कत्तारं करणकज्जभावातो। पडिवज्ज तदब्भधियं दंडघडाणं कुलालं व ॥ १६६६ ।। 4 अत्थि सरीरविधाता पतिणियताकारतो घडस्सेव ।
अक्खाणं च करणतो दण्डातीणं कुलालो व्व ।। १६६७ ।। 1 पढमो थणा-को०, मु० । 2जह बालाहिलासपुव्वो जुवाहिलासो स देहहिओ-को० । 3 Repetition of gāthā 16391 4 Repetition of gatha 1567; there is another reading there viz. देहस्सस्थि विधाता।

Page #366

277
अस्थिदियविसयाणं आदाणादेयभावतोऽवस्सं । कम्मार इवादाता लोए संडासलोहाणं ॥ १६६८ ॥
भोत्ता देहातीणं भोज्जत्तणतो णरो व्व भत्तस्स । संघातातित्तणतो अत्थी य अत्थी घरस्सेव ॥ १६६९ ॥ 4 जो कत्ताति स जीवो सज्झविरुद्धो त्ति ते मती होज्जा। मुत्तातिपसंगातो तं णो संसारिणो' ऽदोसो ॥ १६७० ॥
जातिस्सरो ण विगतो सरणातो बालजातिसरणो व्व। जध वा "सदेसवत्तं णरो सरंतो विदेसम्मि ॥ १६७१ ॥ अध मण्णसि खणिओ वि हु सुमरति विण्णाणसंततिगुणातो। तहवि सरीरादण्णो सिद्धो विण्णाणसंताणो ॥ १६७२ ॥
ण य सव्वधेव खणियं णाणं पुव्वोवलद्धसरणातो। खणिओ ण सरति भूत जध जम्माणंतरविणट्ठो ॥ १६७३ ॥ जस्सेगमेगबंधणमेगतेण खणियं च विण्णाणं । सव्वखणियविण्णाणं तस्साजुत्तं कदाचिदवि ॥ १६७४ ॥
जं सविसयणियत चिय जम्माणंतरहतं च तं कध णु। णाहिति सुबहुअविण्णाणविसय ' खणभंगतादीणि ॥ १६७५ ॥ 8 गेण्हेज्ज सव्वभंग जति य मती सविसयाणुमाणातो। तं पि ण जतोऽणुमाणं जुत्तं सत्ताइसिद्धीओ ॥ १६७६ ॥
जाणेज्ज वासणातो 10 सा वि हु " वासेन्तवासणिज्जाणं । जुत्ता 12 समेच्च दोण्हं ण तु जम्माणतरहतस्स ॥ १६७७ ॥ बहुविण्णाणप्पभवो जुगवमणेगत्थताऽधवेगस्स । विण्णाणावत्था वा पडुच्चवित्तीविघातो वा ॥ १६७८ ॥ विण्णाणखणविणासे दोसा इच्चादयो पसज्जति । ण तु ठितसंभूतच्चुतविण्णाणमम्मि जीवम्मि ॥ १६७९ ॥ तस्स विचित्तावरणक्खओवसमजाई चित्तरूवाई।
खणियाणि य कालंतरावित्तीणि य मइविधाणाई ॥ १६८० ॥ 1 Repetition of gatha 15681 - Repetition of gatha 1569। 3 घडस्सेव-ता० 4 Repetition of gatha 157015 ०णो दोसो-मु०, ता० । ' सदेहवत्तं-ता। 7 खयभं-मु०। ४ गिण्हिज्ज-मुः। 9 °सिद्धीय-ता० । 10 वासणाओ-को। वासणा उ-मु० । 11 वासित्तवा-को०, मु० । 12 जुतो-ता० ।

Page #367

278
णिच्चो संताणो सिं सव्वावरणपरिसंखये जं च। केवलमुदितं केवलभावेणाणंतमविकप्पं ॥ १६८१ ।।
सो जति देहादण्णो तो पविसंतो1 विणिस्सरंतो वा । कीस ण दीसति गोतम ! दुविधाणुवलद्धिदो सा य ॥ १६८२ ।।
असतो खरसिंगस्स व सतो वि दूरादिभावतोऽभिहिता। सुहुमामुत्तत्तणतो कम्माणुगतस्स जीवस्स ॥ १६८३ ॥
देहाणण्णे व जिए जमग्गिहोत्तादिसग्गकामस्स । वेतविहितं विहण्णति दाणादिफलं च लोयम्मि ॥ १६८४ ॥
विण्णाणघणादीण वेदपताणं ३ पदत्थमविदंतो। देहाणण्णं मण्णसि ताणं च पताणमयमत्थो ॥ १६८५ ॥
छिण्णम्मि संसयम्मी जिणेण जरमरणविप्पमुक्केणं । सो समणो पव्वइतो पंचहिं सह खंडियस एहिं ॥ १६८६ ॥
* ते पव्वइते सोतुं वियत्तो आगच्छति जिणसगासं ।
वच्चामि ण वंदामि वंदित्ता पज्जुवासामि ॥ १६८७ ।।
* 4 आभट्ठो य जिणेणं जातिजरामरणविप्पमुक्केणं ।
णामेण य गोत्तेण य सव्वण्णू सव्वदरिसी णं ॥ १६८८ ।। * कि मण्णे' पंचभूता अस्थि व णस्थि त्ति संसयो तुज्झ ।
वेतपताण य अत्थं ण याणसी तेसिमो अत्थो ॥ १६८९ ॥
भूतेसु तुज्झ संका सुविणय-मायोवमाइं होज्ज त्ति। ण वियारिज्जताई भयन्ति जं सव्वधा जुत्तिं ॥ १६९० ॥
भूतातिसंसयातो जीवातिसु का कध त्ति ते बुद्धी। तं सव्वसुण्णसंकी मण्णसि मायोवमं लोयं ॥ १६९१ ॥ जध किर ण सतो परतो णोभयतो णावि अग्यतो सिद्धी।
भावाणमवेक्खातो वियत्त ! जध दीह-हस्साणं ॥ १६९२ ॥ 1 संतो व निस्स-मु०। संतो व नीसरंतो- को० सात-ता० । तमत्थ- मु०, को। 4 See gatha 1609। 5 किं मण्णे अस्थि भूया उदाहु नत्थि-को०, मु०। 6 दीह हुस्साणं-ता० ।

Page #368

279
अत्थित्त-घडेकाणेकता य सव्वेकदादिदोसातो। सव्वेऽणभिलप्पा वा मुण्गा वा सव्वधा भावा ।। १६९३ ॥
जाताजातोभयतो ण जायमाणं च जायते जम्हा । अणवत्थाभावोभयदोसातो मुण्णता तम्हा ॥ १६९४ ।।
हेतू पच्चयसामग्गिवीसु भावेसु णो य जं कज्ज । दीसति सामग्गिमयं सव्वाभावे ण सामग्गी ॥ १६९५ ॥
परभागादरिसणतो सव्वाराभागसुहुमतातो य । उभयाणुवलंभातो सव्वाणुवलद्धितो सुण्णं ॥ १६९६ ॥
मा 'कुण वियत्त ! संसयमसति ण संसयसमुब्भवो जुत्तो। खकुसुम खरसिंगेसु व जुत्तो सो थाणु-पुरिसेसु ॥ १६९७ ॥ को वा विसेसहेतू सव्वाभावे वि थाणुपुरिसेसु । संका ण खपुप्फादिसु विवज्जयो वा कधण्ण भवे ॥ १६९८ ॥ पच्चवखतोणुमाणादागमतो वा पसिद्धिरत्थाणं । सव्वापमाणविसयाभावे किध संसओ जुत्तो ॥ १६९९ ॥
जं संसयादयो णाणपज्जया तं च णेयसम्बद्धं । सवण्णेयाभावे ण संसयो तेण ते जुत्तो ॥ १७०० ॥ संति च्चिय ते भावा संसयतो सोम्म ! थाणु-पुरिसो व्व । अथ दिद्रुतमसिद्ध मण्णसि णणु संसयाभावो ॥ १७०१ ॥
2 सव्वाभावे वि मती संदेहो सिमिणए व्व णो तं च । जं सरणातिणिमित्तो सिमिणो ण तु सव्वधाभावो ॥ १७०२ ॥ अणुभूतदिद्वचिंतितमुतपयतिविकारदेवताणूया । सिमिणस्स णिमित्ताई पुण्णं पावं च णाभावो ॥ १७०३ ॥
विण्णाणमयत्तगतो घडविण्णाण व सिमिणओ भावो। अधवा विहितणिमित्तो घडो व्व णेमित्तियत्तातो ॥ १७०४ ॥ सव्वाभावे च कतो सिमिणोऽसिमिणो त्ति सच्चमलियं ति। गंधव्वपुरं पाडलिपुत्त तिच्चोवयारो त्ति ॥ १७०५॥
कज्ज ति कारण ति य सज्झमिणं साधणं ति कत्त त्ति।
वत्ता वयणं वच्चं परपक्खोऽयं सपक्खोऽयं ॥ १७०६ ॥ 1 कुरु-को०, मु० । चो०-ता० । 3 °ताणूगा-ता० । ' तत्थोव-को०, मु० ।

Page #369

280
किंचेह थिरदवोसिणचलताsरूवित्तणाई णियताई । सद्दादयो य गज्झा सोत्तादीयाई गहणाई ॥ १७०७ ॥
समता विवज्जओ वा सव्वाग्रहणं च किण्ण सुण्णम्मि । किं सुण्णता व सम्मं सग्गाहो किं व मिच्छत्तं ॥ १७०८ ॥
किव सपरोभयबुद्धी कथं च तेसिं परोप्पर मसिद्धी । अध परमतीए भण्णति सपरमतिविसेसणं कत्तो ॥ १७०९ ॥
जुगवं कमेण वा ते विष्णाणं होज्ज ' दीहहस्से | जति जुगवं कावेक्खा कमेण पुव्वम्मि काऽवेक्खा || १७१० ॥
आतिमविणाणं वा जे बालस्सेह तरूप काऽवेक्खा । तुल्लेसु वि 2 कावेक्खा परोपरं लोयणदुगे व्व ॥ १७११ ॥
किं 3 हस्सातो दीहे दीहातो चेव किण्ण दीहम्मि । कीस व ण खपुष्फातो किण्ण खपुष्फे खपुष्फातो ॥ १७१२ ॥
किं वाऽवेक्खाए च्चिय होज्ज मती वा सभाव एवायं । सो 4 भावो त्ति सभावो वंज्झापुत्ते ण सो जुत्तो ॥ १७१३ ॥
होज्जावे खातो वा विण्णाणं वाभिधाणमेत्तं वा ।
5
दीहं ति व हस्सं ति व ण तु सत्ता सेसधम्मा वा ॥ १७१४ ॥
इधरा हस्ताभावे सव्वविणासो हवेज्ज दीहस्स | णय सो तम्हा सत्तादयोऽणवेरखा घडादीणं ॥ १७१५ ॥
जावि अवेक्खवेक्खणमवेक्खयावे क्खणिज्जमणवेक्खा | साण मता सव्वे वि संतेसु ण सुण्णता णाम ॥ १७१६ ॥
किंचि सतो तथ परतो तदुभयतो किंचि णिच्चसिद्धं पि । जलदो घडओ पुरिसो ' णभं च ववहारतो णेयं ॥ १७१७ ॥
6
पिच्छयतो पुण बाहिरणिमित्तमे तोवयोगतो सव्वं । होति सतो जमभावो ण सिज्झति णिमित्तभावे वि ॥ १७१८ ॥
अत्थित्तघडे काणेगता य पज्जायमेत्तचितेयं । अथ घडे पडवणे इधरा सा किं ण खरसिंगे ॥ १७१९ ॥
1 दीहहुस्सेसु-ता० । 2 - मु०, को० । 5 हुस्स - ता । ' तह - मु०, नहं - को० ।
6

हुस्सा - ० ।

4 सा भावो - ता० ।

Page #370

281.
घडसुण्णअण्णताए वि सुण्णता का घडाधिया सोम्म । एकत्ते घडओ च्चिय ण सुण्णता णाम घडधम्मो ॥ १७२० ॥
विण्णाणवयणवादीणमेगता तो तदत्थिता सिद्धा । .. अण्णत्ते अण्णाणी णिव्वयणो वा कधं वादी ॥ १७२१ ॥ घडसत्ता घडधम्मो ततोऽणण्णो पडादितो भिण्णो । अत्थि त्ति तेण भणिते को घड एवेति णियमोऽयं ॥ १७२२ ॥
जं वा जदत्थि तं तं घडो ति सव्वघडतापसंगो को । भणिते घडोत्थि व कधं सव्वत्थित्तावरोधो त्ति ॥ १७२३ ॥
अत्थि त्ति तेण भणिते घडोऽघडो वा घडो तु अत्थेव । चूतोऽचूतो व्व दुमो चूतो तु जधा दुमो णियमा ॥ १७२४ ॥
किं तं जातं ति मती जाताजातोभयं पि जमजातं । अध जातं पि ण जातं किं ण खपुप्फे वियारोयं ॥१७२५ ॥
जति सव्वधा ण जातं किं जम्माणंतरं तदुवलम्मो । पुव्वं वाऽणुवलम्भो पुणो वि कालान्तरहतस्स ॥ १७२६ ॥
जध सव्वधा ण जातं जातं सुण्णवयणं तधा भावा ।। अध जातं पि ण जातं पभासिता मुण्णता केण? ॥ १७२७ ॥
जायति जातमजातं जाताजातमध जायमाणं च । कज्जमिह विवक्खयाए ण जायए सव्वधा किंचि ॥ १७२८ ॥
रूवि त्ति जाति जातो कुंभो संठाणतो पुणरजातो । जाताजातो दोहि वि तस्समयं जायमाणो त्ति ॥ १७२९ ॥
पुवकतो तु घडतया परपज्जाएहिं तदुभएहिं च । जायंतो य पडतया ण जायते सव्वधा कुम्मो ॥ १७३० ॥
वोमातिणिच्चजातं ण जायते तेण सव्वधा सोम्म । इय दव्वतया सव्वं भयणीजं पज्जवगतीय' ॥ १७३१ ॥
दीसति सामग्गीमयं सव्वमिहत्थि ण य सा णणु विरुद्ध ।। घेप्पति व ण पञ्चक्खं किं कच्छभरोमसामग्गी ॥ १७३२ ॥
1°धम्मा-ता० । 2 घडो त्ति-ता०, को० । 3 जदजायं-को०, मु. । पयासिया-मु० । पज्जवगईए॥-मु०, को। 6 कच्छपरोम-मु० ।
36

Page #371

282
सामग्गिमयो वत्ता वयणं चत्थि जति तो कतो सुष्णं । अध णत्थि केण भणितं वयणाभावे सुतं केण ? ॥ १७३३ ॥
जेण चैव ण वत्ता वयणं वा तो ण संति वयणिज्जा । भावा तो सुण्णमिदं वयमिणं । सच्चमलियं वा ? ॥ १७३४ ॥
जति सच्च णाभावो अधालियं ण पमाणमेतं ति । अब्भुवगतं ति व मती णाभावे 2 जुज्जए तं पि ॥ १७३५ ॥
सिकतासु किण्ण तेल्लं सामग्गीतो तिलेसु व 3 किमत्थि । किं व ण सव्वं सिज्झइ सामग्गीतो खपुफाणं ॥ १७३६ ॥
सव्वं सामग्गिमयं णेगतोयं जतोऽणुरप्पदेसो । अध सो वि सम्पदेसो जत्थावत्था स परमाणू ॥ १७३७ ॥
दीसति सामग्गिमयं ण याणवो संति णणु विरुद्धमिदं । किं वाणूणमभावे निष्फण्णमिणं खपुष्फेहिं ॥ १७३८ ॥
5
देस साराभागो घेप्पति ण य सोत्थि ' णणु विरुद्धमितं । सव्वाभावे विण सो घेप्पति किं खरविसाणस्स || १७३९ ॥
परभागादरिणतो णाराभागो वि किमणुमाणं ते 1 आराभागग्गहणे किं व ण परभागसंसिद्धी ! ॥ १७४० ॥
सव्वाभावे विकतो आरा-पर- मज्झभागणाणत्तं । अध परमतीय भण्णति स - परमइविसेसणं कत्तो ॥ १७४१ ॥
आर-पर- मज्झभागा पडिवण्णा जति ण सुण्णता णाम । पडवणे वि का विकपणा खरविसाणस्स ॥ १७४२ ॥
7 परभागो ।
सव्वाभावे वाराभागो किं दीसते ण सव्वागणं वण किं किं वा ण विवज्जओ होति ? ॥ १७४३ ॥
परभागदरिसणं वा फलिहादीणं ति ते धुवं संति । जति वा ते विण संता परभागादरिसणमहेऊ ॥ १७४४ ॥
सव्वादरिणतो चियण भण्णते कीस भणति तं णाम ।
पुव्वब्भुवगतहाणिं ' पच्चक्खविरोधता चेव ॥ १७४५ ॥
8
1 वयणमिदं - मु०, को०
।
40 मितं- ता० । 'मिणं - को० 8 हाणी - मु०, को०

।
2 जुत्तमेत्तं पिता० । जुत्तमेयं ति - मु० । 3 वि० - मु०, को० ।
5
सो त्तिणणु - मु०, को० । 'ति' - मु०ता० । 7 परिभागो - ता० ।
9
। १ विरोहओ - मु०, को० ।

Page #372

283
णत्थि पर-मज्झभागा अप्पच्चक्खत्ततो मती होज्ज । णणु अक्खत्थावत्ती अप्पच्चक्खत्तहाणी वा ॥ १७४६ ॥
अत्थि अपञ्चक्खं पि हु जध भवतो संसयातिविण्णाणं । अध णत्थि सुण्णता का कास व केणोवलद्धा वा ॥ १७४७ ॥ पच्चक्खेसु ण जुत्तो तुह भूमि-जलाणलेसु संदेहो । अणिलागासेसु भवे सो वि ण 1 कज्जोणुमाणातो ॥ १७४८ ॥
अस्थि 2 अदेस्सापादितफरिसातीणं गुणी गुणत्तणतो । रूवस्स घडो व्व गुणी जो तेसिं सोऽणिलो णामं ॥ १७४९ ॥ अत्थि वसुधातिभाणं तोयस्स घडो व्व मुत्तिमत्तातो । जं भूताणं भाणं तं वोमं वत्त ! सुव्वत्तं ॥ १७५० ॥ एवं पञ्चक्खादिप्पमाणसिद्धाइं सोम्म ! पडिवज्ज। जीवसरीराधारोवयोगधम्माइं भूताई ॥ १७५१ ॥ किध सज्जीवाइं मती तल्लिगातोऽणिलावसाणाई । वोमं विमुत्तिभावादाधारो चेव ण सजीवं ॥ १७५२ ॥
जम्म-जरा-जीवण-मरण-रोहणा-हारदोहलामयतो । रोग-तिगिच्छातीहि य णारि व्व सचेतणा तरवो ॥ १७५३ ॥ 3 छिक्कापरोइया 4 छिक्कमत्तसंकोयतो कुलिंगो व्व । आसयसंचारातो विय-त ! वल्लीविताणाई ॥ १७५४ ॥ सम्मादयो य सावप्पबोधसंकोयणादितोऽभिमया' । बउलातओ य सद्दातिविसय ' कालोवलंभातो ॥ १७५५ ।। मंसंकुरो व्व सामाणजातिरूवंकुरोवलंभातो । तरूगण-विद्दुम-लवणो-वलादयो सासयावत्था ॥ १७५६ ॥ भूमिक्खतसाभावियसंभवतो दद्दरो व्व जलमुत्तं । अहवा मच्छो व्व सभाववोमसंभूतपातातो ॥ १७५७ ।। अपरप्पेरिततिरियाणियमितदिग्गमणतोऽणिलो गो व्व । . अणलो आहारातो विद्धि-विकारोवलंभातो ॥ १७५८ ॥ तणवोऽणब्भातिविकारमुत्तजातित्ततोऽणिलंताई ।
सस्थासत्थहताओ णिज्जीवसजीवरूवाओ ॥ १७५९ ॥ __ ण जुत्तोणुमाणाओ-को०,मु० । अदिस्सा --मु०,अद्दिसा-को० । छिकपरो-को०,मु०। + मेत्त-को०,मु० । 5 °भिमतो-ता० । 6 °कालावता० ।

Page #373

284
।
सिझंति सोम्म वहुसो जीवा णवसत्तसंभवो ण वि य । परिमितदेसो लोगो ण संति चगिदिया जेसिं ॥ १७६० ॥
तेसिं भवविच्छिती पावति ट्ठा य सा जतो तणं । सिद्धमणता जीवा भूताधारा य तऽवस्सं ॥ १७६१ ॥ एवममहिंसाऽभावो जीवघणंति ण य तं जतोऽभिहितं । सत्थोवहतमजीवं ण य जीवघणं ति तो हिंसा ॥ १७६२ ॥
ण य घायउ । त्ति हिंसो णाघातेंतो त्ति णिच्छितमहिंसो । ण विरलजीवमहिंसो ण य जीवघणो त्ति तो हिंसो ॥ १७६३ ॥
अहणतो वि हु हिंसो दुद्वत्तणओ मतो अहिमरो व्व । बाधेतो वि ण हिंसो सुद्धत्तणतो जधा वेज्जो ॥ १७६४ ॥
पंचसमितो तिगुत्तो णाणी अविहिंसओ ण विवरीतो । होतु व संपत्ती से मा वा जीवोवरोधणं ॥ १७६५ ॥
असुभो जो परिणामो सा हिंसा सो तु बाहिरणिमित्तं । को वि अवेक्खेज्ज ण वा जम्हाऽणेगंतियं बज्झं ॥ १७६६ ॥
असुभपरिणामहेऊ 4 जीवाबाधो त्ति तो मतं हिंसा । जस्स तु ण सो णिमित्तं संतो वि ण तस्स सा हिंसा ॥ १७६७ ॥
सद्दातयो रतिफला ण वीतमोहस्स भावसुद्धीतो । जध तध जीवाबाधो ण सुद्धमणसो वि हिंसाए ॥ १७६८ ॥
* छिण्णम्मि संसयम्मिं जिणेण जरा-मरणविप्पमुकेणं ।
सो समणो पव्वइतो पंचहिं सह खंडियसतेहिं ॥ १७६९ ॥
1 घातइ त्ति-ता० । 2 हिंसा-ता० । 3 बाहिंतो न वि-मु०,को० । 4 हेउ-ता० ।

Page #374

285
* ते पव्वइते सोतुं सुधम्मो आगच्छती - जिणसगासं । वचामि ण बंदामि ' बंदित्ता पज्जुवासामि ॥ १७७० ॥
आभद्रो य जिणेणं जाति-जरा-मरणविप्पमुक्केणं । णामेण य गोत्तेण य सव्वण्णू सव्वदरिसी णं ॥ १७७१ ॥
* कि मण्णे जारिसो इधभवम्मि सो तारिसो परभवे वि । वेतपताण य अत्थं ण याणसी तसिमो अत्थो ॥ १७७२ ॥
कारणसरिसं कज्ज बीयस्सेवं कुरो 'त्ति मण्णंतो । इधभवसरिसं सव्वं जमवसि परे वि तदजुत्तं ॥ १७७३ ॥
जाति सरो संगातो भूतणओ ' सरिसवाणुलित्तातो । संजायति गोलोमाऽविलोमसंजोगतो दुव्वा ॥ १७७४ ॥ 8 इति रुक्खायुव्वत जोणिविधाणे य विसरिसेहितो । दीसति जम्हा जम्मं सुधम्म ! ” तं णायमेगंतो ॥ १७७५ ॥
अधव जतो चिय बीयाणुरूवजम्म मतं ततो चेव । 10 जीवं गेण्ह भवातो भवतरे चित्तपरिणामं ॥ १७७६ ॥
जेण भवंकुरबीयं कम्मं चित्तं च तं जतोभिहितं । " हेतुविचित्तत्तणओ 12 भवंकुरविचित्तया तेणं ॥ १७७७ ॥
जति पडिवणं कम्मं हेतुविचित्तत्ततो विचित्तं च । तो ताफल पि चित्तं पिवज्ज संसारिणा सोम्म ॥ १७७८ ॥
चित्तं संसारित्तं विचित्तकम्मफलभावतो हेतू । इध चित्तं चित्ताणं कम्माण फलं व लोगम्मि ॥ १७७९ ॥
चित्ता कम्मपरिणती पोग्गलपरिणामतो जधा बज्झा 14 । कम्माण चित्तता पुण तरेतुविचित्तभावातो ॥ १७८० ॥
1 सुहुम-मु.। सुहम्म–को० । आगच्छइ-को०,मु. । 3 बंदामी-मु० । 4 °कुरोव्व-ता० । 5 तमजुत्त-मु०, को० । 6 सिंगाओ-मु०, को० 7 सासवाणु-मु०, को० । 8 जति- ता० । 9.तो-मु० । 10 जीयं-ता० । ॥ वियत्तत्तणतो-ता० । 12 वियत्तता-ता० । 13 पव्वज्ज-ता० । 14 बझं-ता ।

Page #375

286
अधवा इधभवसरिसो परलोगो वि जति संमतो तेणं । कम्मफलं पि इधभवसरिस पडिवज्ज परलोगे ॥ १७८१ ॥
हि भणितमिधं मणुया णाणागतिकम्मकारिणो सति । जति ते तप्फलभाजो परे वि तो सरिसता जुत्ता ॥ १७८२ ॥
अध इध सफलं कम्मं ण परे तो सव्वधा ण सरिसत्तं । अकतागमकतणासो1 कम्माभावोऽधवा पत्तो ॥ १७८३ ॥
कम्माभावे वि2 कतो भवंतरं सरिसता व तदभावे । णिकारणतो य भवो जति तो णासो वि तध चेव ॥ १७८४ ॥
कम्माभावे वि मती को दोसो होज्ज जति सभावोऽयं । जध कारणाणुरूवं घडातिकज्ज सभावेणं ॥ १७८५ ॥
होज्ज सभावो वत्थु णिकारणता व वत्थुधम्मो वा । जति वत्थु णत्थ तओऽणुवलद्धीतो खपुष्पं व ॥ १७८६ ॥
अच्चतमणुवलद्धो वि अध तओ अस्थि णत्थि किं कम्म। हेतू व तदत्थित्ते जो णणु कम्मस्स वि स एव ॥ १७८७ ॥ कम्मस्स वाभिहाणं हेतु सभावो त्ति होतु को दोसो । णिच्च व सो सभावो सरिसो एत्थं च को हेतू ॥ १७८८ ॥
सो मुत्तोऽमुत्तो वा जति मुत्तो तो ण सव्वधा सरिसो । परिणामतो पयं पि व ण देहहतू जति अमुत्तो ॥ १७८९ ॥
उवकरणाभावातो ण य भवति सुधम्म सो अमुत्तो त्ति । कज्जस्स मुत्तिमता सुहसंवितातितो चेव ॥ १७९० ॥
अधवाऽकारणतो च्चिय सभावतो तो वि सरिसता कत्तो । किमकारणतो ण भवे विसरिसता किं व विच्छित्ती ॥ १७९१ ॥
अध वि सभावो धम्मो वत्थुस्स ण सो वि सरिसओ णिच्चं । उप्पात-द्विति-भंगा चित्ता जं वत्थुपज्जाया ॥ १७९२ ॥
कम्मस्स वि परिणामो सुधम्म ! धम्मो स पोग्गलमयस्स । हेतू चित्तो जगतो होति सभावो त्ति को दोसो ॥ १७९३ ॥
1 °णासा-मु० । 2 य कतो-मु०, को० । 'होज्ज सभावो-मु०, को० । 4 अमुत्तो वि-को०, मु. । 5 तो व-ता० । 6 अहव-मु० ।

Page #376

287
अधवा सव्वं वत्थु पतिक्खणं चिय सुधम्म ! धम्मेहिं । संभवति वेति केहि य केहि य तदवत्थमच्चंतं ॥ १७९४ ॥
तं अप्पणो वि सरिसं ण पुव्वधम्मेहिं पच्छिमिल्लाणं । सकलस्स तिभुवणस्स य सरिसं सामण्णधम्मेहिं ॥ १७९५ ॥
को सव्वधेव सरिसोऽसरिसो वा इधभवे परभवे वा । सरिसासरिस सव्वं णिच्चाणिच्चातिरूवं च ॥ १७९६ ॥
जध णियएहिं वि सरिसो ण जुवा भुविबालवुडधम्मेहिं । जगतो वि समो सत्तादिएहिं तध परभवे जीवो ॥ १७९७ ॥
मणुओ देवीभूतो सरिसो सत्तादिएहिं जगतो वि । देवादीहि विसरिसो णिच्चाणिच्चो वि एमेय ॥ १७९८ ॥
उक्करिसावकरिसता [ समाणाए वि होति ' जातीए । सरिसग्गाहे जम्हा दाणातिफलं विथा तम्हा ॥ १७९९ ॥
जं च सियालो वइ5 एस जायते वेतविहितमिच्चादि । सग्गीयं 6 जण्णबलं तमसंबद्ध सरिसताए ॥ १८०० ॥
* छिण्णम्मि संसयम्मिं जिणेण जर-मरणविप्पमुक्केणं ।
सो समणो पव्वइतो पंचहिं सह खंडियसएहिं ॥ १८०१ ॥
* ते पव्वइते सोतुं मंडिओ आगच्छती जिणसगासं । वच्चामि ण वंदामि वंदित्ता पज्जुवासामि ॥ १८०२ ॥
* आभट्ठो य जिणेणं जाइ-जरा-मरणविप्पमुक्केणं ।
नामेण य गोत्तेण य सव्वण्णू सव्वदरिसी णं ॥ १८०६ ॥
* किं मण्णे बंध-मोक्खा संति त्ति संसयो तुझं ।
वेतपताणं य अत्थं ण याणसी तेसिमो अत्थो ॥ १८०४ ॥
1 वि-मु०,को। 2 य-ता० । 3 वि जेण जातीए-मु० ,को० । 4 जम्हा-ता० । ' इव एस-ता० । सरगीयं जं च फलं-मु०, को० ।

Page #377

288.
तं मण्णसि जति बंधो जोगो जीवस्स कम्मणा समयं । पुव्वं पच्छा जीवो कम्मं व समं व ते होज्जा ॥ १८०५ ॥
ण हि पुव्वमहेतूतो खरसिंगं वातसंभवो जुत्तो । णिकारणजातस्स य णिक्कारणतो च्चिय विणासो ॥ १८०६ ॥
.
अधवाणाति च्चिय सो णिक्कारणतो ण कम्मजोगो से । 'अह णिकारणतो सो मुक्कस्स वि होहिति स भुज्जो ॥ १८०७ ॥
होज्ज व स णिच्चमुक्को बंधाभावम्मि को व से मोक्खो । ण हि मुक्कव्ववदेसो बंधाभावे मतो णभसो ॥ १८०८ ॥
ण य कम्मस्स वि पुव्वं कत्तुरभावे समुब्भवो जुत्तो । णिकारणतो सो वि य तथ जुगवुप्पत्तिभावो' य ॥ १८०९ ॥
ण हि कत्ता कज्ज ति य जुगवुप्पत्तीय 4 जीवकम्माणं । जुत्तो ववदेसोऽयं जध लोए गोविसाणाणं ॥ १८१० ॥
होज्जाणातीयो वा संबंधो तध वि ण घडते मोक्खो । जोऽणाती सोऽणंतो जीव-णभाणं व संबंधो ॥ १८११ ॥
इय जुत्तीय ण घडते सुव्वति य सुतीमु' बंधमोक्खो 'ति । तेण तुह संसओऽयं ण य कज्जो यं जवा मुणसु ॥ १८१२ ॥
संताणोऽणातीओ परोप्परं हेतुहेतुभावातो । देहस्स य कम्मस्स य मंडिय ! बीयंकुराणं व ॥ १८१३ ॥
अस्थि स देहो जो कम्मकारण जो य कज्जमण्णस्स । कम्मं च देहकारणमस्थि य ज कज्जमण्णस्स ॥ १८१४ ॥
कत्ता जीवो कम्मस्स करणतो जथ घडस्स घडकारो । एवं चिय देहस्स वि कम्मकरणसंभवातो ति ॥१८१५ ॥
कम्मं करणमसिद्ध व ते मती कज्जतो' य तं सिद्ध । किरियाफलदो य पुणो पडिवज्ज तमग्गिभूति व्व ॥ १८१६ ॥
जं संताणोणाती तणाणतोऽवि णायमेगतो । दीसति संतो वि जतो कत्थति बीयंकरादीणं ॥ १८१७ ॥
अवि-ता० । होज्ज स-मु० । भावे य-मु०को । 5 सुतीए-को० । 'मोक्खा त्ति-मु० । कज्जतो तयं सिद्धं -मु०, को। १ कुराईण-मु०, को० । दीणं व ता.
कम्मजीवाणं-ता० । कत्थइ-मु०, को।

Page #378

289
अण्णतरमणिव्वत्तितज्जं बीयंकुराण जं विहितं । तत्थ हतो संताणो कुक्कुडि-अण्डातियाणं च ॥ १८१८ ॥
जधवेह कंचणोवलसंजोगोऽणातिसंततिगतो वि । वोच्छिज्जति सोवायं तध जोगो जीवकम्माणं ॥ १८१९ ॥
तो किं जीवणभाणं व जोगो अध कंचणोवलाणं व । जीवस्स य कम्मस्स य भण्णति दुविधो वि ण विरुद्धो ॥ १८२० ॥
पढमोऽभव्वाणं चिय भव्वाणं कंचणोवलाणं व । जीवत्ते सामण्णे भव्वोऽभव्वो त्ति को भेतो ॥ १८२१ ॥
होतु व जति कम्मकतो ण विरोधो णारगातिभेदो व्व । भणध य भव्वाऽभव्वा सभावतो तेण संदेहो ॥ १८२२ ॥
दव्वातित्ते तुले जीवणभाणं सभावतो भेतो। जीवाजीवातिगतो जध तध भव्वेतरविसेसो ॥ १८२३ ॥
एवं पि भव्वभावो जीवत्तं पि व सभावजातीतो । पावति णिच्चो तम्मि य तदवत्थे णत्थि 4 णिव्वाणं ॥ १८२४ ॥
जध घडपुव्वाभावोऽणातिसभावो वि सनिधणो एवं । जतिभव्वत्ताभावो भवेज्ज किरियाय को दोसो ॥ १८२५ ॥
अणुदाहरणमभावो खरसंग पि व मती ण तं जम्हा । भावो रिचय स विसिट्ठो कुंभाणुप्पत्तिमेत्तेणं ॥ १८२६ ॥
एवं भव्वुच्छेतो कोट्ठागारस्स वावचयतो त्ति । तं णाणंतत्तणतोऽणागतकालंवराणं व ॥ १८२७ ॥
जं चातीताणागतकाला तुला जतो य संसिद्धो । एको अणंतभागो भव्वाणमतीतकालेणं ॥ १८२८ ॥
एस्सेण तत्तियो च्चिय जुत्तो जं तो वि सव्वभव्वाणं । जुत्तो ण समुच्छेदो होज्ज मती 'विध मतं सिद्धं ॥ १८२९ ॥
भव्वाणमणंतत्तणमणंतभागो व किध व मुक्को सिं । कालादओ व्व मंडिय! मह वयणातो व पडिवज्ज ॥ १८३० ॥
. व अह जोगो कंचणो'-मु०, को० । ' पढमो वाभव्वाणं भव्वाणं-मु०, को० । ' होतु जति-मु० । 4 णेव्वाणं-ता. 5 चो०-ता० । ' कहमिणं सिद्धं-मु०, को० । य-ता० । .
37

Page #379

290
सन्भूतमिणं गेण्हसु मह वयणातोऽवसेसवयणं व । सव्वणुतादितो वा जाणयमज्झत्थवयणं व ॥ १८३१ ॥
मण्णसि विध सव्वण्णू सव्वेसिं सव्वसंसयच्छेत्ता । दिटुंताभावम्मि वि पुच्छतु जो संसयो जस्स ॥ १८३२ ॥
भव्वा वि ण सिज्झिस्संति केइ कालेण जति वि सव्वेण । णणु ते वि अभव्वच्चिय किं वा भव्वत्तणं तेसिं ॥ १८३३ ॥
३ भण्णति भव्वो जोग्गो ण य जोग्गत्तेण 4 सिज्झते सव्वो । जध जोग्गम्मि वि दलिते सव्वत्थ ण कीरते पडिमा ॥ १८३४ ॥
जध वा स एव पासाण-कणगजोगो वियोगजोग्गो वि । ण विजुज्जति सव्यो च्चिय स विउज्जति जस्स संपत्ती ॥ १८३५ ॥ किं पुण जा संपत्ती सा जोगस्स एव ण तु 'अजोग्गस्स । तध जो मोक्खो णियमा सो भव्वाणं ण इतरेसिं ॥ १८३६ ॥ 8 कतकादिमत्तणातो मोक्खो णिच्चो ण होति कुंमो व्व । णो पद्धंसाभावो भुवि तद्धम्मा वि जं णिच्चो ॥ १८३७ ॥
अणुदाहरणमभावो एसो वि मती ण त जतो णियओ' । कुंभविणासविसिट्ठो भावो च्चिय पोग्गलमयोऽयं 10 ॥ १८३८ ॥ " किं वेगंतेण कतं पोग्गलमेत्तविलयम्मि जीवस्स । किं णिव्वत्तितमधियं णभसो घडमेत्तविलयम्मि ॥ १८३९ ॥
सोऽणवराधो व्व पुणो ण बज्झते बंधकारणाभावा । जोगो 12 य बंधहेतू ण य सो13 तस्सासरीरो त्ति ॥ १८४० ॥
ण पुणो तस्स पसूती बीजाभावादिहंकुरस्सेव । बीयं च तस्स कम्मं ण य तस्स तयं ततो णिच्चो ॥ १८४१ ॥
दव्वामुत्तत्तणतो णभं व्व णिच्चो मतो स दव्वतया । सव्वगतत्तावत्ती मति त्ति तं णाणुमाणातो ॥ १८४२ ॥
को वा णिच्चग्गाहो सव्वं चिय वि भव-भंगयितिमतियं ।
पज्जायंतरमेत्तप्पणा 14 दणिच्चातिववदेसो ॥ १८४३ ॥ 1 जाणसु–को० । 2 चो०-ता० । 3 आ०-ता० । 4 जोग्गो तेण-ता० ।' सव्वम्मि-मु० । 6.जोगस्स-ता० । 7 अजोगस्स-ता० । 8 चो०-ता० । १ णियतं-ता० । 10 मयो य-मु० । । अधवा किं-ता। 12 जोगा-मु०, को० । 13 ण य ते-मु०, को० । 14 °प्पणा हि णिच्चा-ता।

Page #380

291
मुत्तस्स कोऽवकासो सोम्म ! तिलोगसिहरं गती कि धसे । कम्मलघुतातधागतिपरिणामादीहि भणितमिदं ॥ १८४४ ॥
किं सक्किरियमरूवं मंडिय ! भुवि चेतणं च किमरूवं । जध से विसेसधम्मो चेतण्णं तध मता किरिया ॥ १८४५ ॥
कत्तादित्तणतो वा सकिरियोऽयं मतो कुलालो व्व । देहप्कंदणतो वा पच्चक्खं जंतपुरिसो व्व ॥ १८४६ ॥
देहप्फंदणहेतू होज्ज पयत्तो त्ति सो वि णाकिरिए । होज्जादिट्ठो व्व मती तदरूवित्ते णणु समाणं ॥ १८४७ ॥ रूवित्तम्मि स देहो वच्चो ताफंदणे पुणो हेतू । पतिणियतपरिप्फंदणमचेतणाणं ण वि य जुत्तं ॥ १८४८ ॥
होतु किरिया भवत्थस्स कम्मरहितस्स किंणिमित्ता सा । णणु तग्गतिपरिणामो जध सिद्धत्तं तधा सा वि ॥ १८४९ ॥
कि सिद्धालयपरतो ण गती घम्मत्थिकायविरहातो । सो गतिउवग्गहकरो लोगम्मि जमस्थि णालोए ॥ १८५० ॥
लोगस्स स्थि विवक्खो सुद्धत्तणतो घडस्स अघडो व्व । स घडाति च्चिय मती ण णिसेधातो तदणुरूवो ॥ १८५१ ॥
तम्हा धम्माऽधम्मा लोगपरिच्छेतकारिणो जुत्ता । इधरागासे तुल्ले लोगोऽलोगो ति को भेतो ॥ १८५२ ॥
लोगविभागाभावे पडिघाताभावतोऽणवत्थातो । संववहाराभावो संबंधाभावतो होज्जा ॥ १८५३ ॥ णिरणुग्गहत्तणातो ण गती परतो जलादिव झसस्स । जो गमणाणुग्गहिया' सो धम्मो लोगपरिमाणो ॥ १८५४ ॥
अस्थि परिमाणकारी लोगस्स पमेयभावतोऽवस्सं । णाणं पि व णेयस्सालोगत्थित्ते य सोऽवस्सं ॥ १८५५ ॥
पडणं पसत्तमेवं थाणातो तं च णो जतो छट्ठी । इध कत्तिलक्खणेयं कत्तुरणत्थंतरं थाणं ॥ १८५६ ॥
1 सो-ता। 50 गहितो-ता० ।
देहप्फण्डण-ता।
तदरूवत्ते-मु०, को। 4 परिणामा-को०, मु० ।

Page #381

292
णमणिच्चत्तगओ वा थाणविणासपतणं ण जुत्तं से । तध कम्माभावातो पुणकियाभावतो वा वि ॥ १८५७ ॥ णिच्चत्थाणातो वा बोमातीणं पडणं पसज्जेज्जा । . अध ण मतमणेगंतो थाणातोऽवस्सपडणं ति ॥ १८५८ ॥ भवतो सिद्धो त्ति मती तेणातिमसिद्धसंभवो जुत्तो। . कालाणातित्तणतो पढमसरीरं व तदजुत्तं ॥ १८५९ ॥ परिमियदेसेऽणता किध माता मुत्तिविरहितत्तातो। 1णेयम्मि व णाणाइं दिट्ठीओ वेगरूवम्मि ॥ १८६० ॥ ण ह वइ ससरीरस्स प्पि यऽप्पियावहतिरेवमादीणं । वेतपदाणं च तुमं ण सदत्थं मुणसि तो संका ॥ १८६१ ॥ तुह बंधे मोक्खम्मि य सा य ण कज्जा जतो फुडो चेव ।
ससरीरेतरभावो णणु जो सो बंधमोक्खो त्ति ॥ १८६२ ॥ * छिण्णम्मि संसयम्मि जिणेण अर-मरण विप्पमुक्केणं ।
सो समणो पव्वइतो अद्भुटेहि सह खंडियसतेहिं ॥ १८६३ ॥
* ते पव्वइते सोतुं मोरिओ आगच्छती जिणसगासं ।
वच्चामि ण वंदामि वंदित्ता पज्जुवासामि ॥ १८६४ ॥ * आभट्ठो य जिणेणं जाइ-जरा-मरणविप्पमुकेणं ।
णामेण य गोत्तेण य सव्वण्णू सव्वदरिसी णं ॥ १८६५ ॥ * किं मण्णे अस्थि देवा उदाहु णत्थि त्ति संसयो तुझं । वेतपताण य अत्थं ण याणसी तेसिमो अत्थो ॥ १८६६ ॥ तं मण्णसि रइया परतंता दुक्खसंपउत्ता4 य।... ण तरंति इहागंतुं सद्धेया सुव्वमाणा वि ॥ १८६७ ॥ सच्छंदचारिणो पुण देवा दिव्वप्पभावजुत्ता य । जण कताइ वि दरिसणमुवेंति तो संसतो तेसु ॥ १८६८ ॥ मा कुरु संसयमेते 'सुदूरं मणुयादिभिण्णजातीए । .
पेच्छसु पच्चक्खं चिय चतुविधे देवसंघाते ॥ १८६९ ॥ 1 णियम्मि-मु० । 2 प्पियाप्पिय-मु० । 3 अद्भुट्टहिं-को० । अद्भुट्ठिहि-मु० । 4 संपतत्ता-ता. दूर-ता० ।

Page #382

293
पुव्वं पि ण संदेहो जुत्तो जं जोतिसा सपच्चक्खं ।। दीसंति तक्वता वि य उवघाताऽणुग्गहा जगतो ॥ १८७० ॥
आलयमेत्तं च मती पुरं व तव्वासिणो तध वि सिद्धा । जे ते देव त्ति मता ण य णिलया णिच्चपरिसुण्णा ॥ १८७१ ॥
को जाणति व किमेतं ति 'होज्ज णिस्संसय विमाणाई । रतणमयणभोगमणादिह जध विज्जाधरादीणं ॥ १८७२ ॥
होज्ज मती माएयं तधावि तकारिणो सुरा जे ते । ण य मायादिविकारा पुरं व णिच्चोवलंभातो ॥ १८७३ ॥
जति णारगा पवण्णा पकिट्ठपावफलभोतिणो तेणं । सुबहुगपुण्णफलभुजो पवज्जितब्वा सुरगणा वि ॥ १८७४ ॥ संकंतदिव्वपेम्मा विसयपसत्ताऽसमत्तकत्तव्वा । अणधीणमणुअकज्जा णरभवमसुहं ण एंति सुरा ॥ १८७५ ॥ णवरि जिण जम्म-दिक्खा-केवल- 2णिव्वाणमहणियोगेणं । भत्तीय सोम्म ! संसयवोच्छेतत्थं व एज्णण्हु' ॥ १८७६ ॥
पुव्वाणुरागतो वा समयणिबद्धा तवोगुणातो वा । णरगणपीडाऽणुग्गहकंदप्पादीहिं वा केइ ॥ १८७७ ॥ जातिस्सरकधणातो कासति पच्चक्खदरिसणातो य । विज्जामंतोवायणसिद्धीतो गहविकारातो ॥ १८७८ ॥
उकिट्ठपुण्णसंचयफलभावातोभिधाणसिद्धीतो । सव्वागमसिद्धीतो य संति देव त्ति सद्धेय ॥ १८७९ ॥ . देव त्ति सत्थयमितं सुद्धत्तणतो घडामिधाणं व। अध व मती मणुओ च्चिय देवो गुण-रिद्धिसंपण्णो ॥ १८८० ॥
तं ण यतो तच्चत्थे सिद्धे उवयारतो मता सिद्धी । तच्चथसिंहे सिद्ध माणवसिंधोवयारो व्व ॥ १८८१ ॥ देवाभावे विफलं 4 जमग्गिहोत्तादियाण किरियाणं । सग्गीय जण्णाण य दाणातिफलं च तदयुत्तं ॥ १८८२ ॥
अम-सोम-सूर-सुरगुरु-सारज्जादीणि जयति जण्णेहिं ।।
मंतावाहणमेव य इंदादीणं विधा सव्वं ॥ १८८३ ॥ भोज्ज-ता० । 2णेव्वाण-ता० । 3 एज्जहण्हा-मु० । एज्जण्हा-को० । 4 व फलं-ता० ।

Page #383

樂
छिष्णम्मि संसयम्मिं जिणेण जर मरणविप्रमुक्केणं ।
सो समणो पव्वतो अद्भुदेहि सह खंडियसतेहिं ॥ १८८४ ॥
294
[4]
* ते पव्वइते सोतुं अकंपिओ आगच्छती जिणसगासं । वच्चामि ण वंदामिं वंदित्ता पज्जुवासामि ॥ १८८५ ॥
* आभट्ठो य जिणेणं जाइ-जरा-मरणविपमुक्केणं । नामेण य गोत्तेण य सरवण्णू सव्वदरिसी णं ॥ १८८६ ॥
* किं मण्णे णेरइया अस्थि स्थि त्ति संसयो तुज्झं । वेतपताण य अत्थं ण याणसी तेसिमो अत्थो । १८८७ ॥
तं मण्णसि पच्चक्खा देवा चंदातयो तणे वि । विज्जामंतोवायणफलाइ सिद्धीए गम्मति ॥ १८८८ ॥
जे पुण सुतिमेत्तफला रइय त्ति किंध ते गहेतव्वा । सक्खमणुमागतो वाऽणुवलंभा भिण्णजातीया ॥ १८८९ ॥
1
मह पच्चक्खत्तणतो जीवाईय व्व णारए गेह | किं जं सप्पच्चक्खं तं पच्क्खं णवरि एकं ॥ १८९० ॥
जं कासति पच्चक्खं पच्चक्खं तं पिघेपते लोए । जध सीहातिदरिसणं सिद्धं ण य सव्वपच्चवखं ॥ १८९१ ॥
अधवा जमिंदियाणं पच्चक्खं किं तदेव पच्चक्खं । उवयारमेत्ततो तं पच्चक्खमणिदियं तच्चं 2 ॥ १८९२ ॥
मुत्तातिभावतो गोवलद्धिमंतिदियाई कुंभो व्व । उवलंभद्दाराणि तु ताई जीवो तदुवलद्धा ॥ ९८९३ ॥
तदुवरमे विसरणतो तव्वावारे वि गोवलंभातो । इंदियभिण्णेो णाता पंचगवक्खोवलद्धा वा ॥ १८९४ ॥
जो पुण अणिदियो च्चिय जीवो सव्वा 4 पिधाणविगमातो । सो सुबहुअं विजाणति अवणितघरो जवा दट्ठा ॥ १८९५ ॥
1 जीवादीए य-ता० । सत्थं मु० ।

३० राणि ताई मु० । 4 सव्वपिहाण -

-मु०,
को ०

Page #384

295
ण हि पच्चक्खं धम्मंतरेण तद्धम्ममेत्तगहणातो।' कतकत्ततो व सिद्धी कुंभाणिच्चत्तमेत्तस्स ॥ १८९६ ॥
पुव्वोवलद्धसंबंध ' सरणतो वाणलो व्व धूमातो । अधव णिणितंतरतो णिमित्तमक्खस्स करणाई ॥ १८९७ ॥
केवलमणोधिरहितस्स सव्वमणुमाणमेत्तयं जम्हा । णारगसब्भावम्मि य तदत्थि जं तेण ते संति ॥ १८९८ ॥
पावफलस्स पकिट्ठस्स भोइणो कम्मतोऽवसेस व्व । संति धुवं तेभिमता णेरइया अध मती होज्जा ॥ १८९९ ॥ अच्चत्थदुक्खिता जे तिरिय-णरा णारग त्ति तेऽभिमता । तं ण जतो सुरसेोक्खापगरिससरिसं ण तं दुक्खं ॥ १९०० ॥
सच्चं चेतमकंपिय ! मह वयणातोऽवसेसवयणं व । सव्वण्णुत्तणतो वा अणुमतसव्वण्णुवयणं व ॥ १९०१ ॥
भयरागदोसमाहाभावतो सच्चमणतिवाइं च । सव्वं चिय मे वयणं जाणयमज्झत्थवयणं वा ॥ १९०२ ॥
4 किध सव्वण्णु त्ति मती पच्चक्खं सव्वसंसयच्छेत्ता । 5 भयरागदोसरहितो तल्लिंगाभावतो सोम्भ ॥ १९०३ ॥
* छिण्णम्मि संसयम्मि जिणेण जर-मरणविप्पमुक्केणं । सो समगो पव्वइतो तीहि समं खंडियसतेहिं ॥ १९०४ ॥
* ते पव्वइते सोतुं अयलभाता आगच्छती जिणसगासं ।
वच्चामि ण वंदामि वंदित्ता पज्जुवासामि ॥ १९०५ ॥
* आभट्ठो य जिणेणं जाइ-जरा-मरणविरपमुक्केणं ।
णामेण य गोत्तेण य सव्वण्णू सव्वदरिसी णं ॥ ९९०६ ॥
* किं मण्णे पुण्ण-पावं अत्थि व णस्थि त्ति संसयो तुज्झं ।
वेतपताण य अत्थं ण याणसी तेसिमो अत्थो ॥ १९०७ ॥
संबद्धमर-ता। 2 Repetition of gatha 1578. 3°णतिवातं च ता० । + In ता. this gathā comes before the previous one. 5 भयरोग-मु० । " तिहि ओ सह खं°-मु० । तिहिं च सह खं°-को ।

Page #385

298
मण्णसि पुण्णं पावं साधारणमधव दो वि भिण्णाई । होज्ज ण वा कम्मं चिय सभावतो भवपपंचोऽयं ॥ १९०८ ॥
पुण्णुक्करिसे सुभता तरतमजोगावकरिसतो हाणी । तस्सेव खये मोक्खो पत्थाहारोवमाणातो ॥ १९०९ ॥
पावुक्करिसेऽधमता तरतमजोगावकरिसतो सुभता । तस्सेव खए मोक्खो अपत्थभत्तोवमाणातो ॥ १९१० ॥
साधारणवण्णादि व अध साधारणमधेगमत्ताए । उक्करिसावकरिसतो तस्सेव य पुण्णपावक्खा ॥ १९११ ॥
एवं चिय दो भिण्णाई होज्ज व सभावतो चेव । भवसंभूती भण्णति ण सभावतो जतोऽभिमतो ॥ १९१२ ॥ .
होज्ज सभावो वत्थु णिक्कारणता व वत्थुधम्मो वा । जति वत्थु णत्थि तओऽणुवलद्धीतो खपुष्पं व ॥ १९१३ ॥
अच्चंतमणुवलद्धो वि अध तओ अत्थि णस्थि किं कम्मं । हेतू व तदस्थिते जो णणु कम्मस्स वि स एव ॥ १९१४ ॥ .
कम्मस्स वामिधाणं होज सभावो त्ति होतु को दोसो । पतिणियताकारातो ण य सो कत्ता घडस्सेव ॥ १९१५ ॥
मुत्तोऽमुत्तो व तओ जति मुत्तो' तोऽभिधाणतो भिण्णो । कम्म ति सहावो त्ति य जति वाऽमुत्तो ण कत्ता तो ॥ १९१६ ॥
देहाणं वोमं पि व जुत्ता कज्जातितो व मुत्तिमता । अध सो णिक्कारणया तो खरसंगादयो होतु ॥ १९१७ ॥ अव वत्थुणो स धम्मो परिणामो तो स ' जीवकम्माण । पुण्णेतराभिधाणो 10 कारणकज्जाणुमेयो सो ॥ १९१८ ॥ किरियाणं कारणतो देहातीणं च कज्जभावातो । कम्मं मदभिहितं ति य पडिवज्ज तमग्गिभूति व्व ॥ १९१९ ॥
तं चिय देहादीणं किरियाणं पि य सुभासुभत्तातो ।
पडिवज्ज पुण्णपावं सभावतो भिण्णजातीयं ॥ १९२० ॥ 1 °क्करिस्से-मु.। 2 पच्छा-ता० । अपच्छ-तास। 4 °भिमतं-ता। 5 Repetition of gatha 1786. मुत्ता तो-ता०। कम्म त्ति-मु०, को। णिकारणतो-ता। 9 स कम्मजीवाणं-मु०, को। 10 °धाणे-ता।

Page #386

297
सुह-दुक्खाणं कारणमणुरूवं कज्जभावतोऽवस्सं । परमाणवो घडस्स व कारण मिह पुण्णपावाइं ॥ १९२१ ॥
सुह-दुक्ख कारणं जति कम्मं कज्जस्स तदणुरूवं च । पत्तमरूवं तं पि हु अध रूविं णाणुरूवं तो ॥ १९२२ ॥ ण हि सव्वधाणुरूवं भिण्णं वा कारणं अध मतं ते । किं कज्ज-कारणत्तणमधवा वत्युत्तणं तस्स ॥ १९२३ ॥
सव्वं तुल्लातुल्लं जति तो कज्जाणुरूवता केयं । जं सोम्म सपज्जायो कज्ज 2 परपज्जयो सेसो ॥ १९२४ ॥ किं जध मुत्तममुत्तस्स कारणं तध सुहातिणं कम्मं । दिनुं सुहातिकारणमण्णाति जधेह तध कम्मं ॥ १९२५ ॥
होतु तयं चिय किं कम्मणा ण जं तुल्लसाधणाणं पि । फलभेतो सोऽवस्सं सकारणो कारण कम्मं ॥ १९२६ ॥ एत्तो चिय तं मुत्तं मुत्तबलाधाणतो जधा कुंभो । देहातिकज्जमुत्तातितो य' भणिते पुणो भणति ॥ १९२७ ॥ तो किं देहादीणं मुत्तत्तणतो तयं हवइ मुत्तं । अध सुख-दुक्खातीण कारणभावादरूवं ति ॥ १९२८ ॥ ण सुहातीणं हेतू कम्म चिय किंतु ताण जीवो वि । होति समवायिकारणमितरं कम्मं ति को दोसो ॥ १९२९ ॥ इय रूवित्ते सुहदुक्खकारणत्ते य कम्मणो सिद्धे । पुण्णावकरिसमेत्तेण दुक्खबहुलत्तणमजुत्तं ॥ १९३० ॥ कम्मप्पकरिसजणितं तदवस्सं पगरिसाणुभूतीतो । सोक्खप्पगरिभूती जध पुण्णापगरिसप्पभवा ॥ १९३१ ॥
तध बज्झसाधणप्पगरिसंगभावादिहण्णधा ण तयं । विवरीतबज्झसाधणबलापकरिसं अवेक्ग्वेज्जा ॥ १९३२ ॥
देहो णावचयकतो पुण्णुक्करिसे व मुत्तिमत्तातो । होज्ज व स हीणतरओ कधमसुभतरो महल्लो य ॥ १९३३ ॥ एतं चिय विवरीतं जोएज्जा सव्वपावपक्खे वि ।
ण य साधारणरूवं कम्मं तक्कारणाभावा ॥ १९३४ ॥ 1 °रूवत्तं पि-ता० । 2 पज्ज- ता० । तितो व्य-मु०, को० । 'हवतु-ता० । कम्मुणो-ता० । व्व-को० । 38

Page #387

298
कम्मं जोगणिमित्तं सुभोऽसुभो वा स एगसमयम्मि । होज्ज ण तूभयरूवो कम्म वि तओ तदणुरूवं ॥ १९३५ ॥
णणु मण-वइ-काययोगा सुभासुभा वि समयम्मि दीसंति । दव्वम्मि मीसभावो भवेज्ज ण तु भावकरणम्मि ॥ १९३६ ॥
झाणं मुभामुभं वा ण नु मीसं जं च झाणविरमे वि । लेसा सुभासभा वा सुभमसुमं वा तओ कम्मं ॥ १९३७ ॥ पुव्वगहितं च कम्मं परिणामवसेण मीसतं णेज्जा । इतरेतरभावं वा सम्मा-मिच्छादि ण तु गहणे ॥ १९३८ ॥ मोनण आउअं खलु दंपणमोहं चरित्तमोहं च । सेसाणं पगडीणं उत्तरविधिसंकमो भज्जो ॥ १९३९ ॥ सोभणवण्णातिगणं सुभाणुभावं जं तयं पुण्णं । विवरीतमतो पावं ण वातरं णातिमहुमं च ॥ १२.४० ॥ गेण्हति तज्जोगं चिय रेणुं पुरियो जधा कतभंगो । एगवग्वेत्तोगाढं जीवो सव्वापदेसेहिं ॥ १९४१ ॥
अविसिट्टपोग्गलघणे लोए थूलतणकम्मपविभागो । जुज्जेज्ज गहणकाले सभासुभविवेचणं कत्तो ॥ १९४२ ॥
अविसिटै चिय ते सो परिणामाऽऽसयसभावतो खिप्पं । कुरुते सुभम मुभं वा गहणे जीवो जधाऽऽहारं ॥ १९४३ ॥ परिणामाऽऽसयवसतो धणूये जथा पयो विसमहिस्स । तुल्लो वि तदाहारो तव पुण्णापुण्णपरिणामो ॥ १९५४ ॥ जध वेगसरीरम्मि वि सारासारपरिणामतामेति । अविसिट्टो आहारो तध कम्मसभामभविभागो ॥ १९.४५ ॥ सातं सम्म हामं पुरिस-रति-सुभायु-णाम-गोत्ताई । पुण्णं सेनं पावणेयं सविवागमविवागं ॥ १९४६ ॥ असति बहि पुण्णपावे जमग्निहोत्तादि सन्गकामम्स । तदसंबद्धं सव्वं दाणातिफलं च लोगम्मि ॥ १९.४७ ॥ छिण्णम्मि संसयम्मिं जिणेण जर-मरणविष्पमुक्केणं । सो समणो पव्वइतो तिहिं तु सह खंडियसतेहिं ॥ १९४८ ॥
1चो०-ता। 2 आ०.-ता। वाहारो-म०, को।

Page #388

299
[१०]
* ते पव्वइते सोनु मेतज्जो आगच्छती जिणसगासं । वच्चामि ण वंदामि वंदित्ता पज्जुवासामि ॥ १९४९ ॥
* आभट्ठो य जिणेणं जाति-जरा-मरणविप्पमुक्केणं । णामेण य गोत्तेण य सव्वण्णू सव्वदरिसी णं ॥ १९५० ॥
*किं मण्णे परलोगो अस्थि ण अस्थि त्ति संसयो तुज्झं । वेतपताण य अत्थं ण याणसी तसिमो अत्थो ॥ १९५१ ॥
मण्णसि जति चेतण्णं मज्जंगमतो व्व भूतधम्मो त्ति । तो त्थि परो लोगो तण्णासे जेण तण्णासो ॥ १९५२ ॥
अध वि तयत्थंतरता ण य णिच्चत्तणमओ वि तदवत्थ । अणलस्स व अरणाओ भिण्णस्स विणासधम्मस्स ॥ १९५३ ॥
अध एगो सव्वगओ णिकिरिओ तह वि णस्थि परलोगो । संसरणाभावाओ वोमस्स व सव्वपिंडेसु ॥ १९५४ ॥
इध लोगातो व परो सुरादिलोगो ण सो वि पच्चक्खो । एवं पि ण परलोगो सुव्वति य सुतीसु तो संका ॥ १९५५ ॥ भूतिदियातिरित्तस्स चेतणा सो य दव्यतो णिच्चो । जातिस्सरणातीहिं पडिवज्जसु वायुभूति व्व ॥ १९५६ ॥ ण य एगो सव्वगतो णिकिरियो लक्खणातिभेतातो । कुंभातओ व्व बहवो पडिवज्ज तर्मिदभूति व्व ॥ १९५७ ॥
इधलोगातो य परो सोम्म : मुरा णारगा य परलोगो । पडिवज्ज मोरियाकंपिय व्व विहितप्पमाणातो ॥ १९५८ ॥
जीवो विण्णाणमयो तं चाणिच्चं ति तो ण परलोगो । अध विण्णाणादण्णो तो अणभिण्णो जधागासं ॥ १९५९ ॥
एत्तो चिचय ण स कत्ता भोत्ता य अतो वि णत्थि परलोगो । जं च ण संसारी सो अण्णाणामुत्तिओ खं व ॥ १९६० ॥
मण्णसि विणासि च तो उम्पत्तिमदादितो जधा कुंभो । णणु एतं चिय साधणमविणासित्ते वि से सोम्म ॥ १९६१ ॥
1 अत्थि णत्थि-मु०, को० । - परलोगा-मु.।

Page #389

300
अधवा वत्थुत्तणतो विणासि चेतो ण होति कुंभो व्वं । उप्पत्तिमतातित्त कधमविणासी घडो वुद्धी ॥ १९६२ ॥
रूव-रस-गंधा-फासा संखा संठाण-व्व-सत्तीओ । कंभो त्ति जतो ताओ पसूति-विच्छित्ति-धुवधम्मा ॥ १९६३ ॥
इध पिंडो पिंडागार-सत्तिपज्जायविलयसमकालं । उपज्जति कुंभागारसत्तिपज्जायरूवेण ॥ १९६४ ॥
रूवातिदव्वताए ण जाति ण य वेति तेण सो णिच्चो । एवं उप्पात-व्वय-धुवस्सहावं मतं सव्वं ॥ १९६५ ॥
घडचेतणया णासो पडचेतणया समुभवो समयं । संताणेणावत्था तधेह-परलोगजीवाणं ॥ १९६६ ॥
मणुएहलोगणासो सुरातिपरलोगसंभवो समयं । जीवतयाऽवत्थाणं णेहभवो व परलोगो ॥ १९६७ ॥
असतो णत्थि पसूति होज्ज व जति होतु खरविसाणस्स । ण य सव्वधा विणासो सव्वुच्छेदप्पसंगातो ॥ १९६८ ॥
तोऽवस्थितस्स केणवि विलयो धम्मेण भवणमण्णेणं । वत्थुच्छेतो ण मतो संववहारावरोधातो ॥ १९६९ ॥
असति व परम्मि लोए जमग्गिहोत्ताति सग्गकामस्स । तदसंबद्धं सव्वं दाणातिफलं च परलोए ॥ १९७० ॥
* छिण्णम्मि संसयम्मिं जिणेण जर-मरणविप्पमुक्केणं ।
सो समणो पव्वइतो तिहिं तु सह खंडियसतेहिं ॥ १९७१ ॥
[११]
* ते पव्वइते सोतुं पभासो आगच्छई जिणसगासं ।
वच्चामि ण वंदामि वंदिता पज्जुवासामि ॥ १९७२ ॥ * आभट्ठो य जिणेणं जाति-जरा-मरणविप्पमुक्केणं । णामेण य गोत्तेण य सव्वण्णू सव्वदरिसी णं ॥ १९७३ ॥
1णेय-ता०, मु०। - सव्वुच्छे-मु०। संववहारोव-मु०, को० । ' च लोअम्मि-मु०, को० ।

Page #390

301
* किं मण्णे व्वाणं अस्थि णत्थि त्ति संसयो तुझं । वेतपताण य अत्थं ण याणसी तेसिमो अत्थो ॥ १९७४ ॥ मण्णसि किं दीवस्स व णासो णेव्वाणमस्स जीवस्स । दुक्खक्खयादिरूवा किं होज्ज व से सतोऽवत्था ॥ १९७५ ॥
अधवाऽणातित्तणतो खस्स व किं कम्म-जीवजोगस्स । अविजोगातो ण भवे संसाराभाव एव त्ति ॥ १९७६ ॥ पडिवज्ज मंडिओ इव विजोगमिह जीवकम्मजोगस्स । तमणातिणो वि कंचण-धातूण व णाणकिरियाहिं ॥ १९७७ ॥
जं णारगातिभावो संसारो णारगातिभिण्णो य । को 2जीवो तो मण्णासि तण्णासे जीवणासो त्ति ॥ १९७८ ॥ ण हि णारगातिपज्जायमेत्तणासम्मि सव्वधा णासो । जीवद्दव्वस्स मतो मुद्दाणासे व हेमस्स ॥ १९७९ ॥
कम्मकतो संसारो तण्णासे तस्स जुज्जते णासो । जीवत्तमकम्मकतं तण्णासे तस्स को णासो ॥ १९८० ॥ ण विकाराणुवलंभादागास पिव विणासधम्मो सो । इध णासिणो विकारो दीसति कुंभस्स वाऽवयवा ॥ १९८१ ॥
कालंतरणासी वा घडो व्व कतकादितो मती होज्जा । णो पद्धसाभावो भुवि तद्धम्मा वि जं णिच्चो ॥ १९८२ ॥ अणुदाहरणमभावो खरसंगं पिव मती ण तं जम्हा । कुंभविणासविसिट्ठो भावो च्चिय पोग्गलमयो सो ॥ १९८३ ॥
+ किं वेगंतेण कतं पोग्गलमेत्तविलयम्मि जीवस्स । किं णिव्वत्तितमधियं णभसो घडमेत्तविलयम्मि ॥ १९८४ ॥ दव्वामुत्तत्तणतो मुत्तो णिच्चो णभं व दव्वतया । णणु विभुतातिपसंगो एवं सति णाणुमाणातो ॥ १९८५ ॥
को वा णिच्चग्गाहो सव्वं चिय विभव-भंग-ठितिमइयं । पज्जायंतरमेत्तप्पणादणिच्चातिववदेसो ॥ १९८६ ॥ ण य सव्वधा विणासोऽणलस्स परिणामतो पयस्सेव ।
कुंभस्स कवालाण व तधाविकारोवलंभातो ॥ १९८७ ॥ 1 कम्मजीवजोगस्स-मु०, को० । 2 जीवा--ता० । ३ तं-मु०, को० । 4 Repetition of gāthā 1839 1 5 Repetition of gatha 1813 ।

Page #391

302
जति सव्वधा ण णासोऽणलरस कि दीसते ण सो सक्खं । परिणामसहुमयातो जलदविकारंजणरयो व्व ॥ १९८८ ॥ होतूणमिंदियंतरगज्झा पुणरिंदियंतरग्गहणं । खंधा एंति ण एंति य पोग्गलपरिणामता चित्ता ॥ १९८९ ॥ एगेगिंदियगज्झा जब वायव्वादो तहग्गेया । होतुं चवखुग्गज्झा 'घाणातिग्गज्झतामेति ॥ १९९० ॥
जध दीवो णिव्वाणो परिणामंतरमितो तधा जीवो । भण्णति परिणेव्वाणो पत्तोऽणाबाहपरिणामं ॥ १९९१ ॥ मुत्तस्स परं सोक्खां गाणाणावाधतो जधा मुणिणो । तद्धम्मा पुण विरहादावरणाऽऽवाघहेऊण ॥ १९९२ ॥
मुत्तो करणाभावादण्णाणी खं व णणु विरुद्धोऽयं । जमजीवता वि पावति एत्तो च्चिय भणति तं णाम ॥ १९९३ ॥
दव्वामुत्तत्तसभाव जातितो तस्स दूरविवरीतं । ण हि जच्चतरगमण जुत्तं णभसो व्व जीवत्तं ॥ १९९४ ॥ मुत्तातिभावतो गोवलद्धिमंतिदियाइं कुंभो व्व । उवलंभद्दाराणि उ ताई जीवो तदुवलद्धा ॥ १९९५ ॥
तदुवरमे वि सरणतो तव्वावारे वि णोवलंभातो । इंदियभिण्णो णाता पंचगवक्खोवलद्धा वा ॥ १९९६ ॥
णाणरहितो ण जीवो सरूवतोऽणु व्व मुत्तिभावणं । जं तण विरुद्धमितं अन्थि य सो णाणरहितो य ॥ १९९७ ॥
किध सो णाणसरूवो णणु पच्चक्खाणुभूतितो 'णियए । परदेहम्मि वि गज्झो स पवित्तिणिवित्तिलिंगातो ॥ १९९८ ॥
सव्वावरणावगमे सो सुद्धतरो हवेज्ज सूरो व्य । तम्मयभावाभावादण्णा णित्तं ण जुत्तं से ॥ १९९९ ॥ एवं पयासमइओ जीवो छिद्दावभासयत्तातो । किंचिम्मत्तं भासति छिद्दावरणप्पदीवो व्व ॥ २००० ॥
सुबहुअतरं वियाणाति मुत्तो सव्वप्पिहाणविगमातो ।
अवणीतघरो व्व णरो विगतावरणो4 पदीवो व्व ॥ २००१ ॥ ____घाणिदियगज्झ-मु०, को । आया-मु०, को. See gatha. 1894। ' वियए-को । 4 विगयावरणप्पईवो-मु०, को० ।

Page #392

303
पुण्णापुण्णकताई जं सुह-दुक्खाइं तेण तण्णासे । तण्णासो तो मुत्तो णिस्सुह-दुक्खो जधागासं ॥ २००२ ॥
अधवा णिस्सुह-दुक्खो णभं व देहिं दियादि भावातो । आहारो देहो च्चिय जं मुहदुक्खोवलद्धीणं ॥ २००३ ॥ ...
पुण्णफलं दुक्ख चिय कम्मोतयतो फलं व पावस्य । णणु पावफले वि समं पचयख विरोधिता चेवं ॥ २००५ ॥
जत्तो च्चिय पच्चक्खं सोम्म ! मुहं णस्थि दुक्खमेवेतं । तप्पडिकारविभत्तं तो पुण्णफलं ति दुक्खं ति ॥ २००५ ॥
विसयमुहं दुक्ख चिय दुक्खपडिगारतो तिगिन्छ व्व । तं सुहमुवयारातो 4ण योवयारो विणा तच्च ॥ २००६ ॥
तम्हा जं मुत्तसुहं तं तच्चं दुक्ख संखएऽवस्पं । मणिणोऽणाबाधस्स व णिप्पडिकारप्पसूतीतो ॥ २००७ ॥
जध वा णाणमयोऽयं जीवो णाणोवघाती चावरणं । करणमणग्गहकारि सव्वावरणक्खए मुद्धी ॥ २००८ ॥
तध सोक्खमयो जीवो पावं तस्सोवघातयं' जय ।। पुण्णमणुग्गहकारि सोवखं सव्वखए सगलं ॥ २००९ ।।
6 जध वा कम्मकावयतो सो सिद्धनादिपरिणतिं लभनि । तथ संसारातीतं पावति तत्तो निचय सुहं पि ॥२०१० ॥
सातासातं दवखं तविरहम्मि य महं जतो तेणं । देहिदिएस दुक्खं सोक्वं देहिंदियाभावे ॥२.११ ॥
जो वा देहिंदियज मुहमिच्छति तं पइच्च दोमोऽयं । संसारातीतमितं धम्मंतरमेव सिद्धि सहं ॥ २०१२ ॥
कधमणमेयं ति मती णाणाणावाधतो त्ति गण भणितं । तदणिच्च णाणं पि य चेतणधम्मो ति रागो व्व ॥ २०१३ ॥
कतकातिभावतो वा णावरणावाधकारणामावा ।
उप्पातट्ठितिभंगरूपभावतो वा ण दोमोऽयं ॥ २०१४ ॥ 1 तन्नासाओ मुत्तो-मु०, को। 2 'यादभावा-मु०, को। चेव-मु०, को० । 4 ण य उवयारो-मु०, को० । 5 घाइयं--मु०, को, । "अहवा कम्म- को। 7 महं ति-मु०, को० । ४ कह नणु मेयं-मु०।

Page #393

304
ण ह वइ ससरीरस्स प्पियप्पियावहतिरेवमादि च जं । तदमोक्खो णासम्मि व सोक्खाभावम्मि व ण जुत्त ॥ २०१५ ॥
णट्ठो असरीरो च्चिय सुह-दुक्खाई पियप्पियाइं च । ताई ण फुसंति पढें फुडमसरीरं ति को दोसो ॥ २०१६ ॥
वेतपताण य अत्थं ण सुट्ट जाणसि इमाण तं सुणसु । असरीरव्ववदेसो अधणो व्व सतो णिसेधातो ॥ २०१७ ॥
णणिसेधतो य अण्णम्मि तविहे चेव पच्चओ जेण । तेणासरीरम्गहणे जुत्तो जीवो ण खरसिंगं ॥ २०१८ ॥
जं च वसंतं तं संतमाह वासद्दतो सदेहं पि । ण फुसेज्ज वीतरागं जोगिणमिटेतरविसेसा ॥ २०१९ ॥
वावेति वा णिवातो वासद्दत्थो भवंतमिह संतं । 5 बुज्झाऽवत्ति व संतं णाणातिविसिट्ठमधवाह ॥ २०२० ॥
ण वसंतं अवसंतं ति वा मती णासरीरगहणातो । फुसणाविसेसणं पि य जतो मतं संतविसयं ति ॥ २०२१ ॥
एवं पि होज्ज मुत्तो णिस्सुहदुक्खत्तणं तु तदवत्थं । तं णो पियप्पियाई जम्हा पुण्णेयरकयाइं ॥ २०२२ ॥
णाणाऽबाधत्तणतो ण फुसंति वीतरागदोसस्स । तस्सप्पियमप्पियं वा मुत्तमहं को पसंगोऽत्थ ॥ २०२३ ॥
* छिण्णम्मि संसयम्मिं जिणेण जर-मरणविष्पमुक्केणं । सो समणो पव्वइतो तिहिं तु सह खंडियसतेहिं ॥ २०२४ ।।
गणधरा सम्मत्ता ।
1वे-ता०1 2 ताण तमत्थं-ता। वसंतं संतं तमाह-मु०, वसंतं संतं तथाह-को । +विसेसो-ता० । 5 बज्झा-ता० । ता० ।

Page #394

abhavya 37ff, 155ff, 244 Acalabhrata 49ff, 179ff
action 88, 97
adharma 41
A
adhyavasaya 189ff, 193, 250
adṛṣṭa (apurva, unseen) 40, 99, 161
affliction 82
Agnibhuti 9ff, 89ff, 154, 196 agnihotra 53, 70, 99, 118, 149, 171, 203, 222
ahimsa (non-injury) 29, 30, 140ff ajiva 78ff, 210 Akampita 46ff, 173ff
aloka 41f, 162
antarabhava-sarīra 233 antaralagati 233 anupalabdi
anuvada 234
abhava) 70, 226
anuvyavasaya 228
anyapoha (anyavyavṛtti) 232ff
arthavada 103, 234
INDEX
(non-apprehension,
arthapatti (presumption) 70, 226
asarīraits meaning 220ff
asatavedaniya 218
astikaya 102, 147
Atharva Veda 83

atiprasanga 158
atom 90, 96, 118, 226, 241
attribute 2, 3, 8, 34, 105, 229, 237 avadhi-jñana 116, 176, 248
avidya 133, 134
avirati 143, 250
avisamvadin 69
Avyakta 13, 99
ākāśa 72, 207, 214, 242, 244
39
akṛti 232
atman 16, 17, 68, 111, 115, 160ff, 197ff
B
Bandha-sataka 192
Bhagavadgita (Gīta) 83, 234bhavya 37ff, 155ff, 244 bhedabheda 229
bhūta-its meaning 85 body (deha) 4, 5, 13ff
bondage 5, 35ff, 84, 151ff, 243 Brahmabindu Up. 82, 196
Brahman 203 (para, apara), 239, 243 Bṛhadaranyakabhagyavarttika 82
Bṛhadaranyaka Up. 69 n. Buddha 69
buddhi 228
Buddhist (Bauddha) 112, 114, 115, 159, 226, 229, 230, 233, 237, 241, 246, 247
causality 132
Carvaka 69, 226, 233, 235, 243, 247, 248
C
cetana 201
chala (quibble) 9, 88 Chance 13, 53, 91ff
chandas (Veda) 83 Chandogya Up. 69 charity 13, 53, 91ff
cognition 113
--erroneous 4
concomitance 206, 211; positive 240; negative 240, 265 (different views)
conjunction 4, 79, 97, 230 consciousness 7, 14ff, 54ff, 71ff, 86, 105ff, 196ff, 233

Page #395

306
stream of point-instants of 17,
112, 116 conscious activity (upa yoga) 67, 82,
84ff, 159, 198, 220, 231 constituent cause (samavāyi-kārana)
..
95
- specific features 22
- aggregate 14ff, 121ff emancipated soul 159, 246
- its place 40ff, 209ff, 246
- its happiness 62ff emancipation 5, 6, 35ff, 84, 97, 151ff,
180ff, 232, 243, 244 empirical standpoint (vyavahāra-naya)
24, 241 epiphenomenon 85, 105, 232 example (dretānta)-unreal (asiddha)
21, 125
contingency 65, 97, 144 continuum 7, 36ff contradictory 26 corporeal (mūrta) 33, 42, 211, 229,
234
fallacious 106, 200 fallacy 90 fruit--tangible 10, 92, 94
unseen 10, 92ff futile rejoinder 89
darsana (indeterminate intuition) 85,
231 deha--its synonyms 81 demerit (sin, pāpa, adharma) 22, 49ff, : 93ff, 97, 17911, 214 dependence 23, 130 desire 73 desireless action 234 destruction (vyaya) 7, 33, 40, 56, 59, .: 63, 86, 115, 159, 200ff, 207 destruction-cum-subsidence
(ksa yopasama) 116, 213 deya 6 dharma 41, 162 dhyāna (types of --) 188ff, 251ff dialectical reasoning 132 Digambara 225, 237 doubt 1, 2, 20, 21, 72, 90, 124ff, 225 dream 22, 120ff, 238, 240
-(causes of) 22 duhkha 204 duration 40, 201 dvyanuka, etc. 241
general 8 God 13, 77, 99, 100,
229 (different views) gods-proof of existence 43ff, 167ff,
247
- four kinds 168ff, 247 gotra-karman 149, 150, 243 guhā 203 gupti 30, 141, 222
H
hellish (infernal) beings 58
- proof of existence 46ff, 173ff Hetubindu 113 hisā (non-injury) 29, 30, 140ff
E
effect 25 effort 246 elements 14ff, 201f, 105ff, 121ff, 197ff,
242
identity (tādātmya) 230 indefinable 20, 122ff Indrabhūti iff, 9, 14, 67[f

Page #396

307
inference (anumāna) 1, 9, 21, 27, 40,
46ff, 67ff, 173ff, 209, 228 inherence (samavāya) 4, 79, 97, 230 instrumental cause 17, 95 intention 140ff
kratu 172 kşapakasreni 258ff Kumārila Bhatta 69n, 228 Kunda Kunda 241
jada 212 Jaina 86, 159, 226, 229, 232, 242,
245, 255, 265, Jayanta 233 jati 232 Jina 8, 9, 13, 19, 20, 30, 34, 48, etc. jīva-its synonyms 81 jñāna (knowledge) 85, 231
labhi 231 lesy, 189, 250 life-this, other 31ff, 142ff linga (hetu, reason, probans, mark
of inference) 1, 3, 67, 68, 76, 137, 211, 235, 237, 2651 --asiddha (unreal) 15, 73, 96, 109, 110, 237 --viruddha (contrary) 4, 77, 210 -vyabhicări (anaikāntika, in. conclusive) 73, 76, 110, 139, 165,
200, 237 lingin (probandum) 1, 3, 67, 76 loka 41, 160
K
M
karma 8ff, 18, 32ff, 40, 50ff, 89ff,
143ff, 152ff, 206ff, 233ff
-eight-fold 77, 189ff subha, asubha 183, 193ff -corporeal 95ff, 185ff -causes (mithyātva,etc.) 143, 187
-transformation 52, 189ff, 254ff karma-praksti 189, 192,
savipāka, avipāki 195 karma-vargaņā 255ff karmic body, karma-body (kārmana
sarira) 10, 12, 40, 91, 97, 118,
233 karmic matter 158, 191 kaşāya 143, 250 Kāla (Time) 13, 42, 99, 189 kevala 18 kevala-darsana 165 kevala-jñāna 165, 176, 248 knowledge 1, 8, 23, 71ff, 115, 125,
213 ----means (sources) of (pramāņa) 1, 9, 21, 28, 82, 89, 101
225 (different views), 236 krtaka 158, 206, 2441f
Mahāgena Vana 67, 225 Mahāvīra 9, 67ff, 89, 112n, 172. manah-paryāya 116, 176, 248 Mandika 35ff, 151ff, 207 mass of conciousness (vijñānaghana)
its meaning off, 19, 69ff, 8416 mati-jñāna 116, 248 matijñānāvaraņa 216 matter 32, 33, 102 Mauryaputra 43ff, 167ff Madhyamika 237, 264 meaning 8, 88, 232ff memory 2, 47, 61, 73ff, 176 mental construct 71 merit (good, dharma, punya) 22, 49ff,
93ff, 97, 179ff, 214 Metārya 54ff, 196ff Milindapañha 244 mith yātya 143, 249ff (classification),
253

Page #397

308
omniscience 90, 213, 248 omniscient 5 origination (utpāda) 7, 17, 33, 40, 56,
59, 63, 86, 115, 159, 200ff, 207
Mimāṁsā, Mimālisaka 72, 229, 232,
263 mode (paryaya) 7, 8, 26, 33, 85, 101,
116, 205
-sva, para 8, 87 modification 33 mohaniya-karman 189, 252 mokşa 157ff, 180ff, 203ff, 244ff momentary 17, 112 momentariness 17, 112, 115 motive 30 Mundaka Up. 103, 119 mutual dependence 121
N
Naiyāyika 72, 84 nāma-karman 149, 150, 243 nāraka 6, 84, 173ff, 248 negation 78ff, 125, 225 Nihilist 128, 129 Nihilism 128, 129ff nirvāņa 44, 170, 244ff, 263ff
-- its nature 58ff, 202 if Niyati (Destiny) 13, 99 Non-absolutism 133 non-causality 146 non-corporeal (amūrta) 33, 40, 211 non existence (non-being) 70, 126, 241
-- its meaning 39, 157 - prāgabhāva, pradhyaingābhāva
206, 265 non-jīva 78ff non-perception 21, 136, 241
---two-fold 18, 27 Nyāya-praveśa 113 Nyāya, Nyāya-Vaiseșika 85, 226, 229,
230, 232, 241, 242, 246, 263, 265
Pañca-sangraha 191 parinirvāṇa 209 parokşa-pramāna 226, 248 particular 4, 8, 79, 232 paryudāsa-nisedha 162, 220 pain 1, 6, 62ff, 111, 214ff passions 75 pāpa 49ff, 179ff, 214, 217, 249,
261ff (types) perception 1, 15, 21, 27, 28, 46, 47,
67ff, 107 114, 173 174, 225ff,
246 persistence (dhrauvya, sthiti) 33, 56,
60, 63, 86, 115, 159, 207 pleasure 1, 5, 6, 62ff, 95, 111, 214ff Prabhāsa 58ff, 203ff pradeśa (space-point) 26, 85, 135, 191 Prakrti 234, 243, 244 pramāda 143, 253 pramāņa-samplavavādin 236 pramānavigra havādin 236 Prasasta pāda 229 Praśna Up. 103 pratijñā (statement) 235 pratītya-samutpāda (dependent origina
tion) 115, 237 pratyakşa-pramāņa 226, 248 pudgala (matter) 53, 147, 155, 191,
208, 233 pudgala (soul) 69 punya 49ff, 179ff, 214, 217 249,
260ff (types) Puruşa 7, 102, 104, 196
object 21, 28;
--material 8 obscuration (covering, āvaraña) 18,
116, 143
quality 88 quibble 9, 89

Page #398

309
R
.
.
real standpoint (niscaya-naya)
241
reality 120ff reason - fallacious - asiddha (unreal)
11 regressus ad infinitum 13, 21 relatiye 129, 130, 239, 240 relativity 129 remembrance 15 Rig Veda 83,167 ..
soul (jiva) 35ff, 41, 58, 82, 96, 98ff,
105ff, 139, 154ff, 191ff, 200ff, 244, 246 ---proof of its existence Iff, 67ff -infinite 29 : -size 84ff, 232 . --different types 5, 42, 230ff -and body--one or different
14ff, 105ff, 235 subject (paksa) 109, 229, 236ff substance (dravya) 26, 88, 105, 111,
116, 155, 211, 218 Sudharman 31ff, 142ff Sugata 246 supersensuous perception 174 support (asraya) 80, 193 Sūtrakstānga Nir. 177 Syabhāva (Nature) 13, 23, 33, 49ff,
91, 101, 129, 145ff, 181ff, 240 Syabhāyavāda 145, 196, 234, 249 Svabhāvavādin 101, 234 svalaksana (point-instant) 236 syllogism 240
Sabdabrahmavādin 233 Sankara 227, 228, 231 Sata patha Br. 203 Santa 204 śruta-jñāna 116, 248 Sucidatta 237 Samantabhadra 240 samiti 30, 140, 242 samsāra 58, 39 samgārin 82' samyaktya---its status 195 sasarira--its meaning 220ff Satya 203 Saundarananda 204 Sama Veda 83 sāmānyatodȚsta anumāna 68, 226 Sariakhya 70, 72, 228, 229, 232, 243,
244, 246, 263, 265 science-Botany, Biology 31, 142 scriptures 1, 104 seed-sprout 9 self-apprehension (self-consciousness)
73, 114 self-luminous 7 sense-organs 3, 15, 28, 47, 60ff, 107ff,
208ff sense-perception--not direct 174ff siddha 42, 63, 82, 97, 157, 160, 218
tajjivatacchariravāda 235 Tattiriya Br. 103, 120 Tattvārthabhāgyațīkā 210 Tattvopaplavasinha 235 Tāndyamahābrāhmaṇa 104 thesis 109
-sham 72, 73 tiryak 84 tirthankara 44, 170 tirthakrt 202 transformation 189ff, 207, 252 transmigration 12, 84, 218 transmigratory 6, 12, 93, 118, 205 trees — animate 28ff tricks of debate 9 tuccha 206

Page #399

310
ubiquitous 40, 246 universal 4, 8, 79, 232, 236 upamāna (analogy) 70, 225 upanigads 238 upa patti 109 upasamasreni 255ff ut pāda-vyaya-dhrauvya 201ff, 219, 263
Vyakta 20ff, 120ff vyakti 232 vyāpaka 206, 211, 265 vyāpti 137, 211, 240
-anvaya (positive) 240
-- vyatireka (negative) 137, 240 vyāpya 265
w
word 72, 233 (classification and
meaning) world -- this, other 32, 54ff, 196ff worldly 34, 217ff
yajña 172
vā vasantam'--its meaning 220ff vāyu 241 Vāyubhūti 14ff, 75, 105ff, 235 Veda, Vedic 7ff, 19, 20, 31, 42, 46ff,
54ff, 83ff, 99, 102, 118, 165,
203ff, 263 vedaniya-karman 209 Vedānta, Vedāntin 82, 226, 232, 245 verbal testimony (agama) 1, 21, 43,
68ff, 82, 109, 171, 225, 263 vidhi (injunction) 103, 234 view (paksa) 9 vijñāna (particular knowledge) 86 vijñānamaya 18, 85 Vijñānādyaitavādin 233 vimāna 43, 44, 169 void (sünya) 2011, 122ff, 237ff
Yājñavalkya 69n, 86 Yajur Veda 83 yoga (activity) 39, 143, 158, 187ff,
233, 249 -- bhāva (psychical) 52, 188ff
dravya (physical) 52, 188ff Yogadrstisamuccaya 210 Yogaśikhopanişad 83 yogic perception 226 yogin 226

Page #400
Persone SE amelbras org