Samayasara

Author(s): Kundkundacharya, Hiralal Jain, A N Upadhye
Publisher: Bharatiya Gyanpith
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/001607/1

Page #1

SAMA YASARA
HL
SHRI KUNDA KUNDA
HIS
Bharatiya Jnana pitha Prakashan

ww.jainelibrary.org

Page #2

JÑANAPĪTHA MŪRTIDEVĪ GRANTHAMĀLĀ : English Series I
SAMAYASĀRA
ŚRI KUNDAKUNDA
With English Translation and Commentary Based Upon
AMRTACANDRA'S Ātmakhyāti
Together with English Introduction
by Prof. A. CHAKRAVARTI
Co
DOHODA
SODDOC
Togo o HOW
OOOO
LO
2
to
BHARATIYA JNANAPITHA PUBLICATION
VĪRA SAMVAT 2497 : V. SAMVAT 2028 : 1971 A. D.
Second Edition : Price Rs. 15/

Page #3

BHĀRATĪYA JŅĀNAPĪTHA MŪRTIDEVĪ
JAIN GRANTHAMALA
FOUNDED BY
SĀHU SHANTIPRASĀD JAIN IN MEMORY OF HIS LATE BENEVOLENT MOTHER
SHRĪ MŪRTIDEVĪ
IN THIS GRANTHAMALA CRITICALLY EDITED JAIN AGAMIC, PHILOSOPHICAL,
PAURĀNIC, LITERARY, HISTORICAL AND OTHER ORIGINAL TEXTS AVAILABLE IN PRAKRTA, SAMSKRTA, APABHRAMSA, HINDI,
KANNADA, TAMIL, ETC., ARE BEING PUBLISHED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE LANGUAGES WITH THEIR TRANSLATIONS IN MODERN LANGUAGES
AND CATALOGUES OF JAINA BHANDARAS, INSCRIPTIONS,
STUDIES OF COMPETENT SCHOLARS & POPULAR JAIN LITERATURE ARE ALSO BEING PUBLISHED.
General Editors
Dr. Hiralal Jain, M. A., D. Litt. Dr. A. N. Upadhye, M. A., D. Litt.
Published by Bharatiya Jnanapitha Head office : 3620/21 Netaji Subhash Marg, Delhi-6 Publication office : Durgakund Road, Varanasi-5.
Founded on Phalguna Krishna 9, Vira Sam. 2470, Vikrama Sam. 2000,18th Feb.,1944
All Rights Reserved.

Page #4

भारतीय ज्ञानपीठ, काशी
स्व० मूर्तिदेवी, मातेश्वरी सेठ शान्तिप्रसाद जैन

Page #5

Page #6

GENERAL EDITORIAL
Kundakundācārya is an unquestioned authority on Jaina dogmatics; and his position, especially among the Jaina Teachers and Authors of the South, is unique. His very name has an auspicious significance, to be enumerated next only to that of Mahāvira and Gautama Ganadhara. All of his works are available in Prākrit which borders on Sauraseni and contains some traits of Ardha-māgadhi, and hence called Jains Sauraseni. Three of his major works : Pañcâstikāyasāra, Prayacanasāra and Samayasāra are called Nātaka-traya, Prābhịta-traya or Sára-traya reminding us of the term Prasthāna-traya of the Vedāntins. The Samayasāra is studied with great zeal among the Jainas; and its exposition by Amặtacandra has made it a fountain of religious inspiration, spiritual solace and universal appeal.
Kundakunda is so popular in the South Indian Jaina tradition that he is mentioned under different names. Some of the details about him need further verification and clarification. In all probability Padmanandi was his name; he came to be called Kundakunda or Kondakunda possibly from the place to which he belonged; and his name reached such an eminence that a line of Teachers originated from him, Kondakundānvaya by name.
Besides the Sāra-traya or Prābhrta-traya noted above, some more works ( all the available ones in Prākrit ) are attributed to him; The Satkhandāgamatīkā, Parikarma by name ( not available at present ); the Mülācāra (Kundakunda's name is mentioned in some Mss. as its author ); Ten Bhaktis in Prākrit (Titthayara-, Siddha-, Suda., Cäritta-, Anagāra-, Āyariya-, Nivvāņa- and Pañcaparamětthi-bhatti, to which we have to add perhaps Namdisara- and Samti-Bhattis available in prose passages ); Eight Pāhudas (Damsaņa-, Cāritta-, Sutta-, Bodha-, Bhāva., Mokkha., Limga-, Sila-Pāhuda ); Rayana-sāra (its authorship, still sub judice ); Bārasa-anuvěkkhā; and Niyamasära. Whether all these available works are composed by one and the same Kundakunda; or there were authors more than one bearing the name Kundakunda : this has to remain an open question so far as critical scholarship is concerned ( see for instance, W. Schubring : Kundakunda echt und unecht, ZDMG, 107, 3; Dec. 1957; here the full text of the Bodha-pāhuda is edited by him ). It is more or less accepted now that the Rayaņasāra, as the text stands today, cannot be attributed to Kundakunda, the author of the Prābhịta-traya.

Page #7

SAMAYASARA
Generally speaking, Kundakunda's works are like small and big Prakaranas devoted to a specific topic or topics. They are a repository of inherited knowledge which the author has recorded for future generations. Their mode of treatment and discussion have a traditional stamp, and the exposition is systematic. This can be very well seen from the Bodha-pahuḍa, etc. Some of the verses of Kundakunda are almost Sūtras, quite pregnant with meaning and presuming a great inheritance of traditional knowledge.
There are traditional tales recorded in later literature to shed light on the biography of Kundakunda; but their authenticity is of uncertain nature, as long as they are not substantiated by contemporary evidence. So far as his own works one concerned, his name is found mentioned in some Mss. of the Bārasa-aṇuvĕkkha; and at the end of the Bodha-pāhuḍa it is specified that it was composed by the Sisya of Bhadrabahu.
As to the age when Kundakunda flourished, different opinions are held. That is inevitable in the absence of any clear-out evidence given by the author himself. Paṭṭāvalis and traditional tales assign him to the first century of B. C. or A. D. Modern scholars have offered their opinions on the date of Kundakunda, but as yet no unanimity is reached. Taking into consideration the history of Jainism in the South, it appears that Kundakunda's age lies at the beginning of the Christian era.
Now-a-days attempts are made to arrive at conclusions in chronological matters from parallel ideas and expressions. But this is not a correct and safe method, because the Indian thought-pattern is made up of much that is traditionally inherited from the past, besides there being many under-currents and cross-currents the clues of which are not necessarily detected. Secondly, we cannot lay much reliance on the so-called dates given in the Paṭṭāvalis and Prabandhas, etc., because these are not contemporary records; and further, their details are full of inconsistencies and anachronisms. Lastly, chronology needs a certain type of evidence which we must try to discover before assigning a specific date to any author. Under these circumstances it is safer to put together such data as help us to fix the relative chronology of different authors and their works. Kundakunda's age may also be fixed in this manner.
(1) Pūjyapāda, in his Sarvarthasiddhi ( II, 10), has quoted five Gāthās (25-29), in the same order, from the Barasa-Aņuvěkkha of Kundakunda.
(2) Siddhasena Divākara, as sufficiently indicated by Haribhadra in calling him Śrutakevalin, was a Yapaniya and therefore a native of South India. His Sanmati-sutra clearly shows the influence of the Pravacanasara both in its pattern and even in some expressions. He proposes Abheda-vāda to indicate the relation between the Jñana and Dargana of a Kevalin which is, in fact, nearer the Yugapad-vāda already put forth by Kundakunda in his Niyamasāra. (3) The South Indian tradition, recorded even in some inscriptions, etc., is quite uniform in mentioning Umāsvāti as a successor in the ascetic line of Kundakunda, though he was Grddhrapiccha, i e., one who carried a bunch

Page #8

GENERAL EDITORIAL
of vulture-feathers as against those who carried a bunch of peacock-feathers or a bunch of wooly stuff.
(4) Lastly, there are the Mercara copper-plates of Saka 388 which mention the Kundakundānvaya and enumerate six Acāryas of that lineage.
While proposing any date for Kundakunda the facts noted above should not be ignored or just explained away somehow or the other.
The three major works of Kundakunda have been commented upon in Sanskrit by Amộtacandra (c. close of the 10th century A. D.) and by Jayasena (c. 12th century A. D.) and in Kannada by Bälacandra (c. 13th century A. D. ). On the Niyamasāra there is the Sanskrit commentary of Padmaprabna Maladhārideva who passed away on Monday, February 24, A, D. 1185. SrutaSāgara has written Sanskrit commentary on Six Phudas, and he flourished at the beginning of the 16th century A.D. Some other Sanskrit commentaries by Prabhācandra and Mallisena are reported on some or the other of the bhịta-traya.
Among the commentators of the Präbhrta-traya, Amrtacandra is concerncd more with the exposition of the contents in a high-flown style. Jayasena, however, interprets the text word for word and then adds some observations here and there. Baļacandra mostly follows Jayasena.
Amrtacandra's commentary on the Samavasara is full of religious fervour; and the verses composed by him in his commentary are replete with spiri. tual appeal. They are studied, even to this day, with great zeal. Lately, Mun Sri Punyavijayaji has discovered another work of Amộtacandra, namely, Sphuţatattvasiddhi, in fluent Sanskrit verses. It is awaiting publication. Amstacandra, as observed by F. W. Thomas, 'is an excellent master of Jaina Sanskrit; he employs fullness of phrase which not unfrequently gives an impression of enjoyment of sonorous circumlocution and complicated sentences rather than of a simple striving for exactitude, and which renders the work of interpretation and translation extremely difficult; but no special charity is required for recognising in the remorselessness of style the outcome of and inflexible religious faith.
The works of Kundakunda, especially the three Prābhịtas, have enjoyed unsurpassed popularity. They are translated into many an Indian language; and there have been various editions from different places.
The Pañcâstikāya was translated into English by Prof. A. Chakravarti, and the Samayasāra by J.L. Jaini; and both of them appeared in the Sacred Books of the Jainas. The Pravacanasāra has been translated into English by B. Faddegon and A. N. Upadhye.
The late Prof. A. Chakravarti (Nayanar ), (1880–1960 ), passed his M. A. with distinction, in 1905, from the Christian College, Madras, and took his L. T. in 1909 from the Teachers' College, Madras. For a year or two he worked as a Teacher in the Wesley Girls' School and as a Clerk in the

Page #9

SAMAYASĀRA
Accountant General's Office, Madras. In 1906, he was appointed as Assistant Professor of Philosophy in the Presidency College, Madras, and thereafter he worked as such ( having become a Professor in 1917 ) in the Government Colleges at Rajahmundry, Madras and Kumbakonam ( of the then Madras Presidency ) from where he retired as Principal in 1938. He was conferred upon the title of Rao Bahadur in the same year.
Prof. Chakravarti was well-versed in the various schools of western philosophy. He brought his wide learning and deep scholarship to bear upon his study of Jaina Philosophy. His Introduction to the Pañcāstikāya ( Arrah 1920 ) is a valuable exposition of Jaina metaphysics and ontology. In 1937 he delivered Principal Miller Lectures which are published under the title "Humanism and Indian Thought. He was a stalwart Jaina Śrāvaka of his times in Tamil Nadu. He was specially interested in Jaina Tamil literature on which he has written a monograph in English (Arrah 1941). He has edited a number of Tamil works by Jaina authors with their commentaries and, in some cases, with his learned exposition in English. For instance, Neelakesi, the text and the commentary of Samaya Divākara Muni, along with his elaborate Introduction in English ( Madras 1936 ); Thirukkural by Thevar, along with the Tamil commentary by Kayirāja Pandithar (Bharatiya Jnanapitha Tamil Series, No. 1, with an English Introduction (Madras 1949 ); Tirukkural, with English Translation and Commentary and an exhaustive Introduction. He has also edited the Merumandarapuranam in Tamil. His exposition ( described by M. S. H. Thompson, in the J. R. A. Society, London 1955, as an indispensable aid to the study of Tirukkural ) of the Tirukkural has been hailed both in Indian and outside as a learned and liberal exposition of the Kural, the Tamil Bible. His 'Religion of Ahimsa' is published by Shri Ratanchand Hirachand, Bombay ( 1957 ). It is a learned exposition in English of some aspects of Jainism..
Prof. Chakravarti, as an authority on his subject, contributed a number of essays and articles on Jainism, Ahimsā and contemporary thought to various publications such as Cultural Heritage of India, Philosophy of the East and West, Jaina Gazette, Aryan Path, Tamil Academy. He wrote both in English and Tamil. Some of his papers are reprinted in the 'Yesterday and Today,' Madras 1946. He was a member of a number of Associations and Institutions in Madras.
As a pious Jaina and a deep scholar of Jainism, he wrote a commentary in English on the Samayasära of Kundakunda. He mainly follows the Sanskrit commentary of Amrtacandra Still his exposition of the Samayasära and his evaluation of its contents clearly demonstrate how ably he has expounded the principles of Kundakunda to make them intelligible to the modern world.
Prof. Chakravarti was a well-wisher of the literary activities of the Jñānapitha which are conducted under the patronage of Shriman Sahu Shanti Prasadji Jain and his enlightened wife Smt. Rama Jain. Both of them have encouraged with great self-sacrifice the study and publication of the neglected

Page #10

GENERAL EDITORIAL
branches of Indian literature. It is through their generous patronage that the second edition of the Samayasāra by the late Prof. Chakravarti is being published here in the Mürtidevi Granthamala. There is no change in the contents; but care has been taken to print the Prakrit and Sanskrit texts more correctly and to add diacritical points, etc., for the Sanskrit words used in this work.
The General Editors remember with gratitude the late Prof. A. Chakravarti who gave this work for publication in this Granthamālā and record their sense of gratefulness to the patrons of the Granthamālā who kindly financed the publication of this second edition,
Mahavira Jayanti.
April 8, 1971.
H. L. Jain A. N. Upadhye
Note 1. For a detailed study about Kundakunda and for bibliographic references, etc., about his works, the readers are referred to the Introduction to the edition of the Pravacanasāra by A. N. Upadhye published in the Rajachandra Jain Granthamala, 3rd ed., Agas 1964, and also the Prabhịta-Samgraha by Pt. Kailash Chandra Shastri (Sholapur 1960). Lately, the Prakrit texts of Kundakunda's works are critically constituted by Dr. A.N. Upadhye and supplied to the Svādhyāya Mandira Trust, Songad ( Saurashtra ) where they are being inscribed on marble tablets.
Note 2. We are thankful to Thiru V. Jaya Vijayan, B.E. ( 33, Pudupet Garden street, Royapettah, Madras-14), for the bio-date of Prof. ChakraVarti. He is the grand-son of the late Professor from his daughter Smt. V.C. Jothimalai. ( a. n. u.)

Page #11

PREFACE
Samayasara is the most important philosophical work by Acarya Kundakunda, It deals with the nature of the self, the term Samaya being used synonimously with Atman or Brahman. The translation and commentary herein published are based upon Amṛtacandra's Atmakhyāti but some other commentaries are also consulted. Jayasena's Tatparyavṛtti and Mallişena's Tamil commentary were also consulted. The extra gāthās found in Jayasena's Tatparyavṛtti do not give any additional information nor do they affect the general trend of Atmakhyāti. Hence the present English translation confines itself to the gathās found in Atmakhyāti. It may be mentioned that the Tamil commentary by Mallisena seems to be based upon Atmakhyāti by Amṛtacandra. Since the work deals with the nature of the Self from the Jaina point of view, the introduction also deals with the nature of the self from other points of view. The introduction is divided into three main groups; the nature of the Self dealt with in Western Philosophy, the nature of the Self in Indian Philosophy and the same topic according to Modern Science. A rapid survey of Western thought beginning with the Greek philosophers is given in the first part of the introduction. The second part, Indian Philosophy begins with a concise account of the Upanisadic thought with which Kundakunda appears to be acquainted. The modern scientific approach towards the problem of self is also given in the introduction. It is not a detailed account of modern scientific thought; but here an attempt is made to present the modern scientific attitude which is quite different from that of the latter half of the 19th century. The Scientists and Philosophers of the Victorian period were not sure about the nature of the self. Orthodox Physicists and Physiologists treated consciousness as a by-product in the evolution of matter and motion. Following this dominant attitude of physical science, psychologists also tried to discuss the problem of consciousness

Page #12

SAMAYASARA
without a soul or self. All that is changed now. Scientific writers mainly influenced by the results obtained by the Psychic Research Society now openly acknowledge the existence of the conscious entity, the self or the soul, which is entirely different in nature from matter; it survives even after the dissolution of the body. Researches in Clairvoyance and Telepathy and veridical dreams clearly support the attitude of modern thinkers as to the survival of the human personality after death. Though nothing definite is established scientifically this change of attitude is itself a welcome one. This change introduces the rapprochement between Western thought and Indian thought as is evidenced in the writings of persons like Aldous Huxley. This must be considered as a good augury, because in war-worn world bankrupt of spiritual values there is a ray of hope that the Indian thought of perennial nature may feed the spiritually starved world which is in search of some genuine idea serving as a solace and hope for the spiritually famished humanity.
This book is published as the first of the English series in the Bharatiya Jnanapitha publications The publication will reveal to the world what Indian thinkers 2000 years ago had to say about the problem of the Self.

A. Chakravarti
9

Page #13

CONTENTS OF ENGLISH INTRODUCTION
Self in European thought
Greek Philosophy
Christian Thought
Renaissance
Bacon and Scientific Method
Cartesianism Mathematical Methods
The English Empiricism The German Idealism
Self in Indian Thought
The Age of the Upanisads The meaning of 'Upanisad' The Date of the Upanisads
1
The Origin of the Upanisads The Fundamental Doctrine of Upanisads
The Upanisads and the Western thinkers
Deussen on the Upanisads
The Chandogya Upanisad
The True way to Brahma World
Katha Upanisad
Mundaka Upanisads
Samkhya Philosophy Samkhya Method
The Sources of Samkhya
The Sam khya System

2
Bṛhadaranyaka Upaniṣad
The General Tendencies of the Upanisadic Period Rudiments of Upanisadic Thought in the Samhitas
and the Brahmaņas

PAGE
1167
3
12
14
22
2467
24
26
27
28
31
333333
32
32
34
38
38
41
cr cr
43
50
52 59
59
59
60

Page #14

CONTENTS OF ENGLISH INTRODUCTION
11
PAGE
60
Impurity Evolution of the cosmos from the Primeval Praksti The Nature of Prakrti Moksa or liberation Uttara Mimámsā or Vedānta Responsibility of the Creator A Discussion of Dreams and Hallucinations Sankara and Vedāntism Sankara and the Doctrine of Māyā
Brahma Jainism, its Age and its Tenets
The Age of Jainism Mokşa Marga The Concept of Dravya Asti-Násti-Vāda
Jiva or Soul Self in Modern Science Sankara and Kundakunda Sankara and his point of view The Individual and the Samsāra Nature and the external world
The Origin of the concrete world The Doctrine of Causation One and the Many
Sankara and Amrtacandra
99
103 105 106 108 109 110 111 113

Page #15

CONTENTS OF THE TEXT WITH TRANSLATION AND
COMMENTARY
PAGE
CHAPTER I
1-41
42-62
63—106
107–115
Jīva–Padartha or Category of Soul CHAPTER II
Ajiva or Non-Soul CHAPTER III
Kartā and Karma-The Doer and the Deed CHAPTER IV
Punya and Papa - Virtue and Vice CHAPTER V
Asrava or inflow of Karma CHAPTER VI
Samvara -- Blocking the inflow CHAPTER VII
Nirjarā--Shedding of Karmas CHAPTER VIII
116—123
124-129
130-153
154--178
Bandha or Bondage of Karmas
CHAPTER IX
178-188
Mokşa or Liberation
189-236
CHAPTER X
All-Pure Knowledge

Page #16

INTRODUCTION 1. Self in European Thought
Man's development in all aspects may be described as an attempt to discover himself. Whether we take the development of thought in the East or the West, the same principle know thyself' seems to be the underlying urge. When we turn to the West we find that the beginnings of philosophy are traced to the pre-Socratic period of Greek civilisation,
GREEK PHILOSOPHY
That was a period of culture where Greeks had a form of religion according to which their Gods, Athene and Apollo, were superhuman personalities trying to help their favourite Greeks by taking part in all their struggles. This naive popular form of religion very soon gave place to a flood of scepticism organised by the school of Sophists. They began to challenge some of the fundamental concepts of religion and ethics. It was, when this prccess of social disintegration was going on that we find Socrates appearing in the scene. Though he was one of the Sophists himself, he was actuated by a higher ideal of salvaging what remained of the destructive analysis of Sophism. For this purpose he began to question and to find out the so-called educated individuals of the Athenian society. This process of questioning with the object of discovering whether the opponent knew anything fundamental about religion and ethics was designated as the “Socratic Dialectic". He would catch hold of a person from the market place who was eloquently haranguing about justice or goodness and questioned what he meant by the Just or the Good. When the opponent gives an instance of what is just or what is good and defines the concept on the same principle, Socrates would confront him with an exception to that definition. This would force the opponent to modify his definition. This process of debating will go on till the opponent gets confounded in the debate and is made to confess that after all he was ignorant of the nature of the fundamental concepts, By this process of cross-examination Socrates exposed the utter vanity and hollowness of the so-called learned Sophists of Athens. Then he realised himself and made others realise how shallow was the knowledge of the socalled scholar. That was why he obtained the singular testimony from the Delphic Oracle that he was the wisest man living because he knew that he knew nothing. This process of dialectical analysis so successfully employed by Socrates resulted in the building up of the Athenian Academy which

Page #17

SAMAYASARA
gathered under its roof a number of ardent youths with the desire to learn more about human personality and its nature.
Plato, a disciple and friend of Socrates, was the most illustrious figure of the school. In fact all that we know about Socrates and the conditions of thought about that period are all given to us by Plato through his immortal Dialogues. He systematized the various ideas revealed by his inaster, Socrates. He constructed a philosophical system according to which sense-presented experience is entirely different from the world of ultimate ideas which was the world of Reals. He illustrates this duality of human knowledge by his famous parable of the cave. According to this parable, human being is but a slave confined inside a cave chained with his face towards the wall. Behind him is the opening through which all-illuminating sunshine casts shadows of moring objects on the walls of the cave. The enchained slave inside the cave is privileged to see only the moving shadows which he imagines to be the real objects of the world. But once he breaks the chain and emerges out of the cave he enters into a world of brilliant light and sunshine and comes across the real objects whose shadows he was constrained to see all along, Man's entry into the realm of reality and realization of the empty shadow of the sensepresented world is considered to be the goal of human culture and civilisation by Plato. Instead of moving in the ephemeral shadows of the sense presented world, man ought to live in the world of eternal ideas which constitute the scheine of Reality presided over by the three fundamental Ideas-Trutlı, Goodness and Beauty. This duality of knowledge necessarily implies the cluality of human nature. Man has in himself this dual aspect of partly living in the world of realities and partly in the world of senses. The senses keep him down in the world of shadows whereas his true nature of reason urges him on to regain his immortal citizenship of the ultimate world of ideas. On the basis of this conflict of reason and the senses, Plato builds up a theory of ethics according to which man should learn to restrain the tendencies created by Senses through the help of Reason and ultimately regain his lost freedom of the citizenship in the world of Ideas. The two worlds which he kept quite apart, the world of ideas and the world of sense-perception, were hrought into concrete relation with each other by his successor Aristotle who emphasised the fact that they are closely related to each other even in the case of concrete human life. Human personality is an organised unity of both reason and sense and hence the duality should not be emphasised too much to the discredit of the underlying unity in duality.
A few centuries after Socrates, we find the same metaphysical draina enacted in the plains of Palestine. The Jews who believed to be the chosen people of Jehovah claimed the privilege of getting direct messages from Him through their sacred prophets, the leaders of the Jewish thought and religion,

Page #18

INTRODUCTION
On account of this pride of being the chosen people they maintained a sort of cultural isolation from others whom they contemptuously called Gentiles. A tribe intoxicated with such a racial pride had the unfortunate lot of being politically subjugated by more dominant races such as the Egyptians, the Babylonians, and finally the Romans.
CHRISTIAN THOUGHT
When Palestine was a province of the Roman Empire ruled by a Roman Governor there appeared among the Jews a religious reformer in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. As a boy he exhibited strange tendencies towards the established religion and ethics which sometimes inystified the Jewish elciers congregated in their temples and places of Worship. After his twelfth year we kuow nothing about his whereabouts till he reappears in the age of thirty in the midst of the Jews with an ardent desire to communicate his message. When lie began his mission, the Jewish society was marked by an extreme type of formalism both in religion and ethics. The scholars among them who were the custodians of the religious scriptures-- Pharisees and Scribes were so much addicted to the literal interpretation of their dogmas and institutions that they pushed into the background the underlying significance and spirit of the Hebrew thought and religion. In such a society of hardened conservatives, Jesus of Nazareth first appeared as a social curiosity evoking in them an intellectual shock which ended in hatred. Here was a person whose way of life was a challenge to the established traditions of the Hebrew religion. He freely moved with all classes of people, disregarding the social etiquette. The elders of the Hebrew society therefore were shocked when they found the so-called reformer moving freely with the publicans and sinners. When challenged he nerely replied that only the sick required the healing powers of a doctor. He was once again questioned why he openly violated the established rules of conduct according to the Hebrew religion. He answered by saying. Sabbath is intended for man and not inan for Sabbath, thereby proclaiming to the world in uinistakable terms that the various institutions, social and religious, are intented for helping man in his spiritual development and have no right to smother his growth and impede his progress. He enthroned human personality as the most valuable thing, to serve which, is the function of religious and ethical institutions. He told the Pharisees and Scribes frankly that the kingdom of God is within. Though in this conflict between the new reformer and the old order of Pharisaism the latter succeeded in putting an end to the life of the new leader, they were not able to completely crush the movement. His disciples recruited from the unsophisticated Jewish society firmly held fast to the new ideas of the Master and went about all corners of the country publishing this new message.

Page #19

SAMAYASĀRA
Froin the Roman province of Palestine they made bold to enter into Rome the very capital city of the empire and ardently preached what they learnt from their Master. They were suspected to be a subversive organisation and persecuted by the Roman authorities. Undaunted and uncrushed by persecution the movement was carried on in the catacombs till the new idea perineated to a large section of the Roman population. The Romans liad hitherto a naive real stic form of religion after the pattern of the Greek Religion of the Homeric Period. The advent of Christianity resultech in the breaking down of these primitive religious institutions of the Romans. This breakdown of traditional Roman religion brought many recruits to the new faith from the upper strata of Roman society, till it was able to convert a inember of the Imperial household itself. The condition of the Roman suciety was extremely favourable to this wonderful success of the new faith.
The Roman Empire which had the great provincial revenues pouring into the Imperial Capital converted the Roman citizens from ardent patriots of the Roman Republic into debased and demoralised citizens of the line perial Capital sustained by the doles offered by the provincial pro-consuls. They were spending their time in witnessing demoralising entertainments and in luxuries. For example, the Roman citizens were entertained in the amphitheatre to witness the slaves being mangled and torn by hungry lions kept starving for this purpose. It is no wonder that such demoralised social organisation completely collapsed when it had the first onslaught froin a more powerful idea and certainly a more soul-stirring message.
The Roman Empire became the Holy Roman Empire in which there was a coalition of the authority of the States with that of the Church. This Holy Roman Empire which had the Church and the State combined had rendered wonderful service to the whole of Europe by taking the barbarian hoardes of various European races and converting them into chivalrous Christian knights by a strict religious discipline imposed on them by the various self-sacrificing orders of the medieval monasteries. This cclucation of the inferior races through strict discipline enforced by the Roman Church Tad in its own turn a drawback cautioned against by the founder of Christianity. The Roman Church so jealously guarded its power influence that it did not promote any kind of free intellectual development suspected to be of a nature incompatible with the established traditions of the Church. This process of disciplinary suppression of the development of human intellect went for several centuries which are designated as the "dark ages' by the historians of Europe. But human intellcct can never be permanently suppressed like that.

Page #20

INTRODUCTION
RENAISSANCE
There were murmurs and revolts within the Church itself. The unwarranted assumption of the priest-craft that it forined the intermediary between man and God was openly challenged. This inovement of reforin within the Church had strange co-operative forces from other sources. In the field of astronomy, Copernicus introduced his new and modern conception of the constitution of the Solar system which completely displaced the old Ptoleymaic astronomy accepted by the Church. The earth which was considered to be the centre of the Universe around which the heavenly bodies moved for the purpose of shedding light on the earth's surface, was relegated to a minor planet among the several planets revolving round the sun which forins the centre of the Solar system. This astronomical revolution suddenly introduced a new angle of vision opening up immense possibilities of research revealing the wonders of an intinite Universe.
Similarly the discovery of the new world by Columbus introduced a revolution in geographical knowledge revealing new routes of travel and conquest unknown to Alexander the Great, who had to turn back from the banks of the Inclus because his army would not inove any further, as they thought they were approaching the ends of the earth. To add to these two discoveries there was the flight of the Greek scholars towards Rome as a result of the conquest of Constantinople by the Turks. These Greek scholar's carried with them rich treasures of Athenian culture, which was a revelation to the starved intellect of the medieval Europe, an intellect which had nothing but the Christian Bible and Aristotle's logic to feed upon. This wonderful Athenian culture and civilisation had produced a fervou of enthusiasm among the few thinking individuals of medieval Europe who devoted themselves to the development of the new arts such as architecture, sculpture, painting, music etc. The whole inovement is called Renaissance or the rebirth, when man discovered his true nature. This movement of Renaissance incorporated with the religious Reformation ushered in the new world of Europe which was so fruitful of important results, such as the origin and growth of modern science, a new intellectual development which completely transformed the modern world. The growth of modern science resulted in a conflict between the established religion and the new Thought.
The intellectual development just after the Renaissance took two different forms, one associated with Francis Bacon, who emphasised the importance of experimental method adopted by science, and the other associated with Descartes who emphasised the mathematical method as the necessary intellectual discipline for the reconstruction of philosophy.

Page #21

SAMAYASARA
BACON AND SCIENTIFIC METHOD
Francis Bacon who felt the inadequacy of the old Aristotelian method of intellectual discipline proposed a new method suitable for modern scientific research, in his book called Novum Organon'—The New Instrument. This new method suitable for scientific research, Bacon describes in detail. According to him it should neither be purely iinaginary as the spider's web spun out of its own body nor it should be merely mechanical collection of facts by observations like the ant. Scientific method inust aclopt the way of the honey-bee which collects materials from various sources and transforins them into useful honey. Such an intellectual transformation of facts observed will ultimately unlock the secrets of Nature for the benefit of man. Such a discovery of Nature's secrets for the purpose of utilizing them for social reconstruction ought to be the ideal of science according to Bacon. In order to successfully apply such a scientific method, Bacon prescribes certain conditions as a necessary intellectual preparation. Generally the mind of a scientist may be crammed with certain traditional beliefs and superstitions. Such preconceived notions which Bacon calls Iclola' shoull be entirely got rid of and the student of science should approach Nature with ari unbiassed open inind which alone will give a correct insight into the Laws of Nature. This experimental method prescribed by Bacon if adopted by a student of science will give inductive generalisations relating to the constitution of Nature and her Laws, generalisations which would be of a certain amount of high probability. Though the inductive generalisations arrived at by scientific research do not have the absolute certainty, characteristic of mathematical propositions, they were considered by Bacon to be of great practical value for the benefit of mankind. This attitude has been perfectly justified by the development of modern science with the practical application of scientific generalisations which have transformed the life of man in the modern world. Such a reconstruction of human society based upon scientific achievements was foreseen by Bacon in his essay on the New Atlantis. This new experimental approach to Nature has conquered for science, realm after realm, departments of Nature as Astronomy, Physics, Chemistry, Geology etc. This successful conquest of the realms of Nature by science resulted in complete elimination of mind of man as a factor for interpretation of natural events. This elimination of consciousness completely from the field of research ultimately resulted in scientific reconstruction of Nature as a huge mechanical system in which the Law of Causation was the only principle of operation. In this mechanical system all events are guided by necessary causal conditions. There is no scope of intellectual interference either to modify or to suppress the occurrence of natural events according to the desires of inan. The old thought which entertained the possibility of interference

Page #22

INTRODUCTION
with the natural events by supernatural agencies was completely discredited as a pure mythology having no place in the realm of Nature, whose constitution is revealed to the student of Science. This inductive method adopted by modern science finally resulted in the generalisation of conservation of mass and energy as the basis of nature and in relegation of consciousness to an extremely suborclinate place as a sort of a by-product in the operation of natural events. Such a generalisation suggested by the physical science was also adopted by Charles Darwin to explain the phenomena relating to the animal kingdom. He also fell in with the general trend of physical science and formulated his famous Law of Evolution, based upon natural selection and survival of the fittest. This principle of explanation of the origin of species also relegated consciousness as an unnecessary factor not required for the explanation of life phenomena which he considered to be quite intelligible on the same principle of mechanical Law of Causation. This intellectual attitude which attempted to explain both the organic and the inorganic realms of Nature purely on the principle of mechanical Law of Causation was designated Naturalisin as contrasted with prescientific thought which introduced supernaturalism. Such was the state of modern thought at the end of 19th century. But this triumph of Naturalism was openly challenged in the beginning of the 20th century especially by Biologists and Psychologists who exposed the inadequacy of the naturalistic method of interpretation in dealing with biological and psychological phenomena. This open challenge to Naturalism which started in the beginning of the present century had led to the recognition of consciousness as an important factor in the evolution process of both biological and psychological and restored consciousness to its own status of dignity and importance. Such a challenge and the consequent recognition of the importance of consciousness which is relevant to our general enquiries as to the nature of the self will be dealt with later on.
CARTESIANISM MATHEMATICAL METUODS
In the meanwhile let us turn to Descartes. He was a mathematician and philosopher and he formulated another method necessary for the reconstruction of philosophy. Being a mathematician he wanted to reconstruct metaphysics on certain foundation. Just as Euclid started with certain undeniable and axiomatic propositions on the basis of which he raised the whole structure of mathematics, Descartes opened to examine human experience and discovered some absolutely certain and uncleniable propositions as the foundation for metaphysical reconstruction. Like Bacon he also prescribes certain preliminary conditions as necessary preparation for such a course. He examines the contents of human experience in order to find out whether there is anything of the nature of mathematical certainty, which cannot be

Page #23

SAMAYASĀRA
challenged by anybody. All the traditions and principles accepted on the authority of a great person or of the Church, principles and beliefs on which the religious and moral aspects of human life are based, he found to be open to challenge and denial. The very fact that every religious dogma or moral principle has a rival or opponent in another system reveals the inadequacy of such religious beliefs. Since they lack the absolute certainty of mathematical propositions they could not be taken as the basis for philosophical reconstructions. Even the sense presented world Descartes finds to be inadequate as the world of sense-presented experience is liable to illusions and hallucinations and hence the object of the sense-presented world cannot be taken to be of absolute certainty. Thus step by step he clears the whole of human experience as inadequate foundation for philosophy according to his mathematical principle. Is there no intellectual salvation ? Does such a sceptical analysis of our experience leave nothing to the student ? Descartes says there is one thing which is absolutely certain. Even if we doubt every item of experience the act of doubt cannot be denied. That there is thought even when in the process of challenging experience must be accepted as an undeniable fact. If we accept thinking as an undeniable fact we have necessarily to accept some entity which is responsible for such a thinking-Thus he arrived at the famous conclusion Cogito Ergo Sum-I think, therefore, I am. Such a sceptical analysis through which Descartes approached the problem of metaphysics led him to the thinking self as of absolute certainty whose reality cannot be doubted at all. This principle of Cogito Ergo Sum forms the foundation of what is known as Cartesianism, a philosophical reconstruction just after the Renaissance in Europe.
Because thought exists therefore the soul exists, is a proposition which emphasises the relation between a substance and its essential attribute. The principle of cogito is an inference from the reality of an essential attribute to the substance in which the attribute inheres. The metaphysical bedrock on which Descartes wanted to raise a superstructure was thus arrived at through a sceptical analysis of human experience. Having arrived at this inevitable conclusion Descartes tries to bring back all those ideas which he dismissed as improbable and unreal. When he examines the contents of thought he is able to perceive certain icleas entirely clistinct in nature from the ideas acquired through sense-perception. The latter are only contingents whereas the former are found to be necessary and certain. All ideas relating to mathematics are such necessary ideas, These cannot be contradicted; hence they are absolutely certain. Such necessary ideas which he calls "innate" must be traced to a different origin altogether. One of such ideas which he chooses for investigation is the idea of a perfect and infinite Being, God. Man could not have acquired

Page #24

INTRODUCTION
this idea through sense perception. Nor is it possible for him to construct such an idea from elements supplied to him by the senses. Hence he concludes that this idea of a perfect and infinite Being must be an item of thought from the very beginning of man. Man from the very moment of his origin should have started with this idea and hence Descartes infers that this idea necessarily leads to the conclusion that there is a real being who is the original of this idea- God. He stamped his own mark on man from the very beginning. By such an argument Descartes emphasises the reality of a perfect and infinite Being, God, besides the thinking substance, Soul, whose reality he established through the famous cogito. Given the reality of Soul and God, the rest of experience which he dismissed as unreal is brought back again. The external world which, he dismissed on the supposition that it might be due to sense deception is now recognised to be real, for sense deception would be a blot on the character of the Creator-the Perfect Being. Such a being cannot indulge in deceiving his creatures. Hence the external world must be accepted to be real. The reality of the external world though admitted to be real is considered to be entirely distinct from the soul. The external world which consists of material objects is made up of a different substance altogether-matter, whose essential attribute is extension. Thus Descartes recognises two distinct substances, the thinking thing and the extended thing. These two substances constitute the whole of reality. The physical realm made of extended things is entirely based upon the mechanical principle of causation. Any event in this physical world is necessarily conditioned by appropriate physical antecedents. Human body as a part of this realm of extension is controlled by the same physical law of nature, whereas the soul and its behaviour since they are guided by a different system of laws are not subjected to the operation of physical laws. This duality consisting of thinking things and the extended things forms the main characteristic of Descartes' philosophy. Though he recognises that these two substances are present in a human being, his body a part of physical realm and his soul the thinking substance related to his body, he does not consider that the rest of the animal kingdom is of this type. The animals have no soul. The animal body being thus unrelated to the thinking substance, is considered to be purely a mechanical apparatus, unguided by a thinking thing. The animal is a soulless physical automaton. This Cartesian belief persisted till the end of the second half of the 19th century when the Biologists proclaimed the fundamental unity of the animal kingdom and emphasised the kindred nature of the man and animal. Once again we have to emphasise that the thinking substance or the soul is the central doctrine of Cartesian philosophy and this is relevant to our study of the self.

9
His successor Malebranche took up the problem relating to the nature
2

Page #25

SAMAYASARA
of man. According to Descartes man has a dual nature, his body belonging to the realm of extension is associated with the soul which belongs to another realm altogether. Each is a closed system controlled by the operation of distinct laws. In spite of this distinctness the behaviour of man illustrates the strange phenomenon that a particular change in the mind produces a corres ponding change in the body and vice versa. How could there be such a relation between two things which are absolutely distinct from each other in nature and attributes. The body is subject to the laws of the external world, the mind is the subject to the psychological laws and strangely these two appear to be related in the human being. This is a problem for Malebranche to explain, How could there be a correspondence between an event in the physical realm and an event in the mental realm when they belong to the isolated systems. The solution offered by him consists in his throwing the responsibility on the shoulders of God for maintaining such a correspondence between events belonging to two different and isolated systems of reality.
10
According to Malebranche, God so arranges things that there is a parallel and harmonious correspondence between events in the physical realm and events in the psychical realm. Such a solution of a harmony secured through divine intervention was found inadequate. His successor Spinoza, the famous God-intoxicated philosopher took up the trend of thought as left by Malebranche and developed to a wonderful pantheism. He found the dualism of substances, thinking thing and the extended thing, which was the legacy of Descartes to be an inadequate explanation of experience, necessitating the intervention of a third substance to make the relation between the two intelligible, Spinoza thought such a multiplication of substances to be purely unnecessary. According to Spinoza there is only one substance, God, endowed with a number of attributes of which the extension and thought are but two important attributes. All physical objects in the external world are but modifications of this ultimate substance through the attribute of extension and all the living beings, the souls are again the modifications of the ultimate substance through the other attribute of thought. The theory of harmony through divine intervention introduced by Malebranche for the purpose of explaining human behaviour was considered to be quite irrelevant and unnecessary by Spinoza. Man being a modification of the ultimate substance must exhibit corresponding changes both in extension and thought, the ultimate substance being the necessary condition for corresponding changes. Thus the thinking substances with which Descartes started passed through the two natured man of Malebranche and ended with the all-absorbing pantheism of Spinoza. The Spinozistic pantheism though extremely fascinating did not last long. It reduced human personality to an entirely inadequate and unimportant position

Page #26

INTRODUCTION
11
and whenever there is such a deterioration of human personality there is always the inevitable reaction. The Spinozistic pantheisın which absorbed all thinking things and reduced them to non-entities was followed by Leibniz' monadism.
Leibniz wanted to restore the reality of individual personality. He did not relish the theory of an all-clevouring ultimate substance. Hence according to Leibniz the whole system of reality consisted of inonads or individual units, some of which are thinking monads and others with a dorinant thought. Thus though thought is the necessary characteristic of all monads it was explicitly present in some monads and in others it existed in a latent form. These latter monads whose thought was latent practically appeared to be unthinking substance and thus constituted the physical realm. The unity emphasised by Spinoza between the external world and the thinking souls was thus retained by Leibniz though he threw overboard the ultimate Gud substance which Spinoza introduced to bring about the unity. According to Leibniz the unity is the identical nature of the monads thxoughout the realm of reality, though some of these constituted the apparently unthinking physical objects as contrasted with the thinking monads or souls. Thus at one stroke, the ultimate God substance of Spinoza was split up into an infinite number of monads, all identical in kind though they appeared with different degrees of developments. This theory which reduced the world to an infinite number of monads has introduced a problem in itself. Leibniz' monad was considered to be completely self-sufficient. Developinent of thought was purely an internal affair. Even in the matter of sense presentation Leibniz does not believe that the monad has an access to the external world. The monad is windowless and completely shut up within itself. There is no external world or internal world in the case of monads. The monads being completely windowless and shut up, how could they have a common object of perception ? Several individuals may perceive the same tree or stone in the external world. Monads being windowless, the common perception of single object in the external world will remain unintelligible because there is no perception at all, inuch less a common perception. Perception is an inner development in the monad and hence the supposed coinmon perception of the same thing in the external world could only be interpreted as a correspondence in the perceptive consciousness of the various windowless monads unrelated to one another. Here Leibniz introduces his theory of pre-established harmony which is merely a modified forin of Malebranche's theory of divine intervention. When the monads were first created they were so arranged that each developed in its own way and maintained a correspondence with the other monads which developed in their own way.

Page #27

12
SAMAYASARA
In order to illustrate this pre-established harmony, Leibniz compares Monads to several clocks which may show the same time though unconnected with one another. The different clocks may be wound up and may be set up at a particular time and they will all show the same time at subsequent periods, not because they are connected with one another, but because their mechanism is so constructed that they are bound to show an inevitable correspondence. This he calls pre-established harmony which he introduced for the purpose of explaining the mysterious correspondence in experience ainong the various windowless monads,
THE ENGLISH EMPIRICISM
Let us turn to the empirical philosophy of Locke, Berkeley and Hume. Here we have a complete change of attitude. Instead of trying to understand the nature of the substance, the Ego, the English empirical philosophers confined themselves to the analysis of human understanding. Technically there is a shift from the ontological point of view to the epistemological point of view. Here is an attempt to comprehend the nature of the self by trying to analyse the nature and the process of knowledge and by examining the nature of the contents of knowledge. We saw that the Cartesian philosophy was based upon what is called in the innate idea, the idea of the Supreme and the infinite Being. The Cartesians recognised the importance of such necessary ideas besides sense perception. But the English empirical philosophers start with this assumption that there is nothing in the mind which was not obtained through the senses. Hence all the contents of the human understanding may be traced to sense perception. The mind itself is compared to a sort of photographic carnera with the sensitive plate inside the mind on which the sense impressions are created by the stimuli from the environment. What the mind perceives is just the impression on this sensitive plate caused by the objects in the external world. The mind itself being a passive receptacle of impressions from outside and the contents of the mind must be ultimately traced to the inpression caused by external objects. Starting with this assumption Locke tries to make a distinction among the inpressions so created by external objects. Some of the characteristics of these sense impressions or images in the mind such as colour, taste, smell, etc., are dependent upon the nature and function of the sensory organs. These qualities are referred by the mind to the external objects. These are called secondary qualities as contrasted with the primary qualities of extension etc. The spatial object perceived by the senses thus appears to be a complex constituted by the spatial properties of extension, solidity--- etc., and the sense created properties of colour, taste, smell etc. According to Locke, the latter secondary qualities are purely mental and are present in the

Page #28

INTRODUCTION
13
nund alone though they are referred to external objects. The object existing in space has only space qualities without these secondary qualities. Thus the external object is analysed into two groups of properties, the primary properties residing on the object in the external world and the secondary qualities as colour, taste and smell are really present in the mind though referred to the external object by the mental habit. By this analysis Locke emphasises the importance of the stimuli from the external world and reduces the mind or the self to a tabula rası an inactive passive receptacle for impressions and converts the objects of the external world into colourless entities though endowed with spatial properties. This bifurcation of experience partly consisting of colourless external objects and partly consisting of mental inpressions inside the consciousness is taken up by his successor, Berkeley.
Berkeley, being a clergyman is influenced by his religious predilections. He is not satisfied with Locke's classification of properties as primary and secondary. Even the spatial properties which Locke considers primary and which are supposed to reside in the external world are really dependent upon the nature and function of the perceiving agent. Intrinsically there is no distinction between the spatial qualities of the object and the properties of colour, taste and smell. The whole group of properties thus being taken to be mental images the only form of reality consists of a number of perceiving spirits for there is no external reality of objects. The spirit and its ideas constitute the experience of the individual self and the whole world and the nature is but the perceived body of the supreme spirit, God. Just .as one individual spirit appears to another individual spirit as an embodied entity so the supreme spirit of God appears to the individuals as the world of Nature which is really the body of God. Thus according to Berkeley, the external objects cease to exist and the reality consists of individuals, spirits presided over by the Supreme Spirit. One spirit appears to another in the form of body whereas the body itself is really the mental image in the inind of the perceiving spirit. What we are sure about is our own self. Our knowledge of the external world is based upon an inference from the directly perceived ideas or images inside the mind and even that inference is unwarranted and erroneous. What we surely know is our own spirit and the ideas present in mind which we wrongly assume to be the objects of the external world. This empirical idealism of Berkeley is taken up by the Scottish philosopher, Hume.
Hume, is not influenced by religious bias. He carries the empirical analysis rigorously to its logical conclusion. He accepts Berkeley's analysis of the external world as sound. The contents of the mind are but ideas. Imagining then to be objects in the external world is certainly unwarranted and erro

Page #29

14
SAMAYASARA
neous as is maintained by Berkeley. But Berkeley's certain assertion about the nature of the spirit is but the result of religious prejudices. Berkeley must have directed his attention towards this nature of spirit. If he had done so he would have obtained à different result. "For whenever I turn my attention inwards", says Hume, "I stumble upon some idea or other and what they call the Soul I am not able to perceive". Thus when experience is thrown into the crucible of philosophical analysis by Hume not only the external world disappears but also the supposed undoubted entity called the spirit or the self which could not withstand the logical analysis of experience. According to Hume therefore consciousness consists of successive ideas or images, a stream of psychic entities and nothing more. Belief in the spirit or the soul is as unwarranted as belief in the external objects. Belief in these instances is but a psychological habit which could not stand the test of rational analysis. The popular assumptions of the external world and the existence of a self are thus dismissed to be unwarranted social prejudices by Hume, social prejudices which cannot be accepted as philosophical truths. Thus Locke's empiricism ends logically in Hume's Nihilism according to which there is no reality except the stream of conscious ideas. As a result of this nihilistic conclusion Hume is bound to discard even the Law of Causation which is the bedrock of modern science. The belief that events in nature are inevitably determined by their antecedent causal conditions is also taken to be purely a habit of the mind having no rational foundations. The fact that A precedes B on so many occasions creates in the mind the habit to expect B whenever A occurs and on account of this habit A is called the cause of B..
Beyond this mental habit of expecting B whenever A occurs there is no rational connection between A and B. There is no reason why B may not occur after X or Y. There is no fundamental reason to prove that B will occur only after A and not after any other events X or Y. Therefore the Law of Causation which is made so much of by modern science is also converted by Hume's analysis to be a popular prejudice based upon the mental habit having no rational foundation. This nihilistic conclusion of Hume is exactly parallel to the Buddhistic conception of experience in Indian thought. Buddhism also is a sort of Nihilism for which neither the external world nor the Self or Atma has any reality. What really exists is a stream of momentary and mental impressions and nothing more. Thus the English empiricism practically ends in the denial of both the self and the external world.
THE GERMAN IDEALISM
Hume's sceptical analysis resulted in reducing only the Law of Causation to an empty mental. habit but also in rejecting all propositions such as mathematical ones which are considered absolutely certain and unchallenge

Page #30

INTRODUCTION
15
able. Propositions in mathematics according to Hume depend upon the same mental habit which is the foundation of the Law of Causation. We have been accustomed to observe for example the angles of a triangle are together equal to two right angles. Merely because the fact that this proposition has been observed to be true in the past in all cases that we examined, it does not follow that it would be true in other cases. Thus even mathema- . tical propositions according to Huine are only highly probable statements but not necessarily binding on the human intellect to be absolutely true. This sceptical result obtained by Hume was the starting point of idealism. Immanuel Kant, the great German philosopher admits that he was roused from his dogmatic slumber by Hume. According to Kant, Hume's result though logically inevitable from the empirical assumptions shows the frustration of reason. Neither the dogmatic philosophy of Descartes nor the sceptical philosophy of Hume would be a satisfactory solution of the metaphysical problem. Kant therefore attempted to reconstruct metaphysics in such a way as to avoid both these extremes. As he himself confesses “The starry heavens above and the moral law within always fill me with awe and reverence'. His task as a philosopher therefore is to explain nature and constitution of the cosmos, and understand and explain the significance of the moral Law. The former he takes up in his first book of Pure Reason and the latter he takes up in his second book of Practical Reason. His attempt to salvage metaphysics from Humean scepticism constrains him to examine first the foundations of mathematics. Are the mathematical propositions really necessary and true or are merely contingent and probable statements ? He is not prepared to accept the latter alternative. Hence he concentrates his attention to find a suitable explanation for the necessary truth of mathematical proposition. According to Kant the typical mathematical proposition is associated with geometry. Hence for him space is the foundation of mathematics. The problem therefore resolves itself into the study of the nature of space and its properties. Locke's attempt to give space an independent existence in the external world proved to be futile in the hands of his successors, Berkeley and If space therefore is assumed to be an external entity then we have to get ourselves entangled in the inevitable scepticism of Hume. Hence Kant is compelled to adopt a new method. The external world no doubt is the region of sense stimuli. But the object perceived by the sense is the result of a combination between the stimuli supplied from the external source and the shape given to it by the mind itself. The contribution which the mind makes in the process of perception is the form of space. Space and time according tu Kant are the forms contributed by the mind while it is engaged in the process of perceiving external objects. The external world as seen by us is thus the result of two different factors, one the sense stimuli from an external source, the other the space which the mind impresses upon these sense

Page #31

16
SAMAYASARA
stimuli. Thus no object can become an object of perception for us unless it is compelled to take the form of space. Since it is the combined product of sense stimuli and space-form it necessarily follows that all objects perceived by us must necessarily have the form of space impressed on the materials by the mind itself. Spatial quality therefore becomes a necessary property with all perceived objects in our sense-presented experience. This world of experience therefore must necessarily conforın to spatial form and hence the objects of experience must necessarily be in conformity with spatial properties. If spatial forın is indispensable and necessary concomitant of physical objects, the space properties are similarly inevitable and necessary in a sense-presented experience. It automatically follows according to Kant that spatial properties, which are necessary and inevitable, form the foundation of mathematics. Hence mathematical propositions since they are based upon the properties of space must also share the nature of space and thus must be necessary and inevitable. Thus having secured a safe foundation for mathematical propositions, Kant next goes to further examine the implications of human understanding. Just as in the process of perceptual activity mind contributes the forms of space and time so also in the higher intellectual activity of understanding mind contri. butes certain other elements which he calls categories, the most important of which is Causation. Since the construction of experience is to be in conformity with the categories of human understanding they must be according to the pattern of causation which happens to be the framework of the whole edifice, according to Kant. Hence causation is the inevitable and necessary framework of human experience and events therein must necessarily happen according to this causal sequence on which the whole structure rests.
Thus after securing a foundation for the principle of causation in the very structure of human experience, Kant surveys the whole of experience which is the result of mainly the activity of the mind in contributing the forms and categories according to which the sense-materials are shaped and arranged. The sense-material which is thus fashioned into the human experience by the mind comes from beyond. What is the source from which this sense stimulus comes to the mind ? Have we any access to this? Kant frankly admits that this ‘Beyond' froin which sense stimuli proceed is · inaccessible to the mind and therefore not known. For according to him anything that is to be known by the mind must become a part of human experience and hence must be already subject to operational activity of mind and must bear its impression. Hence what is not so subjected to the intellectual operation must necessarily be unknown. This thing which is outside our experience and which is unknown and which is the source of sense stimuli, Kant calls the Thing in itself.' Similarly the mind we are aware of is the one engaged in its operational activity in the experience.

Page #32

INTRODUCTION
17
What the mind is when it is not so engaged in the fabrication of human experience is unknown, since it is also outside the human experience. Therefore the Ego in itself also is beyond our knowledge as the Thing-in-itself. The Ego in itself and the Thing-in-itself since both lie outside our experience.
ust necessarily be unknown to us and hence we cannot state anything about them. Nevertheless we are certain of their existence though we are not aware of their nature. This unknown region of the Thing-in-itself and the Ego in itself is the region of real existence according to Kant which is the 'Noumenal region as contrasted with the phenomenal nature of our experience. Thus our experience is confined to the phenomenal 'region whereas the Ultimate Reality is the region of Noumena of the thing-in-itself and the ego in itself. This result obtained by Kant is rather unsatisfactory. The ultimate region of reality remains unknown for ever and what we know is the phenomenal one which is merely an unimportant appearance resulting from the operation of the mind upon the stimuli supplied by thing in itself.
Thus we are destined to be shut up within the phenomenal experience never hoping to come out beyond this magic circle. Kant's attempt to salvage metaphysics from Humean scepticism thus results in an inevitable agnosticism according to which man can never know the nature of reality and inust be satisfied with the unimportant illusory appearance of the phenomenal world. In spite of this unsatisfactory conclusion, Kant proceeds with an undaunted spirit to reintroduce some of the important moral concepts which got exploded in the first part of his Critique of Pure Reason. The conclusion of the Critique of Pure Reason does not permit Kant to speak with any amount of certainty as to the nature of Ego, whether it is mortal or immortal, whether its ultimate destiny is to achieve the combination of virtue and happiness. He frankly says that according to pure reason we can never be certain about this. In his Critique of Practical Reason many of these concepts are adınitted by the back door which were driven out by the front door. He proceeds with the assumption that virtue must necessarily be associated with happiness. If virtue is not associated with happiness ultimately there can be no moral foundation at all. But in ordinary experience, virtue is not always associated with happiness. That is why in cases of weak men they forsake virtue in pursuit of pleasure, because they find that virtue is not always rewarded with happiness. This contradiction of moral experience, Kant attempts to solve by his metaphysical suggestion, the ultinate summum bonum of life necessarily be the combination of virtue and happiness. This would happen though not now ultimately in some far off future. If this proposition is accepted, it necessarily follows that the short span of life which man enjoys in the phenomenal world persists beyond the phenomenal birth and
3

Page #33

18
SAMAYASĀRA
death and hence the immortality of Self should be accepted if the moral proposition that virtue and happiness coincide somehow is to be accepted. . Thus according to Rant in order to justify moral life of our existence we are bound to accept the reality and immortality of the self which could not be guaranteed according to the pure reason of his first book. Thus in spite of the Agnosticism in his first book he attempts to restore the centre of gravity in the second book, the Practical Reason, where he tries to explain the reality and immortality of the Self and provides rational justification of his moral pursuit in search of happiness. In spite of his service to religion and morality his metaphysical system as a whole remains unbalanced since it rests upon a meaningless dualisın of Noumena, the Unknown Reality and the phenomena, the unimportant illusory experience, which is the only source of knowledge for us.
Kant's philosophy is taken up by his successor Fichte. Fichte directs his attention to the criticism of the Thing-in-itself. The Nourmenal world which was considered to be the Ultimate Reality by Kant which was also said to be unknown and unknowable Fichte considered to be an unnecessary metaphysical encumbrance. Why speak about the thing which is unknown and unknowable ? What is the value of your statement as to the existence of such a reality ? Since nothing is known as to its existence and its nature, Fichte dismisses that as unworthy of metaphysical consideration and confines himself to what Kant called the phenomenal world of appearance. Therefore Fichte recognised the ego and the phenomenal world which it constructs. He does not worry himself as to the source of the sense stimuli. What we are searching about is the world of the objective reality. This world of objective reality is the result of the activity of the ego. Why shonld the ego or the self indulge in creating such a phenomenal world of experience ? According to Fichte this is necessary because of the full moral growth for the self. The self creates the world of experience, a sort of moral arena in which it struggles in order to gain moral strength and to grow to its full stature of moral personality. Thus with Fichte there is nothing more than the self and the phenomenal world of experience which it creates for its own purpose; there is no other reality besides this. Thus Kantian idealism in the hands of Fichte turns out to be merely the self and the phenomenal world of experience which it creates, a result more or less same as the Berkeley's idealisın in English empiricism. This dismissal of the foundation of external reality and converting it into inerely an appearance created by the self was considered to be extremely unsatisfactory and it was rejected by his successor Hegel.
Hegel is one of the great world-thinkers. He saw how a careless analysis led to an unsatisfactory and incomplete system of metaphysics. He

Page #34

INTRODUCTION
19
was not satisfied with Fichte's moral idealism. Nor was he satisfied with Kant's bifurcation of reality into a thing-in-itself and the phenomenal world of appearance. The whole attempt of Hegel is to restore the ultimate unity of reality and to avoid the inconvenient corollary of mistaken bifurcation. He does not like to postulate the reality as unknown and unknowable far off froin the world of experience. He can't think of a reality detached from the world of experience. The reality must be in the world of experience and there must be an intimate relation between this reality and what Kant called the phenomenal appearance. The thing-in-itself dissociated from the world of appearance and appearance dissociated from the underlying reality, both are meaningless abstraction according to Hegel. The appearance is just the appearance of the reality and the reality cannot exist apart from and independent of its appearance which is but its manifestation. The contradiction between the reality and appearance is but the result of mental abstraction, and as such has no basis in a genuine metaphysics. The function of metaphysics is to understand the significance of our great experience and any conclusion that nullifies the reality of our experience must be selfcondemned. Hence Hegel tries to bring back the reality which was located in a far off beyond by Kant and restore it to its legitimate place in the world of experience, According to Hegel the great world of experience consists of organic entities which are characterised by continuous growth and development. Organic development is significant and symbolic of the nature of reality itself. What do we find in the nature of organism? What is the process of growth of a particular tree or a plant ? A seed that does not sprout out must be considered to be defunct and worthless. If it is to grow into a plant it must somehow change its nature as a seed breaking itself up so that the seedling may sprout out. The tender plant that comes out of the seed inust also change its nature and put on foliage. Further growth must necessarily depend upon sprouting out of the new leaves and shedding of the old ones. Thus the growth of an organism consists in a process of dying in order to live a combination of two opposite processes united and integrated in the life of the organisin. This process of organic growth which contains within itself the process of breaking up and building up while maintaining its intrinsic identity and unity is the central idea of Hegel's thought. He calls that “dialectic." According to this dialectic we have the thesis, the antithesis and synthesis. Thesis refers to the postulation of affirınation characterising this. Antithesis is just the opposite negation of this characteristic, and synthesis is the coinbination of the two processes in the same nature of organic identity. The growth of organisin is the illustration of this dialectical process. If you fix your attention to a particular stage in its growth you have to

Page #35

20
SAMAYASARA
postulate its nature at that moment. If what is true at that moment does not change but perpetuates itself then the plant will practically die. If it is to live it inust give up its nature and change into something else, It must shed off its own leaves and put on new sprouts. It must change. It must be displaced by antithesis. Without antithesis there cannot be growth, no reality. Yet the change must be consistent with its thesis. A margosa plant all of a sudden will not put on the characteristics of a mango tree. That will be a mass self-destruction. No reality in nature behaves in 'this erratic fashion. Even while the old leaves are shed off and the new sprouts are springing up, the intrinsic identity of the plant is not destroyed. There is a mysterious process of synthesis which maintains the ultimate identity and unity throughout the process of this change. This dialectical process which we found illustrated in the life of a single organism is taken to be a symbolic process of the whole of Reality. Viewed from this point of dialectic, the whole of reality of our experience is characterised by this process of change, a change which is held together by an underlying inevitable identical unity. Identity in the midst of difference, unity in the midst of multiplicity, reality in the midst of appearance are the significant phrases used by Hegel in describing the nature of Reality. To speak of identity in isolation from the diversity or unity apart from multiplicity or of a reality apart from appearance should be said to be an empty abstraction in the place of reality and these empty abstractions can never sustain their stability long, even though they are set up in metaphysical throne by careless thinkers. They must quit the realm of abstraction and come back to the world of experience where alone they can live and have significance. This realisation of reality in its proper place in the realm of experience and the recognition of its importance in the midst of appearance and diversity must be considered to be the greatest contribution of Hegel to modern philosophy. He accepts the Kantian doctrine that experience is the result of the activity of mind though he rejects Kartian abstraction of reality. When viewed from his own dialectical process this world of experience is but the appearance and the manifestation of the Ultimate Reality. The whole is an organic process of development the underlying reality being spiritual. He calls this Ultimate Reality, the idea. The great world of experience is the dialectical manifestation of this Ultiinate Idea. This Ultimate Idea is also called the Absolute, a term which has become more popular among the philosophers. The Absolute is Ultimate Reality, the manifestation of which is experience of this great world. The great world of experience therefore is considered by Hegel as an organic growth. Hegelianisin became very popular throughout the thinking world and practically all the European

Page #36

INTRODUCTION
thinkers have been influenced by Hegel's metaphysics. Absolutism of Hegel became dominant world concept. It immensely influenced the world in all the fortunes of life. Universities in England and in the continent of Europe and even in the distant America were subject to the influence of Hegelian Absolutism, and thinkers began to introduce Hegel's point of view and the dialectical development as a necessary panacea for the intellectual troubles created by the earlier thinkers. Besides its influence directed in the face of metaphysics which completely brushed aside the other forms of thought as English Empiricism, Kantian idealism etc.
21
Hegel's influence was felt in two important directions which led to the complete transformation, of the concept of State and concept of the society. When Hegel postulated that the Ultimate Reality is Absolute and the whole of our experience is the manifestation of this Absolute, every department of human activity including religion and morality is given a subsidiary place in this development of the Absolute idea. The most important manifestation of this Absolute according to Hegel is the state organisation. The state is the greatest and the highest manifestation of this absolute idea, and every other social organisation must subordinate to this. Even the Church must be subordinate to the State and religion becomes an instance in the manifestation of the state organisation. The ultimate result of this state absolutism of Hegel reduced human personality to the status of building material for raising the edifice of a state. Man is but a brick to be utilised for constructing the state edifice and besides this function there is no justification for the existence of man. This result is unfortunately the contradiction of the noble idealism of man by Kant who declared that man is an end to himself and should not be reduced to a means for any end. Hegel's Absolutism completely changes this picture and reduces man to be merely the material for building up the state. Man derives his significance and importance only because of his services to the state. Apart from the state organisation he has no significance and no right of independent existence. Thus from a genuine metaphysical contribution, a perverse political philosophy is developed which pervaded the whole European culture and civilisation and resulted in the two destructive world wars.

The other development of this Hegelian Absolutism is in the economic direction. Karl Marx, the founder of communism claims himself to be a disciple of Hegel. His masterpiece "The Capital" is the Bible of the Communist. He postulates that the socio-political development is according to the process of the Hegelian dialectic-materialistic. Tracing the growth of economic development up to 19th Century, he points out the intrinsic contradiction between capital and labour and emphasises the intrinsic identity and unity of both. The capitalist who controls the productive

Page #37

22
SAMAYASARA
machinery is but the creature of labour and as such should be made subordinate to labour which is the ultimate creator of wealth. The economic organisation which allows the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few capitalists who happen to control the productive industries and who engage thousands of labourers to run the machinery according to Marx is an iniquitous economic system.
Hence the restoration of the economic organisation according to Karl Marx must consist in restoring the true controlling agency to that power which creates wealth, i.e. the labour which creates wealth must necessarily be controlling agency of the capital and must run the industrial organisation. The creator of wealth must have the right to control it and to enjoy it. This economic revolution is also the result of Hegelian Absolutism in subjugating the organisation of society. Thus the modern civilisation of Europe which started with Hegelian Absolutism exhibits both the beneficial influence as well as the baneful influence of the Hegelian Absolutism.
2. Self in Indian Thought
Before we begin the systematic study of the Darśanas let us try to acquaint ourselves first with the general tendencies of Indian thought prior to the rise of Buddhism. All the available information is to be gathered from three sources. (1) The later Samhitas, the Brahmaņas, and the Upanisads. (2) Jaina literature, secular and religious. (3) Buddhistic literature, secular and religious. A broad survey of the first group certainly indicates the existence of a rival school of thought side by side with what may be considered the main current of orthodox thinking. This early protestant school among the Aryans had its important influence in moulding the thought of the Aryans in general, sometimes because of its strong opposition and sometimes because of sympathetic reconciliation. Roughly speaking this school of Aryan Protestantism may be associated with the Ksatriyas of the Ikṣavāku line whereas the Aryans of the Kurupañcala may be identified with the orthodox school. In this connection it is better to remember that the term orthodox simply means implicit acceptance of the ritualism of Vedic sacrifice whereas protestantism merely means opposition to the sacrificial ritualism either in a complete or a partial form. This Ikṣavāku house of Ksatriyas is associated with Ayodhya, in the country of Kosala. Purāņas as well as the literature of the Jainas and the Buddhists, all vie with one another in singing the praises of the kings of the Ikṣavāku line. It is enough to mention the fact that one of the two great epics of India is about an Ikṣavāku hero. The Ikṣavāku heroes have so much dominated the thought of the later Vedic period that about the time of Purāņas, some of the members of the Ikṣavāku line were elevated to the

Page #38

INTRODUCTION
23
avatāraship of Vişnu. In describing generally the characteristics of the Raghus, Kālidāsa says, "The Raghus during their youth are engaged in study, during the period of manhood are engaged in their daily household life, in old age renounce the household life and become Munis and finally relinquished the body after performing Yoga."
In Samhitās the Self or Atinan only means that Self existing in free m of Spirit. It is the Life of all lives and the moving power of all things. This idea of the Atinan is further elaborated in the Brāhmanas and the Upanişads until it is made to absorb all the other ideas and it means the only real existence. In the beginning the world was the Atman alone. There was nothing else near to it. It thought, "let me create the universe" and the universe was created. Here also Ātman figures as the Lord and King of all, “As the spokes of a wheel in the chariot so all the souls of the world are fastened in one, that Soul the Gods adore as the light of all lights. That Divine Self is not fully grasped by tradition nor by understanding nor by all revelation. It is he whom the Self chooses. By him alone is the Self to be grasped". Spiritual immortality consists in the perceiving of the Divine Self the Ātman as the only existing thing. The other conception that runs parallel to this until it finally becomes identified with it is the Brāhinana. In the Rg hymns Brāhmana signifies force or will. It means the sacred hymn or prayer invoking the aid of Gods. This hymn or Prayer is endowed with a mystic power, an occult force which inevitably binds the Gods towards men. This meaning of the word Brāhmana slightly changes and becomes applicable to the magic utterance at the sacrifice. Thus the term gets a new connotation, and the term itself most probably was derived from a different root Bịh which means to grow or spread. Finally it came to signify the priest who uttered the sacrificial mantra. Thus the term Brāhmana became identified with the sacrificial priest. Finally this terın is used to designate a person of a particular community whose general occupation would be sacrifice. The terın now became a term of masculine gender and that is the present significance in as much as it refers to a member of a particular caste. But from the original Vedic meaning of prayer or magic power of prayer there is another line of connotation ending with Upanişadic Brahman. The term Brahman in the sense of prayer is constantly used in the Vedic hymns and in the Brāhmaṇas. This magic power denoting some thing of spiritual order behind the visible universe forms the foundation of Brahman in the sense of God, though this import is not quite prominent in the period of the Rg Veda until it is explicitly present in the Brāhmaṇas. Brahman is spoken of as a God dwelling in the highest place whose head is the sky, whose measure is the Earth and it is this significance which becomes prominent in the Upanigadic.

Page #39

SAMAYASARA
period. Throughout the Upanişadic texts we find this as the ruling conception. Towards the close of the Upanişadic period there is the identification of Brahman with Atman. These terms are indiscriminately used to refer to the Ultimate Reality of which man and the nature are but the special manifestations. “From Him the universe springs, to Him it returns." “Thou art the Self of all and Maker of all." In Maxmuller's words, "It was an epoch in the history of the human mind when the identity of Self with the neuter Brahman was for the first time conceived though the name of the terms the Ultimate Reality which is the import of both is very often referred to as Sat-Existence. Tattvamasi ---That thou art. This famous Upanişadic formula represents the developinent and the final identification of the terms Atman and Brahman. Then it becomes a Transcendental concept thereafter. The significance of personality which was associated with Atman gets submerged in the neuter concept of Brahman. The Upanişadic Brahman is said to be beyond description. It can be described only negatively. It is not man or woman nor is it neuter. It is without breath, without mind, higher than the Highest, the Imperishable. The only adequate description we can have of this is Neti Neti-not this, not this. When we go to study the Upanişads in detail we shall see more of this.
The Age of the Upanisads- The Upanisadic age has certain marked characteristics peculiar to itself and not found either in the Samhitā or Brāhmaṇa period. During the Rg Vedic period the Aryans were mainly of a homogeneous society. Their Gods were magnified human beings actuated by human sympathies and sharing even human failures. The Vedic singer invoked their aid both in war and peace to fight the enemy and to promote his own prosperity. This age corresponds to the Homeric age in the Greek civilisation. All this primitive simplicity disappears when we enter into the Upanişadic period, Here we have a different order of society. We are no more with the Aryans whose life was mainly pastoral, whose wealth was cattle and who spent most of their time in offering sacrifices to Indra or Agni and drinking their favourite soma. To bring the Greek parallel once again we are quitting the world of Agamemnon and Odysseus and entering the world of Socrates and Euripides. Now we are concerned with a people already divided into different sects and we are face to face with a race highly contemplative. Sacrifices and rituals do not retain their importance though they are still extant. These persist merely as vestigial institutions preserved by tradition and custom. They ceased to be the genuine ideals of religion. The intellectual atinosphere is surcharged with sophistical idealism. In short, we are in the centre of the world of Indian sophists who are actuated by theoretic curiosity as to the nature of inan and the universe. With such a change in the body-politic of the Aryans, the old order must have elapsed.

Page #40

INTRODUCTION
25
We have already noticed the internal social differentiation even during the period of the Brāhmaṇas. The Vedic bard has somehow lost his enthusiasm for life. The joy of living present is somehow surreptitiously replaced by the ennui of life. Life in this world is nothing but a link in the endless .chain of births and cleaths. Link after link may coine and go but the chain will go on for ever. This mysterious whirlgig of life, endless and aimless rotation of births and deaths is considered by the Upanişadic thinkers as an evil to be avoided. The theory of transmigration and the corollary of karma have somehow taken possession of the thought of this age. Further the social organisation has resulted in the establishment of certian religious customs as well. Besides the differentiation into several castes the Upanişadic society recognisd four distinct stages of individual development. This evidentiy refers to a process of spiritual probation and development to which every one irrrespective of birth was entitled. The period of youth is to be spent as a Brahmacārī when the young man is to be educated under the personal guidance and supervision of a master. During this period he has to live away from his home in his master's áśram3. Learning and service are the only two occupations for him. Intellectual development of the highest order associated with personal humility would equip the individual to discharge his duties in the best possible manner. So equipped the Brahmacīri after education returns home and enters into the second stage of grhastha life. Now he becomes a householder and looks after his personal property, gets married and lives as a husband and father. As a member of the society then he does not forget his obligations. He fulfils socio-economic duties and thus contributes to the general welfare of society. But he is not to be here forever. He has to enter the third stage of his life. He is to become a parivrājaka or a religious mendicant wholly dev, ted to the spiritual affairs. Having served society well and to the best of his ability he now depends upon society for his maintenance devoting his whole time to philosophical research. Now he spends most of his time outside the grāma or nagara staying in the adjoining vana or woodland. On account of this habit of dwelling in the Udyānas or Vanas outside the city, the third stage is very often referred to as the stage of Vānaprastha. This is to be followed by complete renunciation which is the last stage--Samnyāsa which inarks the close of the spiritual development. The Upanişads and their associated Aranyakas perhaps refer to the third stage, Vänaprastha. It calls to our mind a picture of life closely akin to that of St. Francis of Assissi in the medieval Europe. His associates were the beasts and the birds of the forest. He had untrammelled spiritual peace, that pisseth understanding in the undisturbed solitude of forest full of charm. It is something like this that we have to imagine as the characteristic of the Upanişadic period. We are
,

Page #41

26
SAMAYASARA
ushered into a world of congregations of preachers and disciples, the former elaborately expounding, the latter reverently listening to the theosophic rahasya otherwise known as Upanişadic secrets. The change from the world of sacrificial ritual to the world of philosophic speculation brought with it new claimants to honour and Truth. The sacrificial mantras and the sacrificial procedure were mainly cultivated and practised by the priestly class during the earlier period. But the Brahma Vidyā or Ātman cult of the Upanişads has nothing in common with the recitation of sacrificial formuli. This new philosophic speculation seems to have had its origin in the king's courts. It is associated with the Ksatriyas on account of peace and prosperity or perhaps the fruits of life are eaten to surfeit by them. The Ksatriyas were the first to experience the emptiness of life and to turn their attention inwards in search of the underlying spiritual principle, Atman or Brahman. Whatever be the social conditions that brought about this new outlook on life this much is certain that the Ksatriyas of the Upanişadic age were mainly engaged in the speculaion about man and the universe whereas traditional sacrifices were still important to the priestly class. Perhaps this is not quite an accurate description. Even the priests could not escape the influences of this new thought. We see them therefore disturbed by this new discontent. They go about froin place to place, from thinker to thinker, with the object of getting initiated into the new wisdom, the Atina vidyā. This craving for the Brahma-vidyā becomes almost universal. The whole age is thrown into feverish activity intellectually and every one desires to participate in the new knowledge-par excellence as against the earlier learning associated with ritualism. Like a pillar of light this new parāvidya was leading the Aryans into the promised land of wonderful philosophical wisdom which constitutes the treasure of Aryan learning, and to which all the later systems of Indian thought point out with pride as the source of authority and inspiration.
The meaning of 'Upanişad'-The term as used in the Brühmaņas normally denotes the secrets of some word or text. But in the Brhadāran. yaka it is already used in the plural as the designation of a class of writings no doubt actual existing. Thus the term came to be used to denote the writing containing the secret doctrine. The exact primary sense of the term is doubtful. The natural interpretation of the word adopted by Max Müller makes the word mean first a session of pupils, hence the secret doctrine communicated to a select number of disciples. Secondly, it is the title of a work on such a secret doctrine. Oldenberg traces the word to the original sense of worship. According to this interpretation Upanişad primarily means a secret form of worship. Deussen combines both these interpretations when he explains the meaning of the word. For him the word originally

Page #42

INTRODUCTION
27.
meant a secret word or a secret text. Then it came to refer to secret import of secret doctrine. This order of meaning is improbable as is suggested by McDonald. The terın is explained by Saúkara in his commentary as that which destroys ignorance or that which leads to the knowledge of Brahman. Indian writers use the terın in the sense of secret doctrine or Rahasya. Upanişadic texts are generally referred to as Parāvidyā, the great secret. The Indian usage distinctly implies something secret. Further as Deussen points out it was an ancient custom all over the world to preserve certain important spiritual truths as a secret and to communicate them only to the initiated few. Among the Pythagoreans the philosophical doctrines were confined only to the meinbers of that order. Similar was the case during the medieval age. Numerous passages from the Upanişads point the same reference. There is internal evidence to show that Upanišadic truths were communicated to others with great discretion and very often with great reluctance. The father would select his eldest son as his fit disciple. If the disciple is a stranger to the master the applicant has to serve several years of probation before he can be initiated into the mysteries. Even among the learned men evidently all were not acquainted with the Upanişadic truths. These facts go to support the traditional meaning of the term Upanisad that it is a secret doctrine--that it is a Rahasya, sometimes in the primary sense of secret doctrine. These differences do not matter much. When the initiated talked to one another they must indicate their meaning only by signs which would be understood only by the initiated. This fact explains why the terın is used in the sense of a secret word or text.
The Date of the Upanişads--1000 to 500 B. C. :--The Upanişads do not form the composition of a single author. They are many in number. Most probably even a single Upanişad is due to the co-operation of several persons. The Upanişads taken as a whole collection would cover a period of several centuries. Some of the earliest Upanişads take us to the period of Vedic thought and rituals and some of the latest exhibit distinct traces of modern thought and would even bring us to the period of Mohaminedan rule in India. To ask for a chronology of the composition stretching across so many centuries would be neither scientific nor useful. Indian commentators such as Sankara recognised certain Upanişads as genuine and wrote commintaries on them. Scholars generally confine themselves to such Upanişads as are recognised by the well-known commentators. Even here there is no consensus of opinion. Tradition speaks of ten Upanişads; whereas different coinmentators mention different numbers. If we confine ourselves to the most important and the recognised ones we can say this much of their period of composition. They are distinctly anterior to the rise of

Page #43

28
SAMAYASARA
Buddhism. So we can safely mention that the Upanisads, the important of them at least, must be placed earlier than the 5th Century B.C. Can we say anything as to the beginning of these Upanisdas? The period generally accepted by Orientalists is about 1000 B. C. Hence the duration from 1000 to 500 B.C. would probably represent the period when the Upniṣads were composed.
15
The Origin of the Upanisads-An interesting controversy is associated with the origin of the Upanisads. We need not emphasise the fact that the Brahma Vidya of the Upanisads is quite opposed to Vedic ritualism based upon sacrifice. The question therefore arises, "How could this theosophic speculation be logically connected with the Vedic form of ceremonialism ?" Many important passages in the earlier Upanisads supply us with a clue. Thus in the Chandogya we find five learned Brahmins requesting one Oudgalya to instruct them concerning the Atman he confessing inability takes them to Aśvapati Kaikeya to whom all the six appeal for initiation into the Atmavidya. Again in Bṛhadaranyaka the famous scholar Gargya offers to expound the knowledge of Brahman to the king Ajàtasatru of Kāśī. But his explanation is rejected by the king as erroneous whereupon the Vedic scholar presents himself as a disciple to the king to be instructed in the knowledge of Atinan. The king does accor dingly prefacing his exposition with the remarks that it is a reversal of the rule for a Brahmin to enter himself as a pupil under a Kṣatriya in order to have Brahma knowledge expounded to him. Again in the Chandegya, a king figures as the teacher to a priest whom he addresses as follows:-"Oh Gautama! This doctrine has never upto the present time been in circulation among the Brahmins. Therefore in all the world the Government has remained with the warrior caste." From these passages scholars like Deussen and Garbe conclude with a very high degree of probability that the doctrine of the Atman standing as it did in such sharp contrast to all the principles of Vedic ritual was taken up and cultivated primarily not in the Brahmin but in the Ksatriya circle and was adopted by the former in later times. As against this view it is contended that Brahma Vidya had its origin in the earlier Vedic literature itself and that the Brahmins themselves had as much to do with it as the Ksatriyas. In order to understand the full significance of this controversy we have to. remember certain important and relevant facts.
Even earlier than the Upanisadic period, in the period of Brahmaņas we have traces of rivalry between Brahmins and Kṣatriyas. We need not go back to the legendary period of Visvamitra vs. Vasistha, when the former asserted his equality of status with the latter. What is contained in the Brāhmaṇa literature is much more historical than such legendary anecdotes.

Page #44

INTRODUCTION
29
We have a reference to an Aryan tribe in the countries of Kāśi, Kosala, Videla and Magadha. The terın Kāśi is used in plural to denote the people thereof. The Käsis and the Videhas were closely related because of proximity. Sometimes the Videhas were clubbed with the Kosalas. These were always considered by the Kurupāñcālas as a hostile group. It is a fair conclusion that between these two groups of people there did exist some political confiict, probably based upon some difference of culture. The Satapatha Brāhmaṇas in which occurs the story of the advance of Aryan civilisation over Kosala and Videha, preserves a clear tradition of its time and furnishes a piece of evidence that in the Kurupāñcāla country lay a great centre of Brahinana cult. Froin these it appears to have been brought to the countries of Kāśi and Kosala probably by the settlers of a later date. It is probable that the Eastern Countries were less Aryan than the West as they were less completely brought under Brahmin supremacy as the rival systems of Jainism and Buddhism indicate. Among the Kosalas, Videhas and Magadhas the Kşatriyas were ranked above the Bralumins. The social supremacy of the Kșatriyas in these countries is further corrob rated by the fact that the later Vedic texts display towards the people of Magadha a marked antipathy which may be reasonably explained by that people's lack of orthodoxy which may perhaps be traced as far back as Vajasaneya Sanhita. In this Sanhitā (the earlier of the Rg Samhitūs) we have a contemptuous reference to the current language used by the Magadhas which perhaps indicate the use of 'prākrt' in those parts. Even in the Brāhmana period there is reference to a prevalent unbelief which is deplored. «Then the unbelief took hold of men, those who sacrificed became more sinful and those who sacrificed naught became more righteous." "No sacrifice then came to the goals from the world." The gods thereupon said to Brhaspati Angirasa--"Verily unbelief has come upon men. Ordainst thou the sacrifice to be done." This Bfhaspati Angirasa seems to have accepted and thus revived the sacrificial culture. The Kșatriyas referred to in the Upanişads as the custodians of Upanişadic Rahasya are all of the Kosala Videha country. Ajitaśatru is the king of Kaśī, Janaka the king of Videha. The other important names mentioned therein also appear to be Kșatriya names. In Satapathia Brāhmaṇa there is a reference to the fact that king Janaka became a convert to Brahminism-a fact which indicates the traditional Brahıninical lore reasserting itself.
The founder of Buddhisin was himnself a Kșatriya of the Magadha country. He was a contemporary of Mahāvīra. This latter is claimed by the Jainas as the last of religious teachers. Orientalists generally accept this claim and suggest that his predecessor one Parávanātha was the real founder of Jainismn. Leaving open the question of the origin of Jainism we may note

Page #45

30
SAMAYASARA
the interesting fact about Mahīvīra's predecessor. According to Jaina tradition Pārsvanātha belongs to the ruling family of Kisi. His father was the ruler and his name was Visvasena. The relevant fact for us here is that one of the Ksatriya founders of Jainism belonged to Kisi. If we reinember that the central doctrine of Jainism "Ahinsī" originated as a protest against Vedic sacrifice, then we may not be far wrong if we maintain that the "Ksatriya heretics' referred to in the Brahmıņa literature were probably the earlier founders of Jainism. The Brāhmıņa literature as we already saw had a sinister reference to the people of Kāşi and Videha. The country of Videha also had a religious importance for the Jainas. Jaina tradition speaks of Videha as a Nityapunya Bhoo:ni, a place where Dharma is always flourishing. The Jaina teachers who succeeded Mahāvira, whenever they had any doubt on scriptural matters, went to Videhakşetra to clear these doubts. The Very place which is pointed as the abode of heterodoxy is held in high estcem according to Jaina and Buddha traditions. The unbelief referred to in Satıpıtha Brūlnıņa, the unbelief which mu ifests in opposition to the Brāhmanas, must therefore refer to some sort of Ksatriya movement that must have been prevalent in the countries of Videha and Magadha even prior to the rise of Buddhism. All these facts constitute strong circumsiantial evidence supporting the theory that Atma Vidyā--the central doctrine of Upanişadic culture first arose from the Ksatriya as a sort of protest against the Vedic sacrificial. ritualism, jealously defended by the Brahmins. Upanişadic thought is mainly influenced by the Ahinsa cult associated with Lard Rsabha, a cult prevalent in India even prior to the Aryan invasion. Since the Upanişadic thinkers have accepted this Ahinsa doctrine as superior to Vedic ritual'sm there was a spirit of compromise at that period. Except for rival claims for social doinination there was most probably no great difference between the Brahmins and the Ksatriyas of those ages. Both were Aryans and both defended their culture and civilisation from nonAryan inroads. This is substantiated by the fact that many learned Brahmins welcomed the new movement of Atina vidyż and were willing disciples under Kşatriya teachers to learn the new truth. If they had any antipathy to the new forin of faith they would have exhibited it. They would not have manifested so much eagerness to assimilate it. In fact about the time of Brhadiranyaka we find the tables are completely turned. Yajšavalkya great teucher in Byhadiranyakı figures as the towering personality. He, a Brahmin, becomes the instructor now and Janaka the king places himself as his disciple. This represents a later stage in the development of Upinişadic thought. Yajžavalkya being a master-intellect successfully incorporated the new doctrine into the old, Ksatriya protestant isın in the reforın of Atmi vidyā was completely assimilated that it ceased

Page #46

INTRODUCTION

to exist as an independent movement, a phenomenon which is often repeated in the later history of Indian thought; for example Sankara completely assimilated Buddhism which led to its extinction. This conjecture is further supported by the nature and development of the Upanisadic thought itself. On account of reconvertion of Janaka to the old orthodox ritualism which evidently implies an effected compromise between two rival schools, radical reformers of the extreme left had to secede entirely from the orthodox centre. They persisted in their protestantism and emphasised their opposition to sacrificial ritualism as a result of which we have birth of Buddhism. Reading facts in this light would agree well with the theory suggested by some oriental scholars on the evidence of the Upanisadic passages themselves that the Upanisadic doctrine of Atma Vidya first started in the Upanisads as a protest against the sacrificial rites of the Vedas and there afterwards assimilated and recognised by the priestly class as well.
The latter
The Fundamental Doctrine of Upanisads-We have already noticed the Vedic concept of Atman or Brahman. We have to touch upon two other doctrines,-Transmigration or metempsychosis and Karma. is in a way the corollary of the former. The doctrine of metempsychosis is peculiar to the age of the Upanisads. There is no trace of it in the Vedic period. So much so scholars are of opinion that the Aryans must have borrowed this from the non-Aryans. We know the Egyptians believed in the doctrine. It is certainly a difficult question to settle whether the Upanisadic thinkers borrowed this doctrine from non-Aryans or the Egyptians. Probably the truth is that they borrowed from non-Aryans who were living in the land at the time of Aryan invasion. They were evidently having a higher form of culture and thus they were champions of a more satisfactory doctrine of Self. The value of any theory depends upon its offering satisfaction to intellectual curiosity. Any theory of creation, any philosophy that retain the importance of human personality and maintains it to be an eternal principle will be forced not only to look forward to an infinite future but also to trace back to an infinite past. The human personality that is associated with the short span of the present, must somehow be related to a hoary past as well as a glorious future, making the present but a step in this spiritual evolution. It is this process of spiritual development that is the inner meaning of the doctrine of transmigration. It is because of the Truth of this principle of spiritual progress that the Indian mind persists in tenaciously clinging to that doctrine. If this is remembered then we can very well understand that the attitude of Gough and others is more guided by inborn prejudice than by an endeavour to intellectual appreciation. Upanisadic thought is not the babbling of a primitive race but it marks an important stage in the philosophic development of Indian
31

Page #47

SAMAYASARA
culture. Associated with this doctrine of metempsychosis is the doctrine of Karma. Samsāra, the cycle of births and deaths is supposed to be the result of Karma--as a man soweth so doth he reap. Sarnsāra for the Upanişadic thinker meint a meaningles chain of births and deaths heralding a gloomy prospect. The summum bonum of life for the Upanisadic thinker therefore consisted in liberation from this chain. The very terin Mokşa implies "Deliverance", "Liberation.” Pessimistic aversion may be present with an inborn optimism of the future, the inherent evil of Sainsāra and the implied possibility of Moksa. These constitute the correlative doctrine to that of Brahman which together form the message of Upanişadic thought. All the latter Indian systems in spite of their mutual differences are permanently based upon these ideas. This fact stands as an evidence of the unity of their origin, i.e. all the Indian systems are born of the Upanişadic speculations.
The Upanişads and the Western thinkers--The first knowledge of the Upanişads gained by European scholars is an interesting historical fact. A Mogul prince, one of Shah Jehan's sons,, evidently influenced by Akbar's dream of universal religion attempted to bring about a union between Hinduism and Islam. With this purpose he translated the Upanişads into Persian for the benefit of his coreligionists. A copy of this Persian translation was presented to a French scholar who was interested in the study of Zoroastrianism. This French scholar translated the Upanişads from Persian to Latin. This Latin version fell into the hands of Schopenhauer, who by personal ternperament and philosophic tradition was eminently fit to appreciate the philosophy of the Upanişads. It was he who first popularised its study among German students. He himself used them as a Bible. "It has been the solace of my life and I hope it will be the same in my death." The Upanişads peculiarly appealed to the German students, because they themselves at the time of Schopenhauer were in possession of a philosophy quite analogous to this.
Deussen on the Upanişads.-Speaking of the concepts of the Upanişads in their relation to philosophy, Deussen wiites : "'The whole of religion and philosophy has its root in the thought that the universe is only appearance and not reality. This fact that philosophy has from the earliest times sought to determine a first principle of the universe proves that it started from a more or less clear consciousness that the entire empirical reality is not the true essence of things, that in Kant's words is only appearance and not the thing-in-itself. There have been three occasions on which philosophy has advanced in a clearer comprehension of its recurring task and of the solution demanded. First in India in the Upanişads, again in Greece in the philosophy of Parmenides and Plato and finally at a more recent time in

Page #48

INTRODUCTION
33
the philosophy of Kant and Schopenhauer". Deussen adds : "Al great religious teachers therefore, whether in earlier or later times, nay even all those at the present day whose religion rests upon faith are alike unconsciously followers of Kant. The new testament and the Upanişads, the two noblest products of the religious consciousness of mankind are found, when we sound their deeper meaning, to be nowhere in irreconcilabe contradiction, but in a inanner the most attractive serve to elucidate and complete one another." The purport of these words of Deussen is that Kant's philosophical agnosticism is the last word in philosophy and that a religion not associated with Kantian metaphysics is far from being a genuine religion. It places the philosophy of the Upanişads on a par with that of Kant and Plato. If he wants to express his admiration of the philosophy of the Upanişads by comparing it to his own national philosophy we have nothing to quarrel about. He is at liberty to choose his own method of critical appreciation. He may quite well regard the philosophy of Kant and Plato as the only genuine philosophy. But when he says that the philosophy of the Upanişads is the same as that of Plato we have to protest. This is an unwarranted philosophical attitude with certain European scholars who started the study of Indian thought with the unwarranted assumption that the Advaita Vedāpta was the one fruit to produce which the whole of Indian life and culture conspired. This bias was further strengthened by the tendencies of European thought moulded by such German thinkers like Kant and Hegel. It requires no serious argument to show how unfounded the assumption is even if we admit for the sake of argument such an interpretation of the Upanişadic philosophy. We cannot consistently explain the claims put forward by other systems of Indian philosophy that they are also resting on the Upanişadic authority. The real fact is that all the Indian systems whether orth or heterodox are based upon the fundamental concepts of Upanişadic thought and that all have the right to claim the authority of their source. This simple fact of History cannot be denied in the face of so much preponderating evidence. To maintain that the Upanişadic thought is the Indian counterpart of Plats or Kant is quite an uuwarranted dogma sustained more by personil predilection than by objective evidence. Further Prof. Deussen justified in maintaining that Plato-Kantian idealis'n is the best system of philosophy. In spite of the beauty of conception and grandeur of diction Plato's idealism is but a temporary aberration of Hellenic thought which was brought to its equilibrium by his friend and disciple Aristotle. Similar is the case of Kant's transcendental agnosticism. It is but an episode in the career of modern thought quite unconnected with the course of modern culture. As against Deussen's obiter dictum we take the liberty to state that the idealism of Plato or Kant is distinctly of a modern thought and

Page #49

34
SAMAYASĀRA
marks but the refuge of the defeated intellect sustained more by personal mysticism than by logical necessity. Champions of such a philosophy of the type of Deussen always make the mistake of believing that any other form of philosophy will be incompatible with the highest aspirations of religious and moral culture. In short, they think that the only alternative to such an effective idealis:n is an inpossible materialism. It is because of this assumptiou that they try to escape into soine forın of idealism. The birth of idealisin is very often due to such intellectual confusion. In order to safeguard the eternal values of life from the alleged menace of materialism some thinkers propound the doctrine of idealistic metaphysics which ultimately results in nullifying the very eternal values. It ends in repudiiting the distinction between truth and error, good and evil and beauty and ugliness. Let us go back to Deussen. 'He makes the astounding proposition that the true religious philosophy must have as its background soinething of the Kantian transcendentalis.11. He says in so muy words that the value of a religion consists in its allegiance to a philosophy to which the concrete world is an illusion or māyā and life is but a mockery. There may be some kind of . religious satisfaction resting on such a metaphysics. But we doubt very mych if the Upanişadic religion is of much value only because of this attitude. Again he seems to think that modern Christianity has its value because of its metaphysical idealism which he assumnes to be its foundation. We are quite sceptical about this. Neither the founder of Christianity nor his followers ever believed that the concrete world of reality is but an illusion or an appearance. We rather think that the success and popularity of Christian religion are entirely due to its grasp of concrete life and its emphasis upon the value of human personality. Take away these, it would cease to have any value and with that perhaps it would cease to be a religion. We can only look with dismay when Deussen connects modern Christianity with Kantian idealism. His congratulations on Upanişadic thought because of its similarity to Kantian Idealisın we are rather prone to decline because his attitude is corroborated neither by historical development nor by philosophical evidence of later thought in India.
The Chando gya Upanişad.--The Upanişad belongs to the Sāma Veda as evidenced by "Chandas." It is one of the oldest Upanişads and is divided into eight parts of varying lengths. The first two are related to rituals which go to show that this Upanişad was once a Brāhmaṇa treatise dealing with ritualistic procedure. The really Upanişaclic or philosophic portion is very interesting mainly in the form of dialogues reminding one of Platonic dialogues. This Upanişad may be taken as a typical of the Upanişads in general. Some of the important characteristics of the Upanisadic thought are found here. The fundamental concept of the Upanişad

Page #50

INTRODUCTION
35
has been mentioned as Brahman. This concept is introduced in the very beginning of this Upanişad. Even in the ritualistic chapter it is not forgotten. Some of the syllables of the mantras uttered are identified with Brahman or Ātman. This attitude of philosophical interpretation of even dry ritualistic formulae is a distinct mark of Upanişadic period. The spiritualistic interpretation has replaced the materialistic interpretation of the Rg Vedic Period, for example “Self transcends all magnitude. He is myself within the Heart, smaller than the canary seed or the kernal of a canary seed. He also is myself within the heart, greater than the earth, greater than the sky, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds.". There is no physical measure which is able to comprehend the non-physica). The Self is completely incommensurable with anything physical, The Upanişadic truth relating to the Brahman or Åtinan was considered to be a secret by the teachers and was communicated to others with great caution. This aspect is well brought out by the legend of Satyakāma who goes to a teacher with the idea of becoming his disciple. "I will lead the life of a student of the sacred knowledge, I will lead the life of a student of sacred Self.” Thus he addressed himself to Gautama. "Of what family art thou my dear ?" asked Gautama. In reply to this Satyakāma said, "I do not know Sir, of what family I am. I asked my mother. She answered in this minner : "When I went about a great deal serving as a muid I got you. So I do not know this of what family you are. However I am Jabala by name and you are Satyakāma by name !' So I am Satyakāmı, son of Jabala, Sir." The teacher was attracted by the frankness of the boy and adınitted him as a disciple "I will receive you as a disciple for you have not deviated from the truth." His discipleship consisted of tending the master's cows for a number of years and such patient service was finally rewarded and he obtained the knowledge of Brahman
In the V chapter an allegorical representation of Life is given The several senses quarrel among themselves saying I am better-I am better
They all went to the great father - The All Creator and asked Him "Sir, . who is the best of us ?" He replied, he by whosdeparture the body seems worse than the worst, he is the best of you. Then first, speech departed froin the body Returning after some time he found the person still alive though mute. Convinced of its own impotence according to the criterion proposed by the All Creator, speech returned the wiser. The eye went off : Having remained a year away it came round again and said, "How have you been able to live without me?" Like the blind people not seeing but breithing with the Breath, speaking with the tongue etc. Thus have I been able to live." The eye entered in. Next was the turni of the ear. The person though deaf nevertheless lived. Then the mind

Page #51

36
SAMAYASARA
tried its worth. Nevertheless the person lived mind less. Lastly it was the turn of the vital breath. Now the breath, when on the point of departing, torn up the other senses as a horse going to start might tear up the pegs to which he is tethered. Then they all came to it and said "Sir, Remain, thou art the best among us. Be thou our Lord. Do not depart from us." This allegory distinctly implies that the spiritual principle on account of whose presence the senses function is the Atman or Self. It is the life-principle itself that is the foundation of existence. This vital breath is certainly more than the material conception of the Rg Vedic period. It is identical with that which makes all sense-activities possible. In the same V chapter again we have an important dialogue indicating the nature of the problems especially discussed in the Upanisad. A young man by name Svetaketu Aruneya goes to an assembly of scholars from Pañcalas. boy is subjected to severe cross-examination, when he told the assembly that he had been fully instructed. He was asked, 'Young man, has your father instructed you?' 'Yes Sir', "Do you know where men go to from here?" No Sir.' "Do you know the parting of the ways, one leading to the God and the other to the Fathers ?" No Sir.' "Do you know how the yonder world is built up ?" No Sir.' Then the teacher scolds him: "Why do you say you were instructed ?".
The
This dialogue is instructive and points out the nature of the topics dealt with and studied in those days. The study of the traditional type was confined to the Vedas and the Vedic rituals. Besides this traditional course there was the characteristic interest of the age centering round the philosophical studies as to the nature of the Self. It was the latter which was prized and coveted by the scholars of the age. Of course the dialogue ends with the boy returning to his father to ascertain the answer to the above questions. The father also had to confess his ignorance. The lad and his father returned to the king for the information. Then Gautama went to Janaka's court when the king offered him proper respect. In the morning the king went up to the assembly and announced. "Ask of me such a boon as men desire." Gautama replied, "Such things as men possess. may remain with you, Sir. Tell me the speech which you addressed to the boy." The king was perplexed and said "Wait a while." Then the king said "As to what you have said to me", Oh Gautama, this knowledge did never yet come to any Brahmin before you and in all the world the truth belonged to Ksatriyas only. Two points may be noticed from this interesting dialogue. (1) The new thought, the knowledge of the Atman was considered to be richer than the richest possession in all the world. (2) It originated among the Ksatriyas and was preserved as a secret doctrine for some time. The very same fact is emphasised in another section of the same

Page #52

INTRODUCTION
37
chapter. Five great theologians held a great discussion as to what is Self and what is Brahman. After a few days' deliberation they go to a great scholar Uddálaka who is reputed to be in possession of the knowledge of the Self. But the great scholar promises to enlighten them on the matter and asks them to accompany him. He takes them to a king Aśvapati Kaikeya. This king also offers them rich presents which they decline begging him to impart the much prized knowledge of Brahman. In the VI chapter several illustrations are given to explain the nature of Brahman.
The scene is as follows:
The boy is given a sinall seed and asked to break it open. Then the father asks the boy, “What də you see there ?" "Nothing inside it, Sir," replied the boy. Then the father said, "the central essence you do not see there. Of that central essence this great tree cxists. But it is in the essence of it. In it all that exists has its self. This is the truth. It is the Self and That thou art !" Similarly the all pervading nature of this principle is taught to the boy in the following way: The boy is asked to dissolve a little salt in a cup of water. He is then asked to take a sip of it from different parts. He finds it everywhere saltish. Then the boy is instructed : “Though the thing is not perceived by the senses, still the salt is there. That which is the finest essence of the world is the soul of reality. That thou art !" The boy who wants further instruction is taught by the father that life here is one of bondage and escape from it is the form of realisation of Self. But as one inight tread his way home even if he be stranded in a foreign country, so can we individuals tread our way back to the Universal Being. Towards the close of the Upanişad the scene is pliced in Devaloka The thirst for knowledge possesses even the gods. Nārada goes to Sanatkumära with this appeal : "Sir, teach me the doctrine." Nārada is asked to give a list of all the sciences he learned. After enumerating the names of different sciences, such as the four Vedas, mathematics, astrology and so on, he addresses Sanatkumira thus : "but Sir, with all this I could not know the Self. I have heard that he knows the Self who overcomes sorrow. I am in grief. Do help me to overcome the grief." Then Brahma-knowledge is imparted to Nārada by Sanatkumāra and he realizes his Self. Nárada is then progressively instructed by Sanatkumāra as to the nature of Self. Finally, the Chapter concludes with the following words : "The soul is indeed below, the soul is above, the soul will be in this whole world. Verily he who sees this, who thinks this, who understands this, who has pleasure in the soul, who has delight in the soul, he is autonomous. He has Svarājya. He has unlitnited freedom in all the worlds. But they who know otherwise than this are without Svarajya, They have perishable worlds. In all the worlds they have no freedom.".

Page #53

38
SAMAYASARA
The True way to Brahma World-The way to realise the true self and to enjoy the spiritual bliss is not by following the traditional rituals but by purity of conduct. "Now what people call sacrifice, Yajña is really the chaste life of a student of sacred knowledge. For only through the chaste life of a student of sacred knowledge does he who is a knower find that world. Now what people call what has been sacrificed is really the chaste life of a student. Now what people call the propriety of a sacrifice is also the chaste life of a student. Now what people call silent asceticism is really the chaste life of a student. Now what people call hermit life is really the chaste life of a student."
Next we have the instruction of Indra by the Lord of Creation, Indra is actuated by the desire for Brahmin-knowledge. He goes to the Lord of Creation to beg of him the same knowledge. The Self which is free from evil, ageless, deathless, sorrowless, hungerless, thirstless, whose desire is Real, whose conception is the Real. It is such a Self that Indra wants to realize. The Indra here is quite different from our old friend of the Rg Veda. Indra here seeks to obtain a knowledge of the Brahman which is the ultimate principle both of the individual and the world. He is told that even the gods in Brahmaloka reverence their selves shaking off evil, shaking off the body as the moon shakes itself from the mouth of Rahu, a perfected soul passeth off into the uncreated world of Brahman and into it, it may pass. Such is the consolation of the perfected soul which has become perfect by knowing its own Self. Thus we have a complete change of intellectual attitude. Life in the world according to ceremonies and customs is looked down as a source of misery. It is merely to sell one's birth-right of freedom, to be ruled over by anything other than our own Self. The true relief from grief is to secure the freedom from the danger of the non-self. This is the fundamental truth of the new thought. This seems to have actuated both men and gods. The reference to the Devas, the mythological personalities which we have in the Upanisadic writings is really interesting. We find in Vedic period, for example, Indra who wanted casks of wine to infuriate the strength of him in the battlefield is now met with as a docile disciple of the samite in his hand begging to be instructed in this new knowledge of the Self. Here heroes are not measured by physical prowess. Self-control and purity of thought constitute the real worth of life both for men and gods. This aspect will become more and more prominent as we go to study the other Upanisads.
Katha Upanisad-This belongs to Yajurveda. It is mainly associated with a particular kind of sacrifice called Naciketas. But the Upanisad is interesting for us not because of this sacrifice but because of the important problem discussed therein the great problem of the Hereafter. What is

Page #54

INTRODUCTION
39
the nature of the soul ? Does it survive death? If it does whither does it go ? These are the questions which are discussed in this Upanişad. These questions have occupied the serious attention of thinkers all over the world. In fact these problems form the pivot of religions and philosophy. Socrates, Plato, Buddha and Christ have all had their attention to these facts and the very sume problems are here discussed by the Upanişadic thinkers who were evidently the fore-runners of the above mentioned great world teachers. The Upanişad opens with a sinple household scene. A Brāhmaṇa wants to obtain certain benefits by offering sacrifices. He promised to offer all his valuable possessions for sacrifice to seek his end. He was offering his cows and sheep and other things of great value. He had an intelligent boy who was watching the whole thing. His name was Naciketas. The sacrifice mentioned in this Upanişad is named after him. It ineans the sacrifice of Naciketas. This boy perhaps in a scoffing mood reminded his father that he did not offer his most valuable thing referring of course to himself. The boy importunately asked his father, "Whom are you going to offer me to ?" When this question was repeatedly put, the father got angry because of this disturbance during the sacrifice and he answered in a rage, “To Yama, thou shalt go; thou art offered to Death." Before his father could revoke his command the boy started on his journey to Yama's land. Having reached that place he could not meet the Lord of Death, for he was not at hoine. The boy had to wait three nights without being attended to. Yama returned on the fourth day, and he regretted very much for the neglect shown to the Brāhinana boy waiting as a guest at his door. As a compensation Yami offered three boons to the boy and he was asked to choose any three. As his first boon the boy cleverly asked that he might rejoin his father and that his father should forgive and forget and welcome hiin to his household. This was granted by Yaina. As his second boon the boy chose to be instructed in the well-known sacrifice Naciketas leading to heavenly bliss. Yama initiated the boy into the mysteries of the desired ritual and honoured the boy by naming the sacrifice after him. The boy had his third boon still left. When Yama asked him to choose the third, the boy said, “When a man is dead where is this doubt about him--some say that he is and other that he is not.. Let me know the truth and let this be the third boon.” When the boy asked
Yama to lay open the door of Hereafter there was a good deal of hesitation and reluctance on the part of the teacher. Whenever the great religious teachers of the world are asked about the Hereafter they offer only an evasive reply. Yama too wanted to avoid this question and tried to turn away the boy's curiosity from awful and sublime. He says, "The gods themselves have been perplexed about this. It is no easy thing to discover."

Page #55

40
SAMAYASARA
Hence he asked the boy to choose an alternative boon. The evasive answer only whetted the curiosity of the boy. Yama hiinself admitted that the problem was very important and subtle and that it perplexed even the minds of the gods. Certainly such a thing is worth knowing and if knowledge is to be had at all it must be from the Lord of the Great Hereafter. The boy would not loose this golden opportunity. Hence he insisted on getting an answer. But Yain tempted his disciple's youthful imagination. Like the great tenptation of another Personality this youth Naciketas had the sovereignty of the world, human and divine, placed at his feet. The whole aggregate wealth was at his disposal. He was pro:nised' heavenly damsels. He had the chance of being feasted with their divine music. But none of these things appealed to him. He would not budge. Like Gautama Buddha this boy spurned the pleasure of the world as worthless. He must have that one priceless boon the knowledge of the hereafter from the only person who had an authority to speak on the matter. Man is not to be satisfied with wealth. Wealth we shall obtain ourselves. Tell us about that life that gods themselves do not know. Thus the boy would not have any other boon but would rent the veil which hid Yama. Thus the strength of will exhibited by the boy ultimately succeeded in eliciting the sympathy of Yamı who was willing to offer the truth. Thus there is the revelation of the Upanişadic teaching as to the nature of the soul and its survival after death. The teaching begins with the good and the pleasurable. Both these engage a mun though the ends are diverse. Of these it is well with him that takes the good. He that chooses the pleasurable is tied to the wheel of life dwelling in the midst of illusions infatuated by the pleasures of the world. These fools are subject to repeated births and deaths and go round and round like the blind led by the blind. He is even under the subjugation of Yamı. But the path of good leads to the Self. Wonderful is he that teaches and wise is he that attains it. This goal is attained only by renouncing the other path leading to the misery of Sarsira. Thus we notice in this teaching of Yama the emphasis on Self-realization as the goal of life. This goal is to be obtained only by self-renunciation, freedom from the allurement of the environinent. The cult of sacrifice is subordinated to this path of spiritual discipline. Here we notice the movements of great religious thought. Continuing this teaching, Yama describes the nature of the Atman. The Self is not born and it dies not. It is omniscient. It is not created and it creates nothing. It has no beginning nor end. It perishes not even when death overtakes the body. If the slayer thinks that he slays and the slain thinks that he is slain neither of thein knoweth the Self for the Self neither slayeth nor is slain. It is bodiless and yet is in all bodies unchanging and yet in all changing

Page #56

INTRODUCTION
things. The sage that knows the infinite, the all-pervading self no longer has any grief. The nature of the soul is therefore distinct from that of the body. Apprehension of this truth is the gate to wisdom. But this great self lies in the midst of different senses which lead him astray towards the worthless treasures of the world. This self is not to be obtained by mere learning or even by much sacred lore. It is obtainable only by the grace of the great self. It is by a process of minute spiritual development that spiritual freedom is to be acquired. The allegory of the chariot is introduced here. Yama continues his teaching and compares the soul to the chariot and the senses to the restive horses. Only by controlling the senses that the self gains freedom, We are reminded here of the same allegory in Plato. He compares the soul to a chariot dragged by horses. In the case of the gods the winged horses are good and controllable, and they never lead reason astray but in the case of man one of these horses is restive and is dragging the other one. Hence the ethical conflict in man's nature is due to the conflict between reason and the senses. The same analogy is obtained in Yama's teachings. The release from the chain of births and deaths is to be had only through spiritual purity. Here again we notice the subordination of the sacrificial cult to moral discipline. Then Yama comes to the point which started the discussion. "Oh Gautama, I will proclaim again this mystery: The everlasting self and his hereafter. Some souls pass to other births. Some to enter into other bodies according to their worth and knowledge." Hence we have the emphatic sanction of the doctrine of metempsychosis. Souls after death pass into another birth determined by their own Karma and Jaana. This is the basic principle on which the future Indian systems arose. The self that is still after pleasures is tied to the wheel of births and deaths; some going up and some going down; some endowed with happiness and others with misery, but all sharing the universal merry-go-round of Samsara. But only that self which realizes its true spiritual nature, only that which saves itself from the allurements of the world and imposes on itself the rigorous spiritual discipline can know the truth, can escape from the illusion and attain that never-failing bliss of true freedom.
Mundaka Upanisads-This Upanisad belongs to Atharvana Veda. It is divided into a number of Khandas. Its main purpose is to teach the knowledge of Brahman. Hence it may be taken as the farthest limit of the anti-Ritualistic culture of the age.. This Upanisad starts with the distinction between the two kinds of knowledge. Lower knowledge consists of the study of the Vedas and the secular sciences such as grammar, astronomy, astrology etc. The higher is the knowledge of the indestructible Brahman. It is this indestructible Brahman that is the source of all things. 6

41

Page #57

SAMAYASARA
Its nature is described thus. "That which is invisible, unseizable, without family or caste, that which has no eyes, mor ears, no hands, nor feet, the Eternal, the omnipresent, Infinitesimal and imperishable. That it is which the wise regard as the source of knowledge. As the spider sends forth and draws in its thread, as plants grown on earth, as the hairs of the head shoot forth from every person, thus does everything arise from the imperishable." These two verses clearly illustrate the spiritual nature of Brahman and he is the root principle of all existence. Knowledge of this is claimed to be knowledge par-excellence. What is the value of the lower knowledge of the traditional religion of the sacrificial Mantras and the skill in arranging sacrifices, but frail in truth are those boats (the sacrifices). Fools are they that praise this as the highest for they are subjected again and again to old age and death. Fools who hold this Vedic scholarship or rituals wise in their own conceit and puffed up with vain knowledge go round and round staggering to and fro like blind men led by the blind. If at all it is of any use to a person who offers sacrifice, it will lead him to Svarga which is merely a kind of lower happiness since that state of existence is also included in the Samsaric cycle. How is the higher knowledge to be obtained? "By truthfulness, by penance, right knowledge and abstinence must that Self be gained." The Self whom spotless anchorites gain is pure, and like a light within the body. Further the Upanisad emphasises that that Atman cannot be gained by the Veda nor by understanding nor by much learning nor is that Self to be gained by one who is destitute of strength or without earnestness or without right meditation. Having wellascertained the object of the knowledge of the Vedanta, having purified their nature by Yoga or renunciation, all anchorites enjoying the highest immortality become free at the time of the great end in the worlds of Brahma, This imperishable Brahman is the soul and the goal of all beings. He is the supreme person who is the source of human personality as well as the cosmic universe. He is in short the source of the world and the individual. Because of him the senses are active, all doubts are cut off and one's Karmas cease when He is seen. The highest golden sheaf is Brahman without stain, without parts. The sun shines not there nor the moon and the stars. There lightnings shine not, much less this fire; when He shines then everything shines after him. This whole world is illumined with His light. That immortal Brahman is before, is behind, is right and left, is below and above. Brahman indeed is this whole world; it is indeed the excellent. Not by sight is it graphed, not even by speech nor by another sense-organ, austerity or work. By the light of the knowledge of one's nature becomes purified in that way, by medicating one does not behold Him who is without parts. The cause of rebirth and Samsara is said to be
42

Page #58

INTRODUCTION
43
desire, those who attain to the Brahma-jñāna are free from these desires and pass beyond the seed of rebirth. But he who is still in the meshes of desires is born again here. The reward of attaining this Brahma-jñāna is to assume the nature of Brahman himself. He who knows that supreme Brahman becomes the very Brahma. He crosses all sorrow. He crosses all sin--liberated, he becomes immortal. This is the truth. So ends this short Upanişad.
Byhadāranyka Upanisad-This perhaps represents a later stage of the Upanişadic culture. In this we have an attempted reconciliation between the traditional ritual cult and the new theosophic wisdom of Brahma-vidyā. We referred to the implied rivalry on a former occasion between the Kurupañcālas on one hand and Kosalas and the Videhas on the other. The latter countries were associated with heretical anti-sacrificial civilisation. In an interesting chapter in the Satapatha Brāhmaṇa there is mentioned an attempt by the Kurupañcālas to reconvert the Kosalas and the Videhas to Vedic traditions. Such a successful reconversion most probably marks the period of the Brhadāraṇyakas. One of the champions of the old traditional culture studies the new thought successfully and finally assimilates it so completely that the theosophic Brahma-jñāna once originated by the rival school dominated by the Ksatriyas ceases to have an independent existence. This personality who contributes to the complete annihilation of the rival school by the successful assimilation of the same by the old culture is Yajñavalkya. From the point of view of culture and philosophic insight he is head and shoulders above his contemporaries. He is looked upon with awe and reverence by other priests. He is welcomed and honoured by kings. Having studied the new thought and made it his own, he is able to reassert the supremacy of the traditional Vedic cult thus in this Upanisad. We have all the characteristic conflicts symptomatic of a transition period. The Upanişad begins with the conception of Asvamedha. Here it has only a symbolic meaning. The whole world is compared to one grand process of cosmic sacrifice. There is an account of the creation which starts from asat--non-being--and evolves into being. Here we have merely an echo of the Vedic hymn which describes the origin of the world sat from asat. After comparing the evolution of the world to the grand horse-sacrifice, the Upanişad goes to describe the nature of human personality. Breath or Prāņa is said to be superior to the other bodily functions. This leads indirectly to a glorification of chanting the Vedic hyinns which is possible only because of breath. In the next section there is another account of the creation of the world. Starting with the lonely Puruşa who is the beginning of all things, the narrator proceeds to describe the appearance of a mate from himself. From these primeval

Page #59

SAMAYASĀRA
pair the whole of the human race is supposed to have originated. But the primitive mother all of a sudden develops a resentment to the unconventional matrimonial alliance and tries to hide herself from her companion. Thus she becomes a cow but he became a bull and thus originates another species of animals. Then she changes herself into other animals and the primitive Puruşa longing to meet his mate undergoes a corresponding transforination. Thus are created the different species of animals. In the next passage there is an interesting and novel version of the hyinn of Purușasūkta of the Rgvedic hymns. In the Rg Veda there was a description of the origin of the four castes. Here is a different account. Puruşa exists originally as Brahman. Being lonely it was not developed. It created still further a superior form of the Ksatrahood even those are Kșatras, rulers among Gods. This higher principle of Kşatrahood is represented by Indra, Varuņa, Soma Rudra, Yama, and isāna. Therefore there is nothing higher than Kşatra. Therefore at the Rājasūya ceremony the Brāhmaṇa sits below the Kşatriya. Upon Kşatrahood alone does he confer his honour. Yet this same thing viz; Kşatrahood has as its source Brāhmanahood. Therefore even if the king attains supremacy he rests finally upon Brahminhood as his source, so whoever injures Him (that is a Brahmin ) attacks his own source. He fares worse in proportion as he injures one who is better. This passage is characteristic of the spirit of compromise. Kșatriyahood and Rājasūya sacrifice are clearly acknowledged to be super-eminent and at the same time the rank is derived because they originate from Brahmanhood. Unlike the Puruşasūkta of the æg this account suggests a caste organisation even among the Gods. Brahman's manifestation was not yet complete. Then he produced the Vaisya element which is represented among the gods by the Rudras, Adityas, the Maruts, and the Visvadevas and among men by the Vaisya. Brahma was not yet developed and he created the Śūdra-varņa of which caste the divine representative is Pūşan identified with the Earth the-all-nourisher and among men the same is represented by the fourth caste. The process of creation is not yet complete. Then Brahma created a still further form in the shape of Dharma or Law. It is the source of all. This is the power of the Ksatriya caste. Therefore there is nothing higher than Law. Verily that which is Law is truth. This law is higher than Gods as well as men. It is because of this Law and in conformity with it the world-order subsists. The Kşatriya-order on earth is but an aspect of the sovereignty of Law over all. In this interesting passage we have several instances. We are distinctly in a philosophical age when an intrinsic principle of Law or Dharma is recognised as highest to which even the traditional gods are subordinated. This reminds us of the corresponding period of the Hellenic

Page #60

INTRODUCTION
civilisation represented by the age of Eurepides. Just as the conception of Law in Greek thought formed the central doctrine of the later Stoic Philosophers so the conception of Law is to be elaborated by the later Buddhistic schools in which it would occupy the central position in the shape of the doctrine of Karma. But we quit the age of an int ellectual conflict and enter into an age of compromise. The old rivalry and struggle between the two rival communities are in abeyance. There is a spirit of mutual give and take. From the one point of view, the Rajasuya sacrifice associated with the Ksatriyas is the highest and from the another point of view the Vajapeya-sacrifice associated with the Brahmins is the highest. Kṣatriya is taken to be superior because of his strength and Brahmin is equally powerful because of his religious inspiration. Thus we have a note of compromise indicating that both the aspects are necessary and important from the point of view of social economy.
In the II Adhyaya we are introduced into the scene in Ajataśatru's court. A learned priest by name Gargya Balāki goes to Ajātaśatru, King of Benares and offers to expound the doctrine of Brahman. The king was very much pleased and promised to give him a present of a thousand cows for such a speech before him, for it was a general. fashion among the philosophers in those days to run to the Court of Janaka of Videha; then Balaki narrates his views about Brahman. He identified Brahman with the sun, moon, lightning, ether, air, water, fire and so on. He even suggests the identity of Brahman with the image in the mirror. All these things are rejected by Ajataśatru as inadequate. Is that all ? Asked Ajātaśatru. Gargya replies "That is all". Ajataśatru: Oh! With that much is not known. Gargya: Let me know.

45
Ajätasatru: Verily it is contrary to course of things that a Brahmin should come to a Ksatriya with the object of gaining Brahma-knowledge! But anyhow Gargya was willing to be instructed by Ajataśatru. Balaki was taken to a man who was asleep. But when he was touched with the hand he arose. From this object-lesson Ajātaśatru drew the following conclusion. When this man was fallen asleep thus then the person who consists of intelligence having taken to himself, the intelligence of these senses rests in that place which is within the heart. When that person restrains the senses he is said to be asleep. The breath, the voice, the eye, the ear and the mind are all restrained. When he draws in his senses the worlds are all in him. Then he becomes a great Brahman as it were. Verily as a youth, as a great king, or a great Brahman when he has reached his summit of bliss so he rests now. As a spider might come out with its thread, as small spark come out from the fire, even so from this Soul come forth all vital energies all worlds, all gods, all beings. The mystic meaning thereof is the real of the real. Breathing

Page #61

SAMAYASARA
creatures are really the Real, but He is their Real. Thus accordingi to Ajātaśatru the self in the movement of sleep is not only the custodian of the senses of the individual but is also indentical with the soul of the world. All breathing things are real but He is their Real. Continuing the discourse Ajātaśatru speaks of the two forms of Brahman-Murta and Amurta-the formed and the formless-the mortal and the immortal, the actual and the beyond. This doctrine of duality of Brahman is interesting in this way. The ultimate reality includes both the actual concrete experience and the transcendental principle which expresses itself in this. The transcendental is described by negatives. The actual and the normal portions of reality are recognised to be real and are described by the positive designation. This section lends support to that particular school of Vedanta-Visiṣṭadvaita. The organic world consisting of breathing things is real and not Maya. It represents the Murta form of Brahman but this does not exhaust the complete Brahman because there is the Amurta, the formless aspect of that on account of which he is called the real of the real.
46
Next we find ourselves in Yajnavalkya's household. The scene is laid in his home. Yajnavalkya proposes to take leave of his wife and retire from the householder's status. Yajnavalkya wants to make a final settlement of his property but Maitreyi asked Yajnavalkya whether by possession of wealth one would obtain immortality. This interrogation perturbed the philosopher a bit and he had to answer the question in the negative. Maitreyi would not be satisfied with anything else than that which lead to the highest bliss, "What you know, Sir, that indeed tell me." Then we have Yajnavalkya's teachings as imparted to his wife Maitreyï. The only thing in the universe which has intrinsic value is Atman or Self. It is this that is dearest to us, Everything that we desire to have obtains a derivative value from this Atman. This is the end in itself. This is associated with the unconditioned and absolute value. Domestic life, worldly possessions, social status and even religious ceremonials and national traditions have their value only so long as they serve us as means to the realization of the Atman. A Brahmin who prides on his birth without knowing this ceases to be a Brahmin and the same is the case with the Ksatriya, One may possess riches. One may carry out every commandment of his religion and all this would be of no avail if the knowledge of the self is not the guiding star of life. Conventional notions of value of social status and rank are all things that dwindle into insignificance by the side of this-One truth, the Great Purușa. Communion with this is the only safety for and the only guarantee of true life. Even the much prized Vedas and the other sciences own their origin and importance to this one. It is this one inspiring principle the unitary Puruşa that lends lustre to anything that is shining. From Him comes the elements, into them also they vanish.

Page #62

INTRODUCTION
After death there is consciousness. Thus say I, says Yājñavalkya. This doctrine that after death there is consciousness bewildered Maitreyi. She demanded an explanation. Accordingly Yājñavalkya said thus :
Consciousness is entirely based upon the subject-object duality "Dvaita". On account of this dualism we have an agent who has an object, presented to him who hears a sound, who speaks to another person, who thinks of another thing, but if this subject-object dualism is transcended and if we are left with one only without a second then whereby and whom one would hear and whereby and whom one would speak to, whereby and whom one would understand. Naturally all objects of thinking and consciousness would cease to be because consciousness implies duality. Unity cannot therefore accommodate consciousness. Thus we have not only the identification of subject-object into one soul but the identification of the universe with the one soul. Thus we obtain an unqualified Advaita, an uncompromising Advaitism diametrically opposed to Ajātaśatru's doctrine of the two kinds of Brahman. This conflict only proves that we don't have a systematic doctrine worked out in the Upanişads but we have embodied therein the germs of all possible speculations. Next we are in Janaka's court, and we meet there the great Yajñavalkya again. Janaka was going to perform a great sacrifice. Several learned Brahmins were assembled. Janaka had a desire to know which of these Brahmins was the most learned. He offered a tempting prize of 1000 cows with ten gold coins tied to each horn. "Oh the venerable Brahmins ! Let him who is the cleverest among you drive these cows." No one came forward. Yājñavalkya said to his disciple "Drive these cattle home." This excited the other Brahmins who challenged him to a metaphysical discussion. He proved himself more than a match to these rivals. Several eminent scholars tried their strength with Yājñavalkya. But no one of them would stand his cross-examination. Finally, it was the turn of a lady philosopher-Gārgi. She proposes three important questions as to the nature of the Imperishable and the Ultimate. The way in which she addresses Yajñavalkya is expressive of her real greatness. She announces that if Yājñavalkya answers all (her questions then they must all recognise and acknowledge that they are vanquished and disgraced. Three questions proposed by Gārgi were all about the self indestructible both in the individual and in the Universe. Yājñavalkya answered all of them to the great satisfaction of the questioner. The whole physical universe ultimately depends upon space and space itself ultimately depends upon the Atman. This is the meaning of his answers. Yājñavalkya makes out that the soul is transcending all notions of humanity and devoid of all sense-qualities. “Thou shalt not see the seer nor hear the hearer, That is the self that is within all. It is above the heavens beneath the Earth, and embracing past, present and future. Whoso

Page #63

48
SAMAYASARA
ever not knowing the indestructible offers oblations and performs penances even for one thousand years is a miserable slave whereas he who knows the self as imperishable is real Brahman. This indeed is the true form free from evil. This is filled with bliss and is free from sorrows. Yajnavalkya explains the different stages of consciousness a doctrine which becomes more prominent in later metaphysics. The first stage is waking-consciousnes. The second is sleep where we have dream-consciousness. Third is the dreamless stage of deep sleep, and the fourth stage beyond which we reach the inmost self. According to Yajnavalkya the true nature is identical with the fourth or the Turiya state. This may be spoken of as the "Ego in itself." Self which is distinctly metempirical and transcendent.
The next scene is where we see Yajnavalkya again in the court of Janaka of Videha who asked Yajnavalkya the purpose of his visit whether it is for philosophical disputation or for rich presents. Yajnavalkya is shrewd enough to answer that his aim is both, Then begins the discussion. Janaka is asked to expound all that he learned about the doctrine of Brahman. The king narrates the different doctrines of Brahman which he learnt from various scholars. He tries to identify Braman with sight, speech, hearing, mind etc. All these doctrines are recognised by Yajnavalkya to be only partially true. He completes the teaching by supplementing Janaka's doctrine of the self.
According to Yajnavalkya the Atman is the condition of the operation of the different senses as well as manas. As conditioned by Atman, these sense-activities may reveal in their own way the nature of the underlying Brahman. But to identify consciousness or any one of the senses with Brahman would be unjustifiable and erroneous. The soul is what subserves these functions though it is not identical with any one of these. Its true nature lies far beyond the strata of consciousness. We should have to dive deep into the consciousness in order to have a glimpse of this Brahman. In his teaching, Yajnavalkya exhibits a width of learning quite manifest from his discussion. We can also point out that this is corroborated by modern psychical research. What we are aware of as consciousness is but a fractional aspect of our true personality, a great portion of which lies hidden in the depths of subconsciousness. Yajnavalkya's teaching therefore rightly and justifiably repudiates this shallow intellectualism and tries to bring to the forefront of discussion the magnitude and the importance of the subconscious self which more than anything else determines the conduct of the individual and contributes to his worth. This subconsciousness of our personality is always felt by the conscious individual as something other than ourselves which makes for righteousness. It is this sublime mysticism that forms the solid contribution of Yajnavalkya's teaching in Janaka's court. No wonder that at every stage of discussion his speech is punctuated with a present of

Page #64

INTRODUCTION
49
1000 cows. This time Yāgñavalkya leaves Janaka's court with his wellearned present of several thousands of cows, a good fee for a noble work.
Janaka is the examiner in another occasion and Yágñavalkya the examinee. Consistent with his antecedents here also Yāgħavalkya surprises Janaka with his sublimity of thought and intensity of philosophical insight, It is here that Yāgñavalkya describes in suggestive verses the true nature of Brahman. This is indeed in true form free from desires, free from evil, free from fear, knows not anything within or without. This indeed is his true state. There is no wish in him left unfulfilled and hence is he free from sorrow. In that state ordinary relations of social life have no meaning, a husband is not a husband, a mother is not a mother, the candāla is not a candāla, saint is not a saint, it is a state beyond Good and Evil. Then we have transvaluation of all values. From Him proceedeth all that has value, Himself being beyond all valuation. Side by side with this uncompromising pantheism Yāgħavalkya propounds the doctrine of Karma. A person is after all a bundle of desires. His desires determine his 'conduct and according as one acts so doth he become. The doer of good becomes good, the doer of evil, evil. One becomes righteous by righteous action and bad by bad action. He does not accept that desires have no connection with acts. Some say that man is judged by his desires and not by acts. Yāgñavalk ya rejected this erroneous notion. The springs of desires are in the action. What a man desires that he tries to achieve. Hence there is no discrepancy between desire
nd conduct and each person is the architect of his own. The true meaning of salvation consists in getting rid of desires which drag the soul along all points of the compass. Man free from desires has but one desire to realise his true nature or to become the released person. He verily becomes the Brahman. As the slough of a snake lies on an ant-hill, dead and cast away, even so is it with this body. But this incorporeal immortal life is Brahman indeed, is life indeed. The rest of the Upanişad is concerned with Yágñavalkya's attempts as justifying the rituals symbolically by giving them metaphorical interpretation. He tries to identify the vedic conception of diversity of Gods with the supreme concept of Brahman. This part of the Upanişad is characteristic of the attempt to reconcile the Atmavidyâ with the traditional Vedic culture. Yägñavalkya by embracing this new philosophical doctrine was not evidently prepared to snatch himself away from the traditional vedic rituals, We may also note here that Yāgiavalkya probably did not belong to the orthodox Brahmins of Kurupancāla and hence was looked with an amount of suspicion by the latter. This is quite evident from Yägñavalky's conversation with Ikalya who resents to Yagñavalky's reference to the Brahamaņas of Kurupañicāla and retorts "Yagñavalkya ! because thou hast decried the

Page #65

SAMAYASARA
Brāhmaṇas of the Kurupañcālas what Brahmana dost thou know." We see Yagñavalkya throughout this Upanisad mustering all his resources to prove that in the various rituals there are the same tendencies, the same doctrines, embodied in the Upanisads,
50
The General Tendencies of the Upanisadic Period-The study of these important Upanisads has revealed to us some main characteristics of this age. The most prominent idea is the Brahma, the ultimate principle in the universe as well as in the individual. This is represented in various discussions where the self is indentified with Praṇa or Akāśa or sometimes with Vedic gods such as Surya, Soma, and Indra. Many of the Vedic terms are used synonymously to denote this new Upanisadic concept of atman. But all these synonymous terms are brushed aside as inadequate. Brahma is identified as the principle of Cetana or the ground of consciousness which manifests in various forms of activities. That is the truth revealed by Ajatasatru. That is the truth learned by Narada from Sanatkumāra. That again is the teaching of the celebrated Yagñavalkya, Brahma is consciousness or Cetanā plus something more than that. Hence it cannot be identified with any particular aspect of experience. He being the knower cannot be one of the known. He is within the heart of man and yet has his abode in far off Heaven. He is neither the sun nor the moon of the vedic thought but he is the Purusa. He is quite near us and yet not seen by us. He is within us and yet illuminates things outside of us. This is the message of the Upanisadic thinkers. The identity between Brahma as the cosmic principle and atman as individual personality is generally acknowledged by all the Upanisads. Is the identity contemplated here of the nature of absolute identity? Is it one or many? Are the objects of the world real or illusory ? Is there existence besides the Self? These are some of the questions for which we have no unanimous answer. Some Passages in the Upanisads emphasize the identity of the Brahma and the individual whereas many of the important passages tend towards pantheism. Everything in the universe is maintained and sustained by the Brahma, This Upanisadic pantheism does not contemplate the unreality of the external world. The process of evolution, the birth and growth of the world from this spiritual principle according to this Pantheism is compared to the spinning of cobwebs by the spider. Besides this, pantheistic tendency there is also a clear idealistic note sounded by Yagñavalkya, His doctrine (Bṛhadaranyaka Upaniṣada) may be taken as the basis of Advaita. According to Bṛhadaranyaka the Brahma is shown to be the transcendental Identity beyond the knower and the known. Hence it is metempirical and beyond consciousness. He is to be described only by negatives because no category of our experience can truly explain

Page #66

INTRODUCTION
51
this transcendental Idea. Besides this advaitic attitude there are also symptoms of theistic tendency. Brahma is spoken as identical with Rudra and Vishņu. He is spoken of as the creator and sustainer of the Universe. The individuals are to look up to him for spiritual guidance and help and for final emancipation from Samsāra. Besides these general tendencies there are other characteristics of the Upanişadic Age.
I) The Upanişads are mainly antiritualistic. Since they are antiritualistic they are in a sense anti-Vedic also. Internal evidence indicates that the new thought had its origin mainly among the Rājarişis.
(11) Asceticism and the practice of Yoga seems to be the characteristic institution of the Upanişadic age. The practical course of realising the Brahma contemplated by the Upanişads involves an elaborate process of selfdiscipline. As against the older forms of fire sacrifice the Upanişads contemplate a new kind of sacrifice. Sacrificing one's own attractions towards the world. “These two are unending immortal oblations referring to the sacrifice of speech and other sense-qualities. Whether waking or sleeping one is sacrificing continuously uninterruptedly. Now whatever other oblations there are they are limited, for they consist of works-Karma māyā. Knowing this very thing verily indeed the ancients did not sacrifice the agnihotra sacrifice" (Kausitaka Upanişada II Adhyāya ). This passage indicates that Yoga or Tapas is considered as an ancient institution and has taken the place of the traditional agnihotra about the time of the Upanişads, This is further strengthened by circumstantial evidence that the Upanişadic age must be of very long duration comprehending within itself an earlier conflict between antiritualism and ritualism and a later attempted reconciliation of some sort. Asceticism of the type of spiritual agnihotra must necessarily imply what is elsewhere called the other-worldliness. The concrete of our everyday life is associated with evil and suffering. The goal of life is emancipation from samsāric cycle. The means of attaining this goal consists in eradicating all desires by performing Tapas. All that is of the nature of evil in Life must be burned in the spiritual fire of the Atman, This is the path of self-realisation. Instead of the sacrifice of various animals to realise the aim of one's life one has to offer one's own desires as the sacrificial victim in his higher agnihotra. The Yāgakuņda of the Upanişadic age is in the very heart of one's own self, It is a sort of crucifying the old Adam in man for the glorification of the new one. Thus we have in this age of theosophic wisdom all the terms of a later systematic philosophy. Here we are able to trace the Vedantic idealisin as well as the Sámkhyan realism. Here we find the traces of all theistic tendencies in India. We have also in the same age the ground of the intellectual condition that ultimately developed into the religion of peace and

Page #67

52
SAMAYASARA
harmony which preached the glory of renunciation. Max Muller says, "The Upanişads are to my mind the germs of Buddhisin while Buddhism is in many respects the doctrine of the Upanişads carried out to its last consequences. The doctrine of the highest goal of Vedānta, the Knowledge of the true self is no more than the Budhism the common property of the Sangha fraternity open alike to the young and old, to the Bráhmaņa and the Sūdra the rich and the poor, the literate and the illiterate." In the Upanişads we have the germs of all the philosophical system not only to the Vedic and the orthodox but also those religiophilosophical systems which are non-vedic such as Jainism and Buddhism. We may repeat our statement that it was an age of general philosophical outbursts in which there were several tendencies with multifarious characteristics. Crystalisation of these tendencies and forces ultimately resulted in the rise of several systems of Philosophy which adorned the succeeding period, THE RUDIMENTS OF UPANIŞADIC THOUGHT IN THE
SAMHITAS AND THE BRAHMANAS Upanişadic literature practically forms a part of Vedic literature in general. Thus it is a part of Śruti as opposed to Smrti, When we spoke about the various Brāhinaņas we saw what these Brāhmaṇas treated about. The Brāhinaņas are associated with different Vedic groups, i. e., we have the Brāhmaṇas belonging to Rg, Yajur and so on. Thus we have the mantras or the sacrificial hymns constituting the Samhita portion of a particular Veda followed by the Brāhmanas which explain the sacrificial procedure. These Brāhmanas contain what are known as āra nyakas or forest-treatises and Upanişads, a sort of Philosofical discourse. These Upanişads constitute the last of the śruti or Vedic literature. Hence they are sometimes known as Vedānt, the last of the Vedas which name was specialised to represent a particular school of Philosophy later on. Now we have to consider this third stage of Vedic literature known as the Upanişadic literature. It is here we have the origin of genuine philosophy. There are two fundamental conceptions implicitly present throughout the early vedic literature which finally become the central ideas in the Upapişads. These are ātınan and Brahman. Ātman is derived from a Samskrit root meaning Breath, It implies soul or spirit of the individual and indirectly of the universe as well. In a verse of the Ķg Veda it is used in the sense of Lise. "Increase or Bright Indra this our manifold food thou givest us like sap." This life-principle was early recognised to be inside of and different from body. The next step in the history of Vedic thought is to recognise the soul or life of the universe. Just as there is a non-material principle constituting the essence of man there is an essential principle at the centre of the universe. This spiritual principle at the core of the universe is also designated by the same term ātman. Another

Page #68

INTRODUCTION
53
verse of the Rg Samhitā runs thus; where was the life, the blood; the soul of the universe who went to ask this avocations, in their old age all take to Samnyāsahood or to use his own words become Munīs and finally give up their bodies through the performance of yoga or tapas. Thus taking to the life of a muni and preforming tapas or yoga was considered the general career of the Ksatriyas of the Iksavāku family. Further we have to notice this fact that the Ikşaváku line is traditionally traced to series of Manus who were a sort of mythic rulers and organisers of humanity. Reference to the same house is made by the Jaina writers relating to the origin. The founder of Jainism according to their own tradition was one Vrşabha, king of Ayodhyā belonging to the Ikşavāku line and a descendant of the Manus. After ruling the country for some time he abdicated the throne in favour of his son, Bharata and became a muni engaged in tapas or yoga. This Vrsabha is supposed to be the founder of the doctrine of ahins that it is wrong to inflict pain on any living thing on any account even in the name of religion or God. From this Vrşabha the tradition speaks of a succession of Jaina prophets ending with the last and the twenty-fourth Mahāvira Vardhamana. an elder contemporary of Gautama Buddha. The date of His nirvana is fairly well determined to be 527 B.C. The Jaina tradition assc ciated his immediate predecessor Parswanāth with Kāsi. He was the son of the King of Kāśi, whose name was Viswasena. The interval between Pārswa and Mahavira is 250 years and this would place him about 777 B.C. This date is recognised to be fairly accurate and the personality of Pārswa is accepted to be quite historical. The fact we have to notice in connection with this Jaina tradition is this, Of the 24 Jinas nearly 20 are associated with the Iksavāku house and all of them are connected with the Royal houses of Kási, Kosala, Videha and Magadha. Throughout the sacred Jaina writings the country of Videha is referred to as a sacred land, nitya punyabhumi, where the Dharma never dies-Dharina referring to the doctrine of Ahimsā. The importance of Videha, we shall krow in another connection also. The Upanişadic thought mainly centred round Janaka of Videha and Yâgñavalkya also of Videha. Perhaps we have to make a slight distinction between Eastern Videha and Western Videha. The portion bordering on Magadha, what is known as Purva Videha, evidently retained the anti-sacrificial culture whereas the north-west part of janaka's country finally accepted a sort of compromise between these sacrificial ritualism and the antisacrificial protestantism. The same importance of the Ikşavāku house we find in Buddhistic literature. The very first chapter of Rockhill's life of Buddha contains an account of the life of the Sakyas clan to which Gautama Buddha belongs. In this account we find the Sākya clan traced to the house of the Ikşavākus, This evidently implies the general belief in those days, that to trace their

Page #69

54
SAMAYASĀRA
lineage to the Ikşavāku house was considered to be a proud distinction among the Ksatriya clans. Such a distinction could be claimed by this Ikşavāku house only because of the solid contribution they made towards the culture and the civilisation of the early Aryans and yet these Ikṣayākus are hardly known and rarely mentioned in the Rg vedic period. Hence we have to think of the two different schools of culture even among the fold of the Āryans and we are constrained to accept Bloomfield's hypothesis that the Aryans of the Eastern countries in the Gangetic plain mainly dominated by the Kșatriyas constitute an early group of Aryans who migrated into India much earlier than the Aryans of the Kurupäñcāla whose ritualistic culture was dominated by the priests. Rivalry between the two, not merely in culture but in political relations, there must have been; for we have constant references to expeditions of the Kurupāscalas into the countries of Kosala and Vedeha which appear to be partly for the purpose of proselytisation and partly for the purpose of political aggrandisement, the spirit of the conquest being associated with the missionary spirit a frequently found phenomenon in modern history. One other thing we have to notice and that is about the sacred language of the respective clans. The Eastern Aryans mainly used a form of Prākrt as their language a corrupt and an easier form of Saņskřt, a fact very often referred to by the Kurupāñcálas. The Kurupāñcālas sneered at the Eastern Aryans because of their incapacity to pronounce accurately many of the Sanskrit names. But the language sneered at by the priests of the Kurupāñcklas, was not only the language of the masses among the Eastern Aryans but also the medium of this sacred literature. The Jaina and Buddhistic scriptures were all written in the form of Prākrt language, for Pāli the language of the Buddhist scriptures was but a slight modification of Prākst. We cannot have a clear history of the beginning of this protestant school among the Aryans till we are able to understand the several obscure references which are scattered in the later Sanhitās as well as in the Brāhmaṇa literature. It is enough to mention only two. The institution of Yatis and Vrātyas constitute extreme obscure topics of the Vedic literature. The term Yati occurs in the Sanhitās literature where they are said to be destroyed by Indra by offering them to the wolves of the forest. These Yatis are described to be Samnyāsin who did not accept Indra worship, who would not chant the vedic mantras and who were oppo:ed to the Brahmavādins. The description is quite clear and it implies that the yatis were a group of ascetics quite opposed to sacrificial ritualism for which they were evidently punished and persecuted by the more dominant branch of the ritualistic Aryans. The school of the yatis must have been at a certain period more influential and consequently

Page #70

INTRODUCTION
55
more popular a fact indicated by the Brāhmaṇa literature, which speaks of the giving up of Indra worship and the Soma sacrifice for several years. It is very significant to note that the reason giving up the Indra worship and Soma sacrifice is the series of murders committed by Indra begining with the slaughter of Vịthra ending with that of the yatis. Does it not suggest that at a certain period of the later Samhitãs and at the early Brāhmaṇa period the antisacrificial school was more popular than the other which led to the discarding of Indra worship and of the consequent sacrificial ritualism ? The same note of opposition is associated with the institution of the Vrātyas, The Vrātyas are sometimes extolled for their virtues and very often condeinned for their antisacrificial unconventionalism. In an important book of the Atharvana Veda the traditional deities of the Vedic pantheon are made subordinate to him and they go about as his attendants. He is the greatest and the highest among the Gods and yet he is described as a wandering mendicant, an ascetic who has to occasionally visit a householder for his food, a description quite in keeping with later Jaina and Buddhistic accounts. A Jaina yati or Buddhistic bhikṣu of a later period had to live mainly in the outskirts of his city and had to go in the streets of the city only during the time of meals and that too occasionally. The description of Vrātya is almost identical with a wandering ascetic. He is one who has given up the traditional rituals of a Brahmin, the samskāras of a brahmacārin. In spite of this fact they are not considered as complete alien racially because the orthodox fold devised ceremonies as a sort of prāyascitta after the performance of which the Vratya could be taken back into the Brahmanical fold. This fact completely rejects the hypothesis suggested by some scholars that the Vrātyas were some sort of aboriginal nomades living in the midst of the Aryans. The orthodox literature even while condemning the ways of the Vrátyas never speaks of them as nonĀryans. They are only corrupt Aryans speaking a corrupt language found in Magadha and the surrounding districts-- Magadha was the seat of Jaina and Buddhistic cultures. Taking all these into consideration it is not an implausible hypothesis to suggest that long before the rise of Buddhism there was a liberal school of thought existing side by side with the orthodox vedic school. To stop here with the suggestion that the protestant school was dominated by the Kşatriyas just as the other was by the Brāhmins would rather be inaccurate. There must have been militant proselytising on either side and also dominant free thinking. So much so we find several schools led by Vedic ritualism and the Kșatriyas just as Janaka accepting a modified form of ritualism. Among this school of protestantism we are able to recognise through the hazy past two inner currents one indicating

Page #71

SAMAYASARA
the origin of Vaisnavism and the other Jainism. Vaisnavism to be accurate is a mixture of several currents of thought and culture with a vedic nucleous is well brought out by Dr, Bhandarkar in his monograph on the 'History of Vaisnavism'. The vedic nucleus is associated with Narada a disciple of Sanatkumāra. Narada must have been one of the great opponents of the sacrificial cult involving Himsã as was Viswamitra of the Rg vedic period. This Narada school of the Upanisadic period constitutes the Vedic nucleus for later Vaisnavism characterised by the full recognition of the doctrine of Ahimsa except in the Chandogya where the qualifications of a person who reaches the Brahma world are given. After mentioning the condition of Vedic study the following is added, "He who has concentrated all his senses upon the atman. He who practises Ahimsa all elsewhere than at Tirtha who indeed who lives thus throughout the length of life reaches the Brahma world and does not return again." This verse indicates a spirit of compromise. We see a split in the very body of the antiritualistic school the right one representing the Upanisadic thought. This thing must have gone on for some centuries when there was the necessity and the occasion of a more radical school-Buddhism which threw open the gates of Dharma to all irrespective of the distinction between the Aryan and the non-Aryan Many of the schools or darśanas must have been codified just after the time of Buddha.
56
Samkhya Philosophy: Kapila-The Samkhya system propounded by Kapila is perhaps the oldest of the traditional systems of philosophy. It is referred to both in the Jaina and Buddhistic sacred literature. Jaina work describing the origin of Jaina Dharma associates the origin of Samkhya school with one Mārīci who was a grandson of Vṛṣabha the founder of Jainism according to Jaina tradition. This grandson of Vṛṣabha even during his grandfather's life-time is said to have started a rival school though based upon the fundamental doctrine of Ahimsa. The difference between Mārīci and Vrsabha's school is in the philosophical background of each and Kapila is referred to as one of the disciples of Marïci. This suggestion is borne out both from internal and other references. From internal evidence Samkhya school clearly appears to be a revolt against the Vedic sacrificial ritualism in unmistakable terms. Further Gunaratna in his Commentary on Haribhadra's Sad-darśana Samuccaya refers to the Samkhya school thus. Samkhya were opposed to the Vedic doctrines of Himsa and were interested in Adhyatmavāda. Again this Kapila, the reputed author of Samkhya is referred to in the Buddhistic account as to the origin of the Sakya "clan of Kṣatriyas to which Gautama Buddha himself belonged. We referred to the fact that the Sakyas cliamed to be descendants of the Iksavāku family.

Page #72

INTRODUCTION
57
One of the kings of the Ikşvākus Viruddaka declared his youngest son as his successor and exiled his four other sons by his first wife. The princes accompanied by their sister and a great many people travelled towards the Himalaya mountains, and reached the hermitage of Kapila. The Rși showed them where to build a town and they built it according to his directions. The Rși Kapila having given the soil Vastu of the place they called the town the soil of Kapila—Kapilavastu, and this Kapilavastu is the birthplace of Gautama Sakya Muni, son of the ruling prince Suddhodana. According to this account, Kapila is an ancient rşi much earlier than the rise of Buddhism. In the purāņic literature he is sometimes referred to as the son and sometimes as the avatār of Vişņu. Kapila is referred to in the Mahabharata and Rāmāyaṇa. The Bhagavata Gītā which is a part of the Mahabhārata is mainly based upon Kapila's Sāmkhya philosophy and distinctly mentions the name of the Philosopher as well as the philosophy. By the time the Mahabharata was composed Kapila's Sāmkhya system must have been prevalent and was probably very popular. Kapila again figures in the Rāmāyaṇa. He is associated with King Sāgara who wanted to perform an Aśvamedha. The horse let looge by him to have its triumphant march was stolen by a Rákşasa. It was taken to the netherworld and tied to a tree close by which Kapila was performing tapas. The persons sent out to search the animal found it by the side of the rși. Mistaking the rşi to be the culprit they began to molest him. Enraged at this he punished them by burning them all to ashes through his mystic powers. Again Kapila is referred to in the Upanişads. Here not only the name of the author but also several characteristic doctrines of the system are also mentioned. This reference in the Upanişads indicates that Sámkhya school was one of the dominant schools of revolt against Vedic ritualism. The literary references cast a good deal of mystery round the personality of Kapila the great thinker responsible for Sāņkhya philosophy. But he is always referred to with great awe and reverence and in Sanskrit Literature he has the unique distinction of owning the title Paramarşi. This unique title of Paramasși is a clear evidence to show his importance in the early philosophical literature of India. The followers of Sāmkhya school are called after the founder's second name Paramarși. But at present this school is not represented by distinct followers. Most probably all the Samkhyas were absorbed into the fold of later Vaisnavism; for it is clear from the introductory remarks of Gunaratna that they were the worshippers of Nārāyana. This absence of a school claiming a number of devotees is sometimes explained by the fact of the antiritualistic and antitheistic tendencies of the system. Because of these tendencies Kapila's teaching according to some European scholars never secured a good following. This view of European scholars cannot be accepted. Though at present there are no representatives of the Sámkhya school still we have evidence to show that in earlier period of Indian history about the time of Gunaratna there were a

Page #73

58
SAMAYASARA
number of devotees professing the Sámkhya faith. Therefore it is not quite accurate to state that Kapila "Left no traditions and found no school." (David's "Sámkhya Karikās.") In Gunaratna's commentary we find the following introductory note to the chapters on Samkhya. "In order to distinguish who the Samkhyas are I mean to describe certain of their characteristic marks and habits of dress. They carry three sticks but some of them carry only one. They all had red-coloured clothes and carried with them deerskins, as their asanas. Whenever they met each other they saluted nomo nārāyaṇa which would be returned nārāyaṇāya namaḥ. These were called Parivrājakas." From this description we have to admit that at one time there were a large number of Simkhya ascetics in the country, which belied obita dicta of the Orientalists who believe that there were no school of the Samkhyas. Most probably these Parivrăjakas were absorbed into the general Hindu fold as was suggested. From the characteristic salutation referred to by Guņaratna we can infer that Samkhya Parivrājakas had something to do with the growth of modern Vaişpavism which is a result of several tendencies of Thought.
1. The Upanișadic doctrine of Brahman which is closely allied to the Samkhya doctrine of Puruşa or Ātman. (2) The Vasudeva cult and the traditions which have grown around the Yadava prince Krşpa. (3) The traditions associated with the Pre-Rāmānuja period represented by the alvārs of the South. From Tamil literature two things are quite evident. (1) The great aļvārs—the religious devotees of the Dravidian country were worshippers of Nārāyana. (2) The earliest Tamil reference Tolkapyam speaking about the religious faiths. It is impossible for us to say with any amount of exactitude when the Krşpa cult came to the South. This much we can assert that it must be several centuries before the Christian era much earlier than the introduction of Buddhism. This suggestion is borne out by the fact that some of the founders of Vedic schools Āpastamba and Kātyāyana are spoken of as Dravidian and the Tamil work already referred to also speaks of the prevalent Indra worship in the South. Taking all these facts we have to assign the Aryan migration somewhere about the 7th Century B.C. The migration of Aryans with their characteristic Indra worship must certainly have been associated with the Sámkhya school which was mainly opposed to Indra worship and animal sacrifice, that is the two schools of thought must have come down to the south almost simultaneously. Another thing we may notice in this connection is this. The school of revolt against Brahminical ritualism must generally be more liberal in its social aspect. This is clearly borne out in the case of Jaina and Buddhistic schools. The Sámkhya school was evidently at one with these two schools in removing the social barriers against religious devotees. Such an assumption well borne out by sister schools of thought would explain the fact that among the alvārs of the south we find representatives from among all strata of society irrespec

Page #74

INTRODUCTION
59
tive of the distinction of Arya and Dravida. The Vaisnava tradition is confirmed even by Ramanuja's teachings though by a strange irony of fate his followers at present represent the most bigoted form of orthodoxy.
Samkhya Philosophy-The term Samkhya according to European scholars is derived from Samkh ya or number, because Kapila enumerates a number of Tattvas as constituting elements of reality. The term is supposed to be related to number. But according to Indian thinker the term is synonymous with discrimination. This is the meaning in which the term is used in the Mahabharata. Vijñānabhikṣu a famous writer of the Samkhya school also explains the term as discrimination or setting forth the distinction between spirit or atman on the one hand and matter or Prakṛti on the other. Samkara also adopts the same interpretation. Hence the traditional meaning may be accepted as more correct and the other one suggested by European scholars has to be rejected as far-fetched. Some of them even go to the length of connecting the Samkhya system with the Pythagorean school. Pythagoreanism is also connected with the mystric doctrine of numbers. Reality is some how constituted numbers according to Pythagores. It is scarcely necessary to point out how unfounded such a suggestion is. It is a sample of that method which very often builds up fantastic theories merely on the strength of verbal analogy.
Samkhya Method-The philosophical method adopted by the Samkhya school is just the method of discrimination or vivekajñāna. This method of discrimination is expounded as a means of salvation from Samsara. By the way, we may point out that this is the motive of all the Indian systems of thought-how to obtain liberation from the Samsaric cycle of births and deaths. Such a freedom according to Samkhya philosophy is to be obtained by "discrimination" or knowledge of the distinction between the spiritual principle or Purușa and the environmental existence or Prakṛti.
The Sources of Samkhya-The existing works through which we can have an idea of the Samkhya system are mainly the following: Some of these are in the sutra form and the others in the form of commentaries. (1) Samkhya sutras or otherwise known as Samkhya-pravacanasūtras is traditionally ascribed to Kapila himself. But this belief is quite unfounded. There is clear evidence to show that this is quite a modern work. Śamkara and Vacaspati Miśra the great philosophical commentators never refer to this work at all. Gunaranta, the commentator on Şaddarśanasamuccaya while mentioning several other works on Samkhya does not refer to this work even by name. Hence this is considered neither important nor an authoritative work on the Samkhya school of thought.
(2) Tattvasamasa: This work also is erroneously attributed to Kapila. Max Müller elaborately argues that this work is a genuine work of Kapila. His arguments are far from convincing and hence his view is not accepted by

Page #75

60
SAMAYASARA
modern scholars. (3) Sāmkhyasāra: This is by Vijñanabhikṣu who wrote a commentary on the Samkhyapravacanasútra. Hence this work is a compendium of his commentary. (4) Samkhya-Karikā of Isvara Krşņa: This work contains a clear exposition of the Sāmkhya system. It is a small work of 72 couplets and may be considered as an early authoritative work on the Samkhya system. This work is referred to by several philosophical writers. Gunaratna bases his commentary on the chapter on Sāmkhya mainly on this work from which he freely quotes. This may be taken as an evidence of its antiquity as well as its authoritativeness. Besides this work Gunaratna speaks of a number of other Samkhya Treatises many of which are not available.
The Samkhya System--The chief purpose of philosophical study in ancient India was to get rid of the sorrows of life. This ideal is stated at the very beginning of the system. Life according to Kapila is subject to three kinds of sorrow. Moksa or liberation consists in the extinction of pain and misery originating from these three sources. The three sources of sorrow according to Samkhya are (1) adhyātmika, that which is dependent of self (2) adhibhautika, that which is dependent on the environment (3) adhidaivika, that which is dependent on supernatural and divine influences. Adhyātmika Duḥkha, sorrow dependent on self may be due to two reasons (a) bodily conditions or Sariraka (b) mental conditions or Mánasika. Sorrow due to bodily condition relates to suffering in pain due to diseases, etc., which pertain to the body. Sorrows due to mental conditions are the unpleasant experience associated with certain emotions such as anger, fear, etc. The second class of sorrows known as Adhibhautika is due to environmental conditions. The interference from environmental source may be from fellow human beings or animals or birds or other natural conditions. The third kind, Adhidaivika, refers to sorrow originating from the influences of supernatural agencies. The wrath of the deities, adverse conjunction of planets, the mischief of the Yakşas and Rakşasas would all come under this head. The summum bonum for life is to escape from these kinds of Duḥkha or sorrow. This escape from suffering and pain is to be achieved by the knowledge of the several Tattvas and hence the desire to know the Tattvas. All souls long to escape from such misery and to seek liberation. The Sămkhya method propounds the means of escape from sorrow and of the attainment of the consequential bliss. The Sāņkhya method of liberation is quite different from the traditional Vedic method which was by sacrifice. Kapila condemns the sacrificial cult. The reveal - ed Vedic method is quite useless according to Kapila because of its defects which are three.
Impurity-Destruction and excess or enormity. The Vedic method of sacrifice is impure because it is caused by bloodshed due to slaughter of animals. This method of sacrifice though supposed to expiate all sins even
bloodshed due to slaughter o

Page #76

INTRODUCTION
61
Brahmahatya is rejected by Kapila for all such rites according to him are impure. Further it leads to mere destruction. The method of sacrifice instead of leading to complete liberation from Samsara merely leads to another state of Samsaric existence. The end aimed at is happiness in Svarga and certainly this is not Mokṣa. Hence the path of sacrifice is the path of destruction and not of salvation. The traditional method is excessive or unequal. Sacrifice generally involves lot of expenditure, eg., in an Aśvamedha sacrifice sometimes hundreds of horses have to be sacrificed. Hence this method is not within the reach of all. Therefore as against such an impossible way of escape Kapila proposes a method which is quite adequate and feasible to all. The path to liberation according to Samkhya philosophy consists in the progress of acquiring discriminative knowledge of the nature of the self from its environmental existence. This discrimination that the spirit or Puruşa is quite different from Prakṛti or matter that leads to self-realisation which is the true Mokṣa. The material environment which practically imprisons the spirit is called by Kapila Prakṛti. The whole physical universe is but a manifestation of this Prakṛti. Hence the discriminative knowledge also means the knowledge of the number and the nature of the several Tattvas-ultimate principles. The problem relating to the path of Mokṣa resolves therefore into the problem as to the nature of the Tattvas. The next question therefore is what are the Samkhyan Tattvas? Kapila starts with the assumption that the self or Puruşa is quite distinct from Prakrti or the ultimate matter. The former is the spiritual principle in man whereas the latter, the primeval basic principle of the material universe. The cosmos is evolved out of this Prakṛti. In the midst of this unfolding and developing Prakrti the several Puruşsas are situated. According to Kapila the Purusas are infinite in number. Thus in the technical language of modern metaphysics the Samkhya system may be said to be the dualistic as well as pluralistic. Dualistic because it postulates two classes of reals Cetana and Acetana, spiritual and nonspiritual and pluralistic because it postulates an infinite number of Purusas or souls. Each Puruşa is encircled by Prakṛti or Pradhana which is another name for describing matter. In the earlier form of the Samkhya system each Puruşa was supposed to have his own peculiar and individual Prakṛti. But later schools of Samkhya maintained that all the different Pradhanas relating to different Purusas are really one in nature since they are all evolved from one and the same Prakṛti. The Puruşa who is encircled by an alien and extraneous matter forgets its true nature and pristine purity, identifies itself with bodily activities and conditions. This ignorance of its true heritage is the real cause of human misery. Hence the realisation of the true nature of the Puruşa as distinct from the material conditions is the ideal to be aimed at,

Page #77

62
SAMAYASĀRA
Evolution of the cosmos from the Primeral Prakrti-This Prakrti is increated and self-existing. It is from this Praksti all other things emanate except the Puruşa. This primeval matter or Prakrti is endowed with three gupas or qualities. Whenever the harmonious equilibrium of the quality in the Praksti is disturbed it begins on the career of manifestation or differentiation. This process of differentiation really constitutes the process of the building up of the Cosmos. The first thing that emanates from this unmanifested Prakrti is Buddhi or Mahat-the Great. The term Buddhi is sometimes translated as intellect but we should remember this fact that it is mainly of the nature of matter since it evolves from acetana reality--Praksti. Intellect in modern psychology suggests a relation to a mind or self but Prakrti in Kapila's system corresponds to Descarte's unthinking thing. Therefore Buddhi which is evolved from this Praksti subtle though it be is still a material mode. This Buddhi or Mahat must therefore mean in the Samkhya system some sort of subtle material environment quite in the proximity of the Purusa or self. It is only through the medium of this Buddhi that Puruşa has knowledge of the external world. Samkhya writers compare Buddhi to a sort of mirror which reflects the knowledge of the external world for the benefit of Puruşa. On the one hand, it reflects the outer world and on the other it reflects also the Puruşa. Buddhi is that peculiar medium in which the Purusa and his material environments are brought into relation which is the ultimate source of Saṁsāra. It is because of this relation of Buddhi between the self and the non-self that there is a chance for the Puruşa to mistake his true nature and to identify himself with Prakrti and thus to imagine that he is responsible for all the changes in the material environments. The next step is the birth of "ahamkāra" from Buddhi. It is the I or the Ego which is the ground of our personal identity. Here also we have to notice that ahamkāra, the Sāmkhya ego is not quite identical with the conception of the Ego or self of modern psychology. The ego of modern psychology corresponds to Puruşa whereas the Samkhyan ahamkara merely means some further modification of the subtle Buddhi which itself is a modi. fication of acetana Praksti. The Samkhyan Ego probably refers to a process of individuation, a process culminating in organic body. The self or Purusa becomes an organic individual through the means of ahamkāra. Next we have the origin of the five senses known as the Tanmatras. This term is a technical term of the Sārkhya school meaning the sense-qualities. These subtle sense-qualities emanate from that principle of individuality known as ahamkāra. The Tanmātras are five in number, sound, touch, smell, taste and visibility. Even these Tanmatras we have to remember are maten rial categories. These sense-elements or Tanmātras form the primary basis for the evolution of the grosser matter. This grosser matter which is derived from these Tanmātras is again of five kinds, the Pañcabhūtas. Akasa (Ether), air, earth, water and fire. Ether arises from sound, air from touch,

Page #78

INTRODUCTION
63 earth from smell, water from taste and fire from visibility or light. Thus the five bhutas are respectively derived from the five Tanmatras, the basic categories of the physical universe. This line of development from ahmkāra to the world of physical things represents only one side of the process. There is another process of development from the same source—from ahamkara or the principle of individuality. We have the principle of building up the organic. This process of building up the organic body consists in the evolution of the five buddhindriyas or organs of sense-perception and five karmendriyas or the organs of activity and manaindriya--the organ of thought. The five organs of sense-perception are the five familiar sense organs-Eye, ear, nose, tongue and the skin. These sense-organs according to the Sámkhya system are evolved out of the principle of individuality, ahamkāra. So also are the five Karmendriyas which are the vocal organs for speech, the hands, the feet, the organs of excretion and the generative organs. These five Buddhindriyas and the five Karmendriyas together with the manas are the eleven Indriyas derived from Ahamkāra. Thus the primeval cosmic principle Prakrti evolving upto ahamkara branches off into two lines of development one leading upto the cosmos and the other to the building up of the body which serves as the temporal tabernacle for the Puruşa. Thus the Samkhya Tattvas which are derived from Prakřti are 24 in number. These together with Puruşa constitute the 25 Sāmkhya Tattvas.
The Nature of Prakyti-Praksti is otherwise called Avyakta or the unmanifest or Pradhana or the primary basis of existence. When we look to the process of evolution of the different Tativas enumerated above we find this Prakști as the fountain source of not only the elements that go to build up the physical universe but also of those that lead to the origin of organised living bodies. This primeval subtle matter Prakrti may be some kind of Ether which early Sámkhyas may be said to have imagined. This is the connecting link between the gross matter on the one hand and lifeactivity on the other, the fountain source of both the inorganic and the organic. Even according to modern Science Ether is the primeval source of matter. According to what is known as the electron theory of matter, the physical atom is a complex system of electrons. Thus the physical basis of matter is traced to Ether which is the basis of forces like electricity, magnetism, light, heat, etc. The process of development of physical science is interesting in this respect. Towards the close of the 19th century there was the wonderful analysis of the physical realm into a definite number of chemical elements out of which the whole cosmos was built. Science then recognised two fundamental concepts mass and energy as constitutive of matter. The speculation of Maxwell and Thompson ultimately indicated that Mass was but a derivative concept, Energy being the primary one. The next step was reached when the electrical theory of matter was propounded. This leads to the complete identity of all forms

Page #79

64
SAMAYASARA
of physical energy, heat, light, magnetism and electricity. The next and most important step of advance is marked by the discovery of radio-activity. On the one hand it discovered the extremely complex nature of the atom which resembles the Solar system in miniature inasmuch as it contains a nucleus around which a number of negative electrons revolve with incredible velocity. The second result of this discovery is equally important. The chemical element which were considered to be completely isolated are now shown to be merely of quantitative differences brought about by the electronic changes in the intra-atomic constitution. The dream of the alchemist that all the chemical elements had a common basis and hence transmutable is no more a matter of historic curiosity suggesting merely how men went wrong in their early scientific speculations. It becomes a matter of scientific possibility for unquestionably it is indicated that all the elements have a common source. If this theory as to the constitution of the cosmos is accepted and there is evidence enough supporting it then ether becomes the primeval fountain source of all energy constituting the physical realm. This again conversely implies that due to the intra-atomic changes the physical universe may altogether get dissolved and then disappear into the very same primeval Ether. On the side of the organic world we have had a similar development pointing towards some such source as the Ether. We are all acquainted with the Darwinian conception of biological evolution which traces the diversity of animal life to a single source of organised protoplasmic matter. No doubt modern science has not been able to bridge up the gulf between the inorganic and the organic. Nevertheless the life-activity in protoplasmic matter which is the ultimate source for the wealth and richness of animal life may be this very intra-atomic energy, probably controlled and guided by a higher category not yet fully known to modern science, and most probably indicating to the same source of Ether. Towards the side of psychology many an abnormal phenomenon such as telepathy and clairvoyance are supposed to be due to some kind of Ether which is capable of transmitting thought-waves. Thus from every direction speculation leads to the same kind of origin. When different departments of modern science agree to postulating a common entity-Ether, for the purpose of explaining their respective phenomena we may very well imagine that Kapila contemplated some such ultimate basis which would account for the evolution of the cosmos as well as the organic world. Kapila's system not only describes the building up of things living and unliving from a primeval Praksti but also contemplates the possibility of their loosing their concrete form and thus disappearing into the original Praksti. Thus as a tortoise throws it limbs backwards so also will the universe retract all its emanations and evolving things back to its own bosom. This in short is the account of the evolution of the world according to Kapila.
This primeval Praksti of Pradhāna is considered to be the substratum of the three guņas, Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. The Sámkhya system

Page #80

INTRODUCTION
emphasises the importance of the three gunas of Prakṛti. Sattva means good or Truth; Rajas means activity or passion. Tamas means darkness or inertia. This conception of gunas is really an obscure doctrine in the Samkhya system. These three guņas are supposed to inhere in the primeval matter Prakṛti. These do not belong to Purușa. The uncreated and indestructible Pradhana which has the potency of life and consciousness has also this privilege of owning these three Gunas which somehow are interested in the evolution of the Cosmos. The interplay of the three gupas in the Prakṛti forms the starting point in the evolutionary process. When the three gunas are harmoniously settled there is a sort of internal equilibrium and peace within the Prakṛti. Somehow this primeval harmony is disturbed when one of the gupas gets predominance over the rest and this starts the process of evolution, On account of this original and unexplained disturbance, the Prakṛti enters into a sort of creative evolution though itself is not created. Thus it carries in its bosom in a latent form the richness and multiplicity of the well ordered universe. The original disturbance of harmony which is the beginning of the process of evolution remains an ultimate metaphysical assumption on which Samkhya system rests. Why there should be a disturbance at all in the primeval peace, Kapila does not trouble to explain. But this is an assumption without which subsequent changes would remain inexplicable. By some mysterious internal disorder, Prakrti is set moving and then follows change after change and at each step the progressive making of the universe. In the fully evolved universe Kapila assigns each Guna its respective region. The Sattvaguna which is associated with light, fire or flame is the symbol of purity. The spotless shining quality of Sattva is present in the ordinary fire and flame. The presence of this quality makes the flame turn skywards thereby indicating its divine origin from above. In air there is the predominance of Rajoguņa. Hence it is marked by its violence. It roams about horizontally in the middle region of the universe. Solids and liquids stand for Tamoguna. Hence their opacity to light and hence their inert and impervious nature and hence their tendency to sink downwards. Thus the evolution of the denser and grosser matter is the result of the precipitating of the Tamoguņa. Thus the three gupas have their part in the evolution of the inorganic world. They also have their part to play in the origin and growth of the organic world. Organisms are but the modifications of the same Prakṛti, and hence they are also subject to the influence of the three guņas. The living world is divided into the upper, the middle and the lower. The upper region of the cosmos traditional svarga is the abode of the devas. The lower one is associated with the animal and trees whereas the middle region is the natural havitation of man. The svarga abode of happy divine being is also the place where Brahma and Indra reside. The elemental beings like Gandharvas and Yakṣas also reside there. These beings of the higher regions have in them the Sattvaguna in abundance. Hence they are marked by mutual goodwill and general happiness.
9

65

Page #81

SAMAYASARA
In man there is a predominance of Rajoguna. Hence arises the feverish activity of man who is destined to eat the fruits of his karmas, His life is marked by the dominant note of struggle the misery and the few cases of momentary happiness which he now and then manages to experience only go to accentuate his general unhappiness and misery. The last is the region of the animals. This has the maximum of Tamoguņa or darkness. Hence all the inhabitants of this region are marked by general unconsciousness and stupor. All these there regions of the world constitute the one whole world of samsāric cycle according to Kapila. The same chain of births and deaths binds the three kinds of beings animals, men and Devas. Even the prominent residents of Svarga, Brahma and Indra who generally enjoy unalloyed happiness throughout their lives have to meet with death. Hence their life is equally subject to the visicitudes of Samsāra and suffers from the bondage of births and deaths. Theirs is not the life of pure and liberated Purușa. Thus not only in the building up of the inorganic world but also in the evolution of the organic including the super and subhuman regions, the part palyed by the three guņas of Praksti is felt in no mean degree. These guņas are invoked by the Samkhya thinkers to explain the birth of world and the process of Saṁsāra.
Mokşa or liberation : According to Samkhyas Moksa or liberation consists in getting rid of all the root causes of Saṁsāra which are the three kinds of bondage, mentioned above. Kapila curiously expects the means of salvation from the very Prakrti which is the original source of the bondage. The intelligent Puruşa is inactive by nature and hence is incapable of being the architect of his own destiny. Acetana—the unenlightened-- Praksti has all activity and force in itself and is quite blind by nature. The Puruşa is intelligent but inert and Praksti is all activity but blind. The union of the two-the, blind and the cripple-leads to living. It is that the soul may be able to contemplate on its own nature and entirely separate itself that the union is made as of the halt of the cripple and the blind and through that union the universe is formed. It is Praksti that is privileged to carry the Puruşa to its final goal. It is through the manifestation of Praksti that the soul acquires discrimination and obtains mokşa. Is there any conscious co-operation between Purusa and Prakrti ? No, that cannot be for Praksti is Acetana and the Purusa cannot live in peace with it and yet there is this union between the two. Kapila vehemently protests against postulating a higher intelligence than Prakrti, īśvara in order to explain the union between the two. He advances arguments to show that there can be co-operation even in the region of the unconscious. Purposive adaptation according to Kapila need not necessarily imply the operation of an intelligent agent. Secretion of milk from the cow is no doubt necessary and useful for the calf. This secretion is no doubt a case of purposive adaptation, but all the same the cow is not consciously

Page #82

INTRODUCTION responsible for this. Similarly the relation between Praksti and Puruşa is a case of purposive adaptation without the necessity of an intelligent adjuster. Praksti unconciously itself operates for the benefit of Puruşa and is a case of unconscious inner necessity to serve the purpose of the soul. The adaptation between the two is absolutaly unconscious thougt suggestive of an intelligent designer. Again through the help of Praksti Puruşa is able to obtain discriminative knowledge about his true nature. The Puruşa is able to realise himself to be absolutely independent of and uninfluenced by the Prakrti activities. He knows he is different from the senses, Buddhi and ahamkāra. This realisation of independence from the environment including his own psychophysical mechanism leads to perfect knowledge. Then the puruşa is able to perceive that the activities are all due to Praksti while he himself remains in unruffled peace. Praksti ceases to affect him. Prakrti retires from the stage saying "I have been seen. I can no more please the Puruşa" and then the Puruşa remains calm and peaceful saying "I have seen her; no more can she please me." This discriminative knowledge and the consequent retirement of the Puruşa from the cosmic stage is an interesting philosophical metaphor. Praksti or nature continues to spin round on account of its own original impulse even after Puruşa's liberation. But this activity can no more influence the liberated Puruşa because through knowledge he obtained freedom or Mokşa.
The main objection is that Kapila starts his system as a panacea for the evils in this world. He thereby recognises at least to some extent the importance of ethical value. But the system as finally wrought out by him is incapable of accommodating any such moral value. Human volition and consequent human conduct as such are said to be the effects of acetana Praksti virtue and vice are alien to the Puruşa. They are associated with the nonspiritual Praksti and hence they do not affect the soul and yet with a strange inconsistency it is the fate of Puruşa so enjoy the fruits pleasurable and painful of the karmas directly and immediately due to the activity of Praksti. Why it is the fate of Puruşa that he should vicariously suffer the consequences of an alien being is life entirely unexplained. To be consistent with his own presuppositions he ought to have made Purusa indifferent to the consequential pleasure or pains of conduct. But that would have made the Puruşa an altogether unintelligible shadow of reality. It is this inherent paralysis of his system that strikes us as an important defect. In spite of the various defects we have to pay our homage to the great ancient thinker for the courageous application of the rational method for the problem of life and reality. In a remote age of Indian thought when customary dogmas played the dominant part in the explanation of philosophical problems it is really a mattar for admiration to see such a rigorous and rational thinker as Kapila. In philosophical study the method is more important than the results. The results may be modified but the method leaves a permanent

Page #83

68
SAMAYASARA
impression and contributes an endowing value in creating the right intellectual attitude. If the method of analysis and explanation is admitted to be of greater philosophic value than the actual doctrine obtained thereby Kapila judged by this standard must occupy a place on a par with the world's greatest thinkers.
It was stated in a previous section that the doctrine of Ahimsa was prevalent even before the time of the Ṛgvedic period, probably due to the influence of the Lord Vṛṣabha of the Ikṣvāku clan. This school of thought continued to have a parallel existence to the Vedic culture of the sacrificial tenets. There must have been mutual influence between these two schools, one emphasising sacrifice and the other condemning it. That there were such counter currents of thought is obvious from the conflicting passages found in the Rgvedic literature. It sometimes emphasises sacrifice, in such passage as Ajena Eṣṭavyaha, and sometimes condemns sacrificeMa-himsyat. In this struggle between the two schools of thought, we find the rival school to Vedic sacrifice becoming more dominant now and then, leading to giving up of sacrifice and Indra worship. But about the time of the rise of the Upanisadic literature the schools standing for Ahimsa championed by the succession of Kṣattriya teachers became quite supreme. The sacrificial cult championed by the Priests evidently gave up the struggle as hopeless and entered into a compromise. They recognised the new thought characterised by Ahimsa and Atmavidya as distinctly superior to their own sacrificial cult which they accepted to be distinctly inferior. This compromising effect by welcoming the new thought as Para vidya and assigning an inferior place to the sacrificial cult as Apară-vidya must have secured intellectual peace and harmony only for some time. Because in the letter Upanisadic literature while accepting the new doctrine of Atmavidya they surreptitiously smuggled into the Upanisadic cult the doctrine of sacrifice as a specially exempted one. Thus we find in Upanisadic literature an open recognition of the doctrine of Ahimsa and at the same time introducing a clause except in the case of religious sacrifice. This ingenius method of smuggling into the new thought, the old objected doctrine of sacrificial ceremony was evidently virulently protested by the rival schools. The struggle continued with increased strength, because by that time, the old Vṛṣabha thought of Ahimsā gained additional strength by the rise of Buddhism and also from the cooperation of the Samkhya and Yoga schools which crystalised out of the Upanisadic cult itself, Strange to say there was the unexpected co-operation from free thinking school of Cārvākas, when they joined the struggle-a school of thought identical with school of modern materialistic philosophy. Though the Carvākas did not believe in the existence of Atma, or in the future world, they were opposed to the Vedic culture as an ineffectual waste. In this renewed struggle abounding in destructive criticisms against Vedic sacrifice there must have been a distinct damage caused to the traditional edifice. Hence the orthodox thinkers were bound to reconstruct the cultural

Page #84

INTRODUCTION
69
edifices and re-habilitate the same from the destruction caused by the rival intellectual bombardment. They had to re-examine the notion of Dharma as well as the notion of Atmā. As a result we have the two schools of thought the Pūrvamīmāmsā and Uttaramimāṁsā or Vedānta.
The Purvamīmāmsă school concedes many of the points of the rival schools in order to safeguard its main doctrine of Vedic sacrifice. They openly reject the doctrine of creation and the existence of Isvara or Sarvajña. They do not recognise anything higher than the human personality itself, the point emphasised by the Jainas, Sāņkhyas and the Bauddhas. In spite of this concession they try to maintain with elaborate arguments that Dharma means the Vedic Dharma in the sense of sacrificial ritual. Thus it is an enquiry into the nature of Dharma and hence the work begins with the sutra Athăto Dharmajijñāsā.
Uttara Mimāṁsā or Vedānta : Who are qualified to Brahma Vidya---Surprisingly in conflict with the Upanişadic tendencies the Brahma-sūtras take the attitude that only the Dvijas are eligible. As a matter of fact about the period of the Sutras, caste conservatism was rampant. That is the reason which explains the retrograde tendency herein implied. The critical examination and representation of Samkhya is again taken up. Pradhana as the basic principle of the Universe is rejected. The scriptural terms Aja- "nongenerated”-cannot refer to Avyakta pradhana. It must imply Brahman who is the author of all. He is the only Aja. Brahman is not only the guiding intelligence of cosmic evolution but also is the constituting substance of the cosmos. Brahman is not only the Nimittakārapa but also the Upā. dânakarana, the material cause of the universe. Brahman is the stuff of which the world is made. All that exists partakes of the nature of Brahman. It is the beginning as well as the end of things. It is the origin as well as the goal of individual souls. Here ends the first book.
The second book also begins with the same topic, Yoga is taken up for criticism. According to Yoga there is a controlling Isvara superintending the cosmic evolution proceeding from Pradhāna. This Isvara of Yoga is said to be identical with Brahman. It is said to represent only an inappropriate and imperfect aspect of Truth. Consequently Yoga Isvara is taken to be an incomplete description of ultimate reality which is Brahman. Incidently there is an attempt to answer several Sãmkhyan objections against Iśvara. The author formulates his own doctrine of causation. Vedāntic view of causation does not recognise any cause or effect. Káranakāryābheda is their characteristic doctrine. The Samkhya concept of causation is therefore rejected as unreal. According to Vedānta cause and effect are identical. This is corroborated both by Vedic authority and concrete experience. The cause of cloth is thread. There could be no quarrel about this that yarn in a particular arrangement constitutes cloth.

Page #85

70
SAMAYASARA
Responsibility of the Creator-Samkhya emphasises the fact that an Isvara being an intelligent cause of the universe must be responsible for the whole of the cosmos including the faults thereof. The defence put in the Brahma-sutras is something obscure. Here the author takes his stand on the separateness of Brahman from Jivātmā. According to the Samkhya view activity implies desire and motive. Creation as an act must therefore imply a desire and motive in the agent. The desire of Brahma to bring about the world, cannot be a desire to help various beings, for they are still uncreated and non-existent. If there is a motive for the activity the motive must imply some sort of want in the creator. The answer is that there is no genuine motive for the creator. According to the Vedantic defence Brahma creates the universe merely out of sport or Lila. But the next is the more important objection. It relates to the responsibility of the creator for uneven distribution of pleasure and pains. The answer offered by Vedanta is a bit strange. The act of creation is not said to be quite arbitrary but takes into consideration the merit and the demerit of the individual soul. This defence naturally implies that the individual souls should have their separate and independent existence and that they are not really created though they are destined to undergo a periodic cosmic slumber from which they get awakened at the beginning of creation. How such a doctrine of individual selves could be reconciled to Vedantic monism is not clearly shown. Neither the sutras nor the great commentary of Śamkara is helpful. The latter part of the second book is devoted to the refutation of the other theories such as Vaiśeşika, Bauddha, and Jaina. The author again and again returns to the criticism of Samkhya. There is an interesting point to be noticed before we take leave of this. Buddhism is condemned to be unreal. We shall be surprised to see both the Sūtrakāra and the commentator Śamkara reject the Bauddha conception
for this reason that according to Buddhistic view the world of external reality is purely mental and unreal. This reason offered for rejecting the Buddhistic view is certainly perplexing. The Bauddhas are found fault with because they annihilate the fundamental distinction between the concrete world of reality and the dream world of unreality and they believe that the world is made of such stuff as dreams are made of. And yet this is the very conclusion to which Vedanta is striving. This surprising philosophical attitude has a parallel in western thought. Kant establishing the phenomenality of the external world to his satisfaction gives vent to righteous indignation at Berkleyan idealism to refute which he devotes one full chapter. Berkley would be much more akin to the ordinary view and yet Kant in the west and Samkara in the East claim the privilege of protesting against their own conclusions, when they are heard from alien quarters. To us it is interesting in this way. Idealism which is considered to be the claim of philosophic thought even in its

Page #86

INTRODUCTION
71
most triumphant existence has an unconscious desire to hide its true identity from the ordinary world and attempts to appear as some thing different.
The latter part of II Adhyaya again takes up the discussion of the doctrine of creation. According to Vedantism, there is no process. of creation at all. The evolution and involution of the world during periodic kalpas is but an appearance. If creation is a real process of evolution then they cannot reasonable object to Samkhya evolution. The Avyakta unmanifest of Kapila is the primeval matter. But the Vedanta takes this Avyakta to be his intelligent Brahma. From Avyakta proceeds Akāśa or ether. From this proceeds Vayu, then Agni, and then water and then the earth. This description of creation occurs both in the Vedic texts of the Mantras and the Upanisads. The elements created out of the Brahma get reabsorbed by him in the reverse order. Thus describing the process of creation the scriptural texts demand an explanation from the Brahma-Sutras. According to the Vaiseṣika view Akāśa or space is eternal or uncreated. It is the substratum of Sabda or sound. This Vaiseṣika doctrine will conflict with the ultimate concept of Brahma. There would be two eternals Ākāśa and Brahma. Hence the Vendanta school is constrained to show that the Vaiśeşika doctrine of infinite space is unique and they must show that space is created by Brahma. According to Samkhya the starting point of evolution is Acetana Prakṛti. The Vedanta school emphasises the psychical nature of Buddhi and Ahamkara. But these according to Samkhya are derived from Acetana Prakṛti. Brahma-sutras therefore rightly criticise that Samkhya view of deriving Cetana entities from Acetana Prakṛti. Buddhi and ahamkāra are therefore considered as the manifestation of Brahma or Sat. larly the Nyaya and Vaiśeṣika view of Self is rejected by Brahma-Sutras. Nyaya-sutras maintain that the individual souls are uncreated. In this respect the Vedantic doctrine conflicts with Nyaya and Vaiseṣika view. Though the Vedantin accepts the uncreated and eternal nature of individual selves in a way still he does not recognise the substantiality thereof. Individuality is an illusion for him. Birth and death, creation and destruction of the individual souls are all due to the body. The self in itself is beyond birth and death. Its essence is Cetana. Hence the view of the Brahamasutras is different from that of the Vaiśeşika school according to which consciousness is an accidental quality of the Self brought about by its contact with manas or mind.
Simi
The doctrine of the size of the Atman is next critised in the BrahmaThe atomic size of Atman is as old as the Udaniṣad. This doctrine
sutras.
is accepted by the Vaiseşikas. The Brahma-sutras reject this view in spite of the Upanisadic authority. To speak of the size of soul or atman is to confound its nature with body. The categories of spatial magnitude are inadequate to describe the soul which is intrinsically of the nature of

Page #87

72
SAMAYASARA thought and the spiritual entity may be spoken of either as an atom or as an infinite. It may be both infinitesimal as well as infinite. The individual self is also a kartā or agent. He is able to act and thus he is able to produce karma. Being the author of karma he is obliged to enjoy the fruits thereof. Kartā must be bhokta also. In this respect the Vedantic view is different from the Samkhyan system where Purusa is merely the enjoyer and not an actor. But when we examine more closely the Vedāntic view the prima facis objection disappears. Activity is not the intrinsic quality of the soul. Activity is due to its accidental conjunction with the body. In the technical language of Vedānta Atma becomes a kartā only because of the Physical conditions or Upādhi. On account of the same upādhi it becomes a bhoktā. Thus action and enjoyment are both due to extraneous conditions. The so-called upādhis are constituted by the several indriyas or sense-orga ns. In this respect many doctrines are common to Samkhya and the Vedanta. The activity of the individual self though appearing as a difference between the two schools does not constitute a real difference. The activity is explained away ultimately in the sūtras. Activity in the individual is really due to Brahma himself or the Antaryāmî. Hence the individual soul is not a free agent. He acts because of the Isvara in him. But this control exercised by Iśvara is assumed to be entirely consistent with the karmas of the individual. The inference of an Isvara is not an instance of an arbitrary act. He is himself determined by the karmas of the individual self.
The third chapter of Brahma-sútras contains the same topic about the soul. Transmigration is taken up. The soul retains its manas and sūksma śarira after death. Hence it is not Free from Upadhi. It is still subject to decay and death. It is still tied to the wheel of Saṁsāra. After death it may have its sojourn in different lokas. But nevertheless the individual must come back to the world because it is from here that it has to obtain final liberation.
A Discussion of Dreams and Hallucinations - The doctrine of the four stages of the Self mentioned in the Upanişads finds a place here. The two kinds of knowledge; absolute and relative Parávidya and Aparāvidyā. The lower knowledge or aparāvidyā refers to the sacrifice and it is supposed to be related to Saguna Brahma whereas the higher knowledge leads to Nirguna Brahma. The last and fourth chapter leads to Mokşa. The two Vidyās lead to two different paths. The lower associated with worship of Isvara leads to Svarga whereas the higher resting upon the contemplation of Nirguna Brahma leads to Self Realisation and identification with Brahma. There is no distinction between the individual and the absolute. The upādhis being eliminated, the conditions being destroyed, the individual self finds the absolute. This is known as Mukti. It is direct of immediate 'realisation of the Self, whereas the former path through lower knowledge may ultimately lead to Mukti though not directly and immediately. The realisation of the

Page #88

INTRODUCTION
73
self and the consequent liberation is brought about by Samyagdarśana, the true path. There is true knowledge of the self. It is the state of perfect Nirvāpa. All qualities have withered away from Brahma. It is nirguna, nirvisesa. Thus qualityless and formless He is beyond description--anirvacanfya. Thus ends the Brahma-sútras indicating the true nature of ultimate reality-the un-conditioned Brahma.
Sankara and Vedantism-Sankara represents a stage in the development of Vedāntism. He lived about the 8th century, a contemporary of Kumārila Bhatta, a student of Govinda, who was a disciple of Gaudapada. Sankara's Vedāntism is expressed in his great commentaries on the Upanişads as well as Brahma-Satras. His advaita is the logical outcome of Gaudapāda's advaitism. It is most influential among the current schools of Indian thought. In his introduction to the great Bhāşya on the Brahma-Sūtras he says 'It is a matter not requiring any proof that the object and subject whose respective spheres are the notions of Thou and Ego and which are opposed to each other as light and darkness. The two cannot be identified. Hence it follows that it is wrong to superimpose on the subject the attributes of object and vice versa." Thus he starts with a sufficient warning that the subject and object are quite distinct and they should not be confounded with each other. He warns against the superimposition of attributesAdhyāsa. The subject should not be associated with the attributes of the object nor the object with those of subject. The two are distinct in kind. One is a cetana entity and the other an acetana thing. Sankara starts just where Sankhya started. There also Cetana Puruşa is different from acetana Prakşti. Again the starting point of modern thought in Europe was the same. Descartes started with the distinction between the thinking thing and the extended thing. Yet by an inscrutable logic adopted by both Descartes and Sankara the goal reached by them is fundamentally different from the starting point. Cartesianism ends in Spinozistic monism where the ultimate substance engulfs all things Cetana and Acetana within itself. And similarly Sarkara ends with an all-devouring absolute which could not brook by its side any other entity. Sankara in the same introductory passage suggests that this Adhyāsa is a common vice of our experience and is due to our ignorance or avidyā. The only way to get rid of it is by Vidyā or knowledge. Thus Adhyāsa or mutual confusion of self and nonself is the result of ignorance. It is on ignorance that all the duties enjoined in the scriptures are based. Hence the doctrine of Pramāpas includes perception and inference. Several vedic texts enjoining various religious duties all have for their objects world which is the resultant of the avidyā or ignorance. The world of objective reality is thus due to ignorance and even the vedic rites and injunctions are not excepted. These have no value for one who possesses real knowledge. Distinctions of caste, status in society, etc. are all due to adhyasa. The conception of Vedic Dharma has meaning only with reference to Adhyāsa, accidental conjunction of the true self with the
10

Page #89

74
SAMAYASARA
extraneous conditions of caste, birth, etc. But for this false conception Vedic Dharma could have no meaning and no validity for Dharma pertains to Varna, which in turn depends upon the body and not upon the soul. Because of the false identity between soul and body we speak of one as a Brahmin or a Ksatriya. These attributes are true only of the body and yet are falsely associated with the self. Thus Sankara not only indicates the truth that the self and the environment are distinct but also suggests that the confusion and false identity is due to avidyā. From a thinker who emphasised the danger of this philosophical error we should naturally expect consistently a system of philosophy strictly maintaining the opposites. On the other hand, Sankara offers just the reverse. He dismisses the distinction between self and non-self as unreal and unphilosophical. What is the nature of the external world according to Sarkara? Gaudapada already compared it to a dream. Sankara accepts the same without question. The diversity and objectivity of the world of things and persons are all illusory. The objective world around is but the māyā of the juggler, the juggler in this case being Ātman himself. Since the juggler himself is not a victim to his own illusion so the highest self is not affected by the world-illusion, The whole of the external world is but the manifestation of Brahma or Ātman. The substance of which this world is constituted being Cetana is genuinely akin to dreams. That it is a dream will not be evident to us so long as we are dreaming, so long as there is avidya. When we wake from this dream to another world then the dream-world will vanish. When the individual wakes up into highest selfhood then he will understand the dreamlike illusory nature of his former experience. When he rids himself of overpowering avidya the multiplicity and objectivity will automatically disappear.
Is the individual atman real according to Sarikara ? The individual self shares the same fate as the objective world. All the other Indian systems of thought recognised individual atman to be eternal and uncreated. But in the hands of Sankara the individual soul dwindles into a shadow of a higher reality. In the passages emphasising his own advaita view he rejects the panthetistic view according to which the objective world and the individual self can be real and yet subsisting in the same universal. Several passages in the Upanişads compares the Brahma to a tree and the individuals to various branches thereof. Unity and multiplicity are both real in organic life. So is the ocean one though the waves are many. So the clay is the same though the pots are many. These Upanişadic passages do not and need not necessarily imply the doctrine of the illusoriness of the world and individual selves. But such an interpretation Sarikara does not want. He sternly rejects that as erroneous. He emphasises the unity as absolute. If the phenomenal world and individual souls are unreal then it would be against the practical notions of ordinary life. Such consequences are not disconcerting to Sarkara. Such objections do not damage his position,

Page #90

INTRODUCTION
75
because the entire complex of phenomenal existence is still true to a person who has not reached the true knowledge and realised his true self. As long as one is in ignorance the reality of the world and self is vouchsafed for him. He may behave as if these were true and his life not affected by the higher philosophical doctrine. Sankara's self is thus an absolute-a sort of Parmenidean absolute-eternal and unchanging.
What has Sankara to say about the several passages in the Vedic scriptures which speak of the creation and evolution of the world? If the world of concrete reality is illussory the Vedic doctrines of creation would have no meaning. This objection he wards off with the remark that the creating qualities of Brahma depends on the evolution of the germical principles Nama and Rupa. The fundamental truth that we maintain is that the creation, destruction and sustenance of the world all proceed from an omniscient and omnipotent principle and not from an unintelligent Pradhana. While maintaining absolute unity or Advaita of self how can the above be maintained? The longing of the self-the name and form are the figments of Nescience. These are not to be either as being the same or different from it. The germs of the entire phenomenal world is called in the Śruti, Maya or Illusion, Sakti or Power, Prakrti or Nature. Different from these is the omniscient world. Hence the Lord depends upon the limiting adjuncts of Maya and Rupa the products of the avidya out of which Isvara creates the world. His being a creator, His omniscience and omnipotence all depend on the limitations due to those very adjuncts whose nature is avidya. From these passages extracted from Sankara Bhāṣya we have an idea of Sankara's philosophy. Ultimate reality is undivided and undivisible unity same as Upanisadic Brahma. The several vedic gods are but fractional aspects of this. Sankara wants the reader not to confound his system with the Vedic theology. He clears away adhyasa or error. His system is a streneous attempt at an accurate definition of atman. Through a very skilful dialectic all the qualities of the external world are shown to be alien to Brahma. Spatiality, objectivity, colour, sound, etc. all are with a psychological insight shown to be non-spiritual. By this process of elimination the essential nature of atman is clearly defined as Atman. It is the only thinking thing Cetanadravya. Thinking is not merely an attribute of the Self. Self is thought. Atman is Cit. Having gone thus far Sankara is tied down to a philosophical doctrine which appears to be inconsistent with his own standpoint and also with thought and general tradition. Such a result is probably due to the following reasons. The Upanisadic writers spoke of the Brahma as the spiritual essence the leaven which leavens all things. In these passages the doctrine of atman exactly corresponds to Cartesian thinking substance. The Upanisadic passages did not negate the reality of the phenomenal world. When Sankara took up the doctrine he was confronted with a difficulty. Sankara could not accept the naive Upanisadic pantheism. He wants a clear definition of Atman. This naturally widened the gulf between subject

Page #91

76
SAMAYASÁRA
and object. While these according to Upanişadic writers had vague common substratum. Not satisfied with this philosophic vagueness Sankara wanted to shift reality to the side of the subject or Cit. Hence Sankara not only finds ātman identical with Cit but it is also identical with existence or Sat. If the Brahma is the soul and if the soul is the Brahma then the Sat must be Cit-existence and thought must be identical. If existence and thought are absolutely identical then anything other than thought will be unreal or Asat. The objective world is not Cit or thought. Hence it cannot be real or Sat. Sarkara is compelled to propound the doctrine of the unreality of the objective world. What is the justification for such a conclusion. There is no doubt he is supported by certain Upanișadic passages as well as by some of his predecessors like Gaudapada. But we have to remember that many Upanişadic passages that declare the external world as unreal do so only metaphorically and comparatively. The Upanişadic doctrine compares with the Cartesian doctrine of gradation. The ultimate substance has the maximum of reality whereas man has less of that. But with sarkara it is otherwise. For him a thing must be Sat or an Asat. To be real, a thing must be Cit and what is not Cit must necessarily be Asat. Thus after establishing the reality of ātman and the illusoriness of the rest Sarkara is confronted with an extraordinary difficulty to reconcile his philosophy with the common-sense view on the one hand and the traditional Vedic religion on the other. He manages this by his distinction between Vyāvahārika and Paramarthika points of view. For all practical purposes and for the ordinary affairs of religion the world may be taken as real though philosophically it is no more than the phantom of a deluded personality. Many Vedantins bring in the parallel of Kant who also has a duality. The world is empirically real but transcendentally ideal. But we should protest against such a comparison. For Kant recognises the so-called thing-in-itself which is the ultimate source. The phenomenal world is the resultant of the interaction between thing-in-itself and Ego-in-itself- the one supplies the stuff and the other the form. That is one of the reasons why Kant protests against Berkley and wanted to keep his philosophy entirely different from that. Sankara's advaitism is fundamentally different from Kant's phenomenalism. He is more akin to Fichte's. Even this resemblance is superficial for the monistic idealism of Fichte is only a metaphysical explanation of moral value. According to Fichte the world of objective reality is a stage or an arena created by the Ego for its own moral exercise. Moral value is the pivot on which Fichte's monism revolves. But for Sankara all these values have reference to human life and human personality and therefore must be relegated to the realm of illusions from the higher point of view. In his own words "The external world as well as individual personality are mayā, asat, nothing else."
Sankara and the Doctrine of Māya-Speaking of the External world Sankara says it is all māyā or illusion and yet he with other vedantins

Page #92

INTRODUCTION
77
repudiates the doctrine of Buddhism that the external world is purely psychical and as such has no substantiality of its own. What is the significance of this paradoxical attitude? According to the Sankhyan doctrine as to the origin and nature of the world the External world is evolved out of Prakrti which being opposed to Puruşa is Acetana. It is more or less similar to the modern scientific "Matter". Besides this Prakṛti Sankhya postulates the existence of the Purusas. Now for the Vedantin everything existing is the manifestation of Brahma. The Brahma being Cetana entity it is not difficult to derive individual souls therefrom. But the Vadantin derives the external world also from the same. But the external world is acetana entity and is therefore opposed to thought. Hence it cannot be easily derived from Brahma. Sankara certainly has recognised the fundamental difference between the two Cetana and Acetana and warns the reader against confusion.. Yet he wants to logically maintain that every thing living and non-living is derived from the same Brahma. He tries to reconcile the two irreconcilable doctrines. First he maintains that the subject is quite independent of the object and the two have nothing in common and that all ills of life are due to confusion between the two. Secondly he wants to show that there is only one existence ultimate and real and that all else is purely derivative. If he is successful in establishing the former doctrine (the distinction between the subject and object) he cannot at the same time maintain the latter. The actual result is he introduces a sort of make-believe reconciliation. The objective world is something derived from māyā. Māya is the substantial and constitutive of the external world. The stuff of which objective world is made is variously described as Māyā Prakṛti and Pradhana. He thus introduces Sankhyan terminology in order to emphasise its distinction from Purușa. Pursuing this line of thought he ought to have got the conclusion that the external world is constituted by a substance fundamentally distinct from and incompatible with Self or Brahma. This would have landed him in a dualism which he streneously tries to avoid. Thus the problem with him was to retain the Sankhyan dualism just to emphasise the distinction between the subject and object and at the same time to maintain Vedantic monism, In this attempt at a compromise his language becomes ambiguous and his own attitude wavers between Dualism and Monism. He satisfied himself by introducing two kinds of existence or Sat corresponding to Puruşa and Prakṛti and yet these two kinds of Sat he wants to derive from the Cetana Brahma. Beyond the Brahma there could be no existence, he being the only Sat as well as the only Cit. Hence the Prakṛti which Sankara requisition to explain the external world is not only acit, non-thought, but also asat-non-real. Being asat inasmuch as it is distinct from Brahma, it must be identical with mere nothing and yet it must be substantial enough to be the basis of objective world. It is such an impossible function assigned to Maya by Sankara. He cannot condemn it altogether to be nothing for he expects real work out of it and so far it must have some causal potency.

Page #93

78
SAMAYASĀRA But on this account he dare not recognise its reality lest it should set up an imperium in imperio a rival claimant to the throne of Brahma. Therefore Sarkara relegates Māyā to the metaphysical purgatory where it is expected to live the life of something midway between absolute being and absolute nothing. What he further means by this curious amalgam of somethingnothing we do not clearly appreciate. It is because of this precarious reality of Māyā that he is able to make his readers believe that in his monism the objective reality maintains a greater dignity than assigned to it by the Buddhists. In short to avoid the sūnyavāda Sankara invents the impossible doctrine of Mayā which lends plausibility to his system which would otherwise be untenable and also indistinguishable from Buddhistic nihilism. It was because of this indistinguishability between Buddhism and advaitism that Indian critics condemned advaita as Buddhistic nihilism in camouflage and called Sankara a Pracchanna Bauddha, a bauddha in disguise.
Brahma : Sat as well as Cit, Existence and Intelligence, but for Vedantin it is something more. It is not merely the substratum of the concrete world, it also stands for the transcendental goal of life. It stands for the other world to which every Indian thinker looks forward. It is that higher reality which the Indian aspires to as a haven from the ocean of Samsāra, a place of rest from the toils of transmigration. It corresponds to Buddistic Nirvana, the Samadhi of the Yogin, the Liberated Puruşa of the Sankhyas and the God Isvara of Nyāya Vaišeşikas. If it is to be the negation of the ennui of Saṁsāra to be the end of the misery of concrete life, to be the place from where there is no return, it must embody in itself something unique and that is absent in the world of Samsāra, an unalloyed and unchanging Bliss which knows not its opposite. The Brahma therefore besides Sat and Cit is Ananda as well. It represents that transcendental bliss which no man has tasted here and which everyone is entitled to have if he walketh the path of liberation. Such a transcendental bliss is entirely different from the ephemeral pleasure of the world. Else it would not be sought after by the wise. Hence the Brahma must also be Ananda, Bliss or Joy. This absolute reality Sat Cit Ananda is the ultimate concept of Vedāntism. It not only serves as the metaphysical cause of things existing, but also stands for the light shining in individual souls. It also represents the goal to which the whole creation moves. It is not only the beginning but also the end of things. Climbing the pinnacle of Metaphysical monism Sankara finds it hard to recognise the claims of ordinary mortals in his system. He cuts the Gordian Knot by invoking the aid once again of the doctrine of the distinction between the relative and the absolute points of view. There is no justification for the demands of either religion or morality in an absolute monism. In the ratified atmosphere of monism neither morality nor religion can breath and live. The inevitable conclusion of his logic may not be realised by the ordinary man nor accepted by the orthodox scholar. The Vedic scholars have faith in the injunctions of the Vedas and may still believe in the beneficial effect of

Page #94

INTRODUCTION
79
sacrifice. The unsophistical man of the religion associates with absolute reality, the object of his religious adoration and worship and maintains that to be the fountain head of all good and valuable. The metaphorical conception of Brahma, therefore, must live side by side with popular religion and must live in accordance with Vedic ritualis m. Sankara manages to satisfy all these demands by postulating the fictitious deity of a lower Brahma who may be considered real from the practical and relative point of view though he cannot hide his real inanity from the vision of the enlightened. The ordinary man may continue his traditional worship, the orthodox vaidika may perform his usual sacrifices quite unperturbed on the assumption that there is an object of devotion and worship in his Isvara. In this matter, Sankara seems to take a lesson from the Mímāṁsakas who repudiate the conception of a God at the same time insisting upon the efficacy of worship and sacrifices which they hold are intrinsically efficacious not depending upon I svara. Sankara agrees with Kumārila the great Mimāṁsaka teacher and lets alone the traditional ritualism unhampered by metaphysical speculation. It is a peculiar mentality the like of which we have in Hume. After proving the unsubstantiality of human personality and the external world Hume exclaims that the world will go on, nevertheless, as if these things were quite real. This kind of estrangement between life and metaphysics life getting on in spite of metaphysics would only establish the undeniable truth that life is more than logic. To allow concrete life to exist by sufference, to recognise its reality from the vyāvahărika point of view, may instead of proving the reality of the concrete world, really establish the bankruptcy of the underlying Metaphysics.
JAINISM, ITS AGE AND ITS TENETS The term Jainism which means faith of a Jaina is derived from the word Jin a which means the conqueror or the victorious. Jina means who conquers the five senses, destroys all the karmas, and attains of Omniscience or Sarvajñahood. The person who performs tapas or yoga attains such a self-realisation and omniscient knowledge or kevala jñāna. After attaining self-realisation and after acquiring Omniscience, the Jina spends the rest of his time in Dharmaprabhavana or preaching the Dharma to the mass of human beings. Not satisfied with his own self-realisation, he engages himself in the noble task of helping his fellowbeings with his message of Dharma which would enable the ordinary mortals to reach the summum bonum of life and attain the same spiritual status of perfection which he himself has acquired. Because of this noble task of showing the path of spiritual realisation or Mokşamārga, Jina is also called Tirtharkara. This term Tīrtharikara means one who helps human beings to cross the ocean of Samsāra by providing them with a vessel to sail with in the form of Dharma. Jinadharma is the boat which is provided for the human beings for the purpose of crossing the ocean

Page #95

80
SAMAYASARA
of Saṁsāra and because of this noble task of helping the mankind Jina is also called Tirthankara. The divine personality Jina, who by his act of benevolence is called Tirthankara is therefore called Arhanta which means one worthy of adoration and worship. Arhat Paramesthi is therefore the Lord worshipped by all the Jains. He is represented by a pratibimba or image which is installed in a Caityālaya or a Jain temple built for the purpose. The pratibimba is always of the form of a human being because it represents the Jina or the Tirtharkara who spent the last portion of his life on earth in the noble task of proclaiming to the world Mokşamārga or the path to salvation. The idol will be either in a standing posture or Kāyotsarga or in the posture of Padmāsana-sitting-technically called Palyankāsana. Whether standing or sitting it represents the Divine Lord absorbed in the self-realisation as a result of Tapas or Yoga. Therefore the facial expression would reveal the intrinsic spiritual bliss as a result of selfrealisation. People who worship the Jina in this form installed in Jinālaya or the Jain temple and who follow the religious tenets proclaimed by the Jina are called the Jainas and their religion is Jainism,
The same faith is also designated by the term Ārhatamata, which means religion followed by Arhatas or Jainas, since the term Arhata means one who follows the religion of the Arhat Paramești. The terms Jina, Tirtharikara and Arhat Parameşthi all refer to the divine person or Sarvajña who lived in the world with his body, and it refers to the period after attaining Sarvajña hood or Omniscience and the last period of the parinirvāņa, when the body is cast away and the self resumes its own intrinsic pure spiritual nature and it becomes Paramātmā or Siddha. This is the last stage of spiritual development and is identical with the Self completely liberated or Muktajiva or the Self which attained Mokşa This Siddhaparameşthi is identical with the Vedāntic conception of Parabrahma or Paramātmā which terms are also used by the Jaina thinkers. This Siddhasvarūpa or Paramātmā Svarūpa is without body-Asarira, and without form-Arūpa. Hence its nature can be understood only by yogic contemplation for which the individual must be fit and highly qualified. Ordinary people who are not endowed with the capacity of realising the nature of the pure self Paramātma or Siddha Parameşthi whose pratibimba is installed in Jaina temples for the worship by the ordinary householder, This practice prescribed a mode of worship for the ordinary people who were expected to concentrate their attention on the image of Jina or Arhat Parameşthi corresponds to the Vedāntic attitude, which while recognising that the highest state of spiritual development is represented by the Parabrahma, provides for the ordinary man something lower than this as the object of worship, or what is called the popular or vyāva harika point of view. As a matter of fact, it may be said without contradiction that this distinction between vyāvaharika and paramarthika points of view was adopted by the great commentator Sankara who took the suggestion frou the earlier Jaina thinkers, especially Srí Kunda Kunda. This term Siddha,

Page #96

81
INTRODUCTION since it implies the complete destruction of all the karmas which enshrowds the intrinsic purity of the self is also called Nirgrantha, who is devoid of all attachment. The term Kandazhi which occurs in the Tamil work Tholkpya means the same thing as Siddha or the self which is completely liberated from all the shackles of karmas. Though the temple-worship is associated with Arhat Parameşthi or Tirthařkars, Jainas have not forgotten the fact that the Siddha represents the highest spiritual development, Hence the practice of silent salutation, Namaḥ Siddhebhyaḥ or Siddhan Namaḥ is a common practice among Jains whenever they begin any good work either literary or of ordinary kind. Probably this practice of beginning with adoration of Siddhan Namaḥ or Namah Siddebhyaḥ was prevalent among the non-Jainas also especially in South India where the people when they begin their daily work in school are taught to start with this salutation Siddhan Namaḥ.
The Age of Jainism:-There is a good deal of incorrect views prevalent among even educated people as to the age of Jainism. It is an unfortunate fact that Indians had to learn their history from foreign scholars. Foreign writers with incorrect and insufficient knowledge of the Indian historical background wrote textbooks on Indian history which provided the historic information to Indian student in schools. These history text-books were mainly responsible for a good deal of erroneous views prevalent among the educated Indians as to the past history of their land. One of these deplorable errors is the view that Jainism is an off-shoot of Buddhism and Hinduism. This error we are glad to say is no more prevalent among the oriental scholars both in the West and East though the error persists among the educated Indians whose knowledge of history is not uptodate. The origin of this error is to be found in the fact that the founder of Buddhism Gautama Sakyamuni and Mahāvīra Vardhamāna the last of the Jaina Tirthankaras were contemporaries. Buddhistic literature contains references to Mahavira and his followers, and similarly Jaina literature composed at the time of Mahāvira contains cross references to the Buddha and his religion. Persons who studied first the Buddhist literature and who had no knowledge of Jaina scripture come to the hasty conclusion that Jainism must have been a branch of Buddhism. Later on when oriental scholars came to study the subject they corrected their erroneous views and were constrained to call that Jainism must have been earlier than Buddhism. As a matter of fact, the Buddha was a younger contemporary of Lord Mahāvīra. The Buddha himself in his conversation with his friend and disciple Sariputta, narrates the fact that he himself in his earlier days was adopting Jaina practice of austerity which he had to give up because of the rigorous discipline which he did not like. The date of Mahavira's parinirvana, 527 B.C. is accepted as a land-mark in the history of India. According to Cambridge History of India, the 23rd Tirthankara, Lord Parsva who lived 220 years prior to Lord Mahāvīra is also considered a historical personage. According to the view
11

Page #97

82
SAMAYASĀRA
Jainism must have been prevalent in India nearly three centuries prior to Gautama Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. Though writers of Cambridge History of India did not go beyond Lord Pārsva, we may point out the fact that Jainism was in existence even prior to this period. The Tirthankara prior to Lord Páráva, the 22nd Tirthankara, according to the Jaina tradition is Lord Ariştanemi, who is said to have attained his Nirvana on the Mount Girnar in Junagadha State, which is a place for pilgrimage for the presentday Jainas. This Arişğanemi was a cousin of Sri Krşņa of Mahabharata fame and the name Ariştanemi occurs in Vedic literature as one of the great Rşis. This Jaina tradition circumstantially supported by non-Jaina Vedic literature may also be accepted as having some historical basis. If Sri Krsna of Mahābhārata war is accepted as having some historical basis then we have to accept the history of Ariştanemi also. According to the Jaina tradition, there were twenty-four Tīrtharkaras beginning with Lord Vrsabha and ending with Mahāvīra Vardhamana. Of these the last three may be taken to be personalities of the historic period. The rest are persons of prehistoric age and we need not trouble ourselves about their history till we know something more than merely tradition. The first of these Tīrtharikara Lord Vrşabha who is considered by the Jainas to be responsible for revealing Ahimsa Dharma for the first time to the world seems to be a very interesting personality. According to the Jaina tradition, he was a hero of the Ikşvāku family. His father was Nabi Mahārāja, the last of the Manus and his mother Mārudevī. Vrşabha's period represents a complete change of World conditions. Prior to this the country was called Bhoga Bhūmi where the people were satisfied with all their wants by the mere wish through the help of the traditional kalpakavşkşa. During the time of Lord Rşabha these happy conditions completely disappeared and the people were in a perplexity as to the way of life which they were expected to carry. Then they all went to Lord Rşabha praying for help. He is said to have consoled them by showing the way of life. He taught them how they could obtain food by tilling the soil, that they should take upto agriculture for the production of food, which they could obtain in plenty by their own toil in spite of the fact that the Kalpakavşkşas disappeared. He taught some other people to carry his agriculture-produce to different peoples and supply to those that were in need. He again set apart a number of able-bodied men for the purpose of defence. Thus the first social organisation owes its existence to Lord Vrṣabha who divided the society according to its functions into three groups, agriculturists, traders, and soldiers. After ruling over his kingdom for several years, he abdicated his throne in favour of his son, Lord Bharata and went into the forests to perform tapas. After the practice of tapas for several years he attained Kaivalyajñāna or Omniscience : then he went about from place to place preaching his Ahimsa dharma to the people of the land, so that they may also have spiritual relief. Thus Lord Rşabha is known among the Jainas as Adijina, Adi Bhagavān and so on,

Page #98

83
INTRODUCTION This first Tirthalikara's life is repeated verbatim also in non-Jaina Purānas, for example the Bhāgavatapuräna (V. skandha). The same story is repeated in the Vişnupurāna and the Väyupuräpa also. All these Hindu purāņas maintain that Lord Rşabha preached the doctrine of Ahimsă after performing yoga for several years. He went about from place to place completely discarding all ornaments and clothes, and hence he was misunderstood by the people to have gone mad. The repetition of this life history of Lord Rşabha in nonJaina purāpas can only be explained by the fact that at one time when the story was a common property to both Jainas and non-Jainas the hero must have been considered as worthy of worship by all.
According to Jaina tradition when Lord Rşabha attained his Nirvāna in Mount Kailash, his son and the ruling emperor of the land, Lord Bharata built a temple in the place of Nirvana and installed an image of Lord Rşabha for the purpose of worship for himself as well as for the general public. This worship of Lord Rşabha's idol must have been prevalent throughout India from far-off ancient period of the Indian history. That it was so prevalent in ancient India we may in fer from certain facts available in the Vedic literature. The Vedas constitute the earliest record available. They form three distinct groups, the Samhitas, the Brāhmaṇas and the Upanişads. The Samitās are four in number. The Ķg Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda and Atharvana Veda. The Rg Veda mantras are uttered for the purpose of invoking the aid of the Vedic Gods. Indra is the most important of the Vedic deities. The religious life of the Aryans in the Rg Vedic period centred round the personality of Indra, the Vedic God. His aid is invoked by the Aryans of the Rg Vedic period to obtain prosperity in their agriculture and also in their cattle wealth. His aid is also invoked for the purpose of destroying the enemies, the people of the land, who resisted their advance. Thus the Aryans had to encounter opposition from among the people of the land whom they considered their enemies, who strongly resisted the invading Āryans. The æg Vedic hymns composed with such a back-ground of racial conflict furnishes us with certain interesting facts as to the life and characteristics of the people of the land who violently opposed the incoming Aryans. These hymns referred to a section of the Ikşvākųs or Puruşa who were in existence in the land long long before the Aryans of the Rgvedic period came into the scene. These Ikşvākus are recognised to be of the Aryan race and they are referred to in terms of respect and adoration. This Ikşvākuvamsa otherwise called the Raghuvamsa, evidently was an important and a famous ruling dynasty of ancient India, which must have been in existence even prior to the Aryans of the Rgvedic period. That this Ikşvākuvamsa was famous is borne out by the fact that most of the ancient Ksatriya families traced their origin to these Ikşvākus and even the Sākya clan to which Gautama Buddha belonged claimed its origin from the Ikşvākus. The heroes of this family are celebrated in Kalidāsa's Raghuvaṁsa. According to Kalidasa, these heroes began their life in early childhood as students, then

Page #99

84
SAMAYASARA
they lived their household lives, after which they completely renounced their worldly attachment and roamed about in the forests performing Tapas or Yoga and then finally discarded their bodies after realisation. This description in full corresponds with the life history of Lord Rşabha, the greatest hero of Ikşvākus and the first revealer of Ahiṁsā to the world and the importance of tapas or yoga for the purpose of self-realisation. We suggest that this Rşabha cult must have been prevalent even before the advent of the Aryans and the Rg-vedic tradition. In support of this thesis we note the following facts revealed by the Vedic literature. The Aryans of the Rg Vedic period it is stated, were resisted by the people of the land who are called Dasyus. The term Dasyu is interpreted sometimes as enemy and sometimes as a slave. These two interpretations represent two different stages. First when the people of the land resisted they were called the enemies, and when the enemies were subjected after a military conquest and taken as prisoners and made to work as slaves, the same Dasyus became slaves. Facts that deserve emphasis in this connection are the descriptive terms used by the Aryans to describe these enemies, the people of the land. These Dasyus are described as Ayajña, Anindra, Avrata, Anyavrata and so on. These terms respectively mean those that are opposed to Yajña, Indraworship, those that observe a different religious practice, and those that do not practise the religions of the Aryans. From these descriptive terms it is quite clear that the people of the land were dead against the Vedic institution of Yajña or animal sacrifice. Their opposition to the invading Aryans must therefore be due to two factors. The people of the land politically resisted the invading foreigner, and secondly because the people of the land were afraid of the fact that their culture would be destroyed by the invaders whose culture and religion were entirely different from their own. These Dasyus the people of the land, are also described to have been of dark skin and to have been speaking a different tongue. Therefore they must have been the early Dravidians who were present all over India at the time of the Āryan invasion. After describing the practice of these Dasyus in negative terms, the Vedic literature uses a very significant term to describe their religion. The early Dasyus, the enemies of the Aryans, who were opposed to Yajñas and Indra worship were worshippers of Siśnadeva. This is a very interesting revelation European oriental scholars translate this term Siśnadeva as worshippers of Linga. The Sanskrit term Siśna is not identical with the Linga which is now worshipped by the Saivites. Siśna represents the male sex organ whereas the Linga designates both Siśna and Yoni. Hence the term Siśna cannot be interpreted in any way to mean the Linga which is a combination of Siśna and Yoni of phallic worshippers, Therefore the only interpretation that we could have is our theory that the ancient Dasyus who were the people of the land and who resisted the invading Aryans were in the habit of worshipping a nude idol as their God, which can be called consistently as Siśnadeva. If the prergvedic people of the land

Page #100

85
INTRODUCTION had for their worship a nude male image called Siśnadeva by the Aryans all the other descriptive terms may fit in with this theory if you take that this Śiśnadeva worship must have been the characteristic of the Rșabha cult introduced by Lord Rşabha, the first Tírtharikara, and encouraged by his son Bharata in the form of a temple-worship. The excavations of Harappa and Mohenjodaro circumstantially corroborate our theory, because among the discoveries resulting from the excavations we have nude images of a yogi considered to be idols used for worship by the people of the Indus Valley civilisation and the symbol of the bull is found in abundance in coins and seals belonging to that period. Hence it will be consistent to maintain that the religious life of the people of the Indus Valley civilisation must have been associated with the Rşabha cult which must have been prevalent throughout the land from Himalayas down to Cape Comorin and further south in Laikā After some time when the invading Aryans completely conquered the whole of Northern India, the people of the land who are called Dasyus must have withdrawn to the south, viz., to this side of the Vindhya hills. That there must have been such a withdrawal by the people of the land to the south is corroborated by the traditional account both in Jaina purapas, and Hindu purápas. According to the Jaina tradition the Northern India was completely occupied by five Ksatriya dynasties, namely, the Ikşvākuvamsa, Harivansa, Kuruvamsa. Ugravamsa and the Nathavamsa. These five Ksatriya groups completely occupied he whole of Northern India and the people of the land who are called Vidyadharas by the Jaina tradition had to be satisfied with the peninsula to the South of the Vindhyas. These Vidyadharas are represented by two important dynasties of ruling families, one of which was more powerful to which Rāvana the emperor of Laikā belonged. The other group was represented by Väli, Sugrīva and Hanumān. According to Jaina tradition, these Vidyadharas were highly cultured people, in fact more cultured than the rest and they were specially skilful in applied science, or Vidyas, on account of which they were called Vidyadharas. They had the privilege of travelling in air by some sort of aerial vehicles or vimānas which they were skilful enough to build for themselves. Since they were skilful people of very high culture, the ruling chiefs of the Ikşvaku family very often entered into matrimonial alliances with these Vidyadhara families, in fact, the Jaina tradition mentions that Lord Rşabha himself married a Vidyadhara princess by whom he had his son Bharata, the first ruler of the land and who gave his name to the land, Bhāratavarşa. These Vidyadhara rulers who were designated as Rākşasas by their political enemies, Aryans, are recognised to be highly cultured by the Aryans themselves. The Jaina tradition makes these Vidyadharas followers of Rşabha cult, strictly practising Ahimsă Dhrama and sternly opposed to Vedic Yajña. There is an interesting chapter in Jaina Rāmāyana Padmapurāpa of the Jainas, which narrates the life story of Śri Rama. The chapter refers to the elaborate

Page #101

SAMAYASARA
preparations made by one Ksatriya prince called Marutha for the purpose of vedic sacrifice. The chapter is called Maruthayajñadhvamsa sarga. These preprations for the performance of yajña are made in the borders of Ravana's territory. Narada who happens to pass by that way observes these elaborate preparations. According the Jainas, Narada is considered to be a champion of Ahimsa, He advised the Ksatriya prince Marutha not to perform the sacrifice. Narada's advice was rejected. He then goes to Ravapa straight and informs him of the vast preparations made by a Ksatriya prince quite in violation of Ahimsa. Ravana sends a few officers to stop these preparations. These officers were sent away unceremoniously by the prince Marutha. But Ravana himself appears in person officially with his soldiers. Then Marutha confessed that he was instructed by the Vedic priests to perform this yāga though he was not very well informed about this. Then Ravana rebukes him, stops the preparations, releases all the animals intended for sacrifice and threatens the priests. Then Marutha was initiated to the practice of Ahimsa Dharma and he was made to give a solemn proinise that he would be no more a party to animal sacrifice or yajña. This story found in Jaina Rāmāyaṇa clearly indicates that the Vidyadharas since they were followers of Ahimsa cult were sternly opposed to any performance of yaga within their borders. Perhaps that explains why according to the Valmiki Rāmāyaṇa, the Rakṣasas were always bent upon preventing the performance of yāgas and whenever an attempt is made to perform yaga the parties had to seek the aid of military protection before they could carry on the ceremony. This is illustrated in the Ramayana where Viśvāmitra takes the military aid of the royal princes, Rama and Lakṣmana before he starts the rituals. Thus the circumstantial evidence goes to support the theory that the people of the land were all followers of Rsabha cult and they were staunchly defending their cult of Ahimsa whenever there was an interference from outside. This theory implies that even before the advent of the Ṛgvedic Aryans, the people of the land had a higher form of religion. The Rṣabha cult of Ahimsa is further borne out by an evidence supplied by the later Brahmanas and the Upanisads. When the Aryans of the Rgvedic period prominently settled in Northern India, their vedic culture of Yagas, must have been prevalent side by side with the religious practice associa ted with the earlier Rṣabha cult. The royal families representing the Ikṣavākus clan and other clans must have been driven towards the East by the conquering hoards of the Ṛgvedic Aryans who came and settled in the Punjab. The earlier Aryan families who adopted the Ahimsa cult of Lord Rṣabha must have been opposed to this new cult of the Aryans. Therefore we have a reference to the Pracyadeśa, the Eastern countries in the Brahmaņas. The most important of these the Satapathabrahmana refers to the poeple of these Pracyadeśas which include, Kasi, Kośala, Videha and Magadha as Aryabhraṣṭas. The orthodox Brahmins of Kurupañcaladeśa are advised not to
86

Page #102

INTRODUCTION
87
travel in the Eastern countries. Because the corrupt Aryans completely gave up the performance of yaga; they adopted an opposite Dharma altogether. They hold that not performing yaga is their Dharma and performing yaga is a contradiction to Dharma, or Adharma. Further these people of the Eastern countries do not recognise social eminence of the priests.. Socially the Ksatriyas claim to be superior to the Brahmaṇa priests. Hence the orthodox priests, if they travel in the Eastern countries will not be respected according to their social status. These reasons given in the Satapathabrahmana clearly indicate that the people of the Eastern countries of Gangetic valley were all opposed to the Vedic culture of the yaga, and were followers of Ahimsa Dharma. Here we have to note the fact that the followers of Ahimsa Dharma the intellectual leaders of the Eastern countries of the Gangetic valley were all Ksatriyas. All the twentyfour Tirthankaras of the Jainas and the founder of Buddhism Gautama Buddha all claimed to be Ksatriyas; that the Ksatriyas were champions of Ahimsa Dharma that they were opposed to vedic sacrifice, yaga championed by the priests of the Kurupañcăla country is further corroborated by the Upanisadic literature which forms the Vedanta or last form of vedic literature. When we turn to Upanisadic literature we observe a complete change in the intellectual attitude towards life and problems. Prior to that the whole of Vedic culture is Svargakāma Yajetavyaḥ-if you want happiness in Svarga you must perform sacrifice. But when we turn to the Upanişadic period the idea is entirely different. We notice that the intellectual leaders of the Upanisadic period do not attach any importance to the utilitarian idea. Prosperity here and Svarga happiness hereafter are considered both as worthless acquisitions. One is advised to look to something far more valuable than this. That Naciketas rejects the blessings of prosperity offered by Yama, that Maitreyi, the wife of Yajnavalkya refused the offer by her husband of all his riches show clearly that the ideal of the Upanişadic principle is far higher than that presented by the previous age of the vedic culture. Spiritual yaga is considered to be inferior. The Upanisads emphasise a metaphorical yaga of kindling the spiritual fire by yoga in which all the inpurities associated with the self are to be burnt for the purpose of self purification and spiritual realisation. The priests of Kurupanñcala countries throng to the royal courts of the Pracyadeśa with a request to be initiated into this new culture of Atmavidya which is championed by the Ksatriya scholars of the land. What is the origin of the new change of the attitude in the Upanisadic culture. The only answer that we can think of is the Ksatriya intellectuals of the Eastern countries of the Gangetic valley staunchly defended their Ahimsa cult given to them by Lord Rṣabha till they were able to convince the priest of Kurupañcala that their sacrifice was distinctly inferior to this cult of Ahimsa or Atmavidya. Thus we have the Jaina tradition fully corroborated by non-Jaina Vedic literature in these three distinct historic groups of the Samhitās, the Brahmaņas, and the Upanisads.

Page #103

SAMAYASARA
These facts supplied by the Vedic literature taken in conjunction with the evidence supplied by the excavations of the Indus valley civilisation will constrain us to believe that the Rṣabha cult of Ahimsa and the practice of tapas or yoga must have been the ancient cult of the Indians throughout the land prevalent even before the advent of the Aryans who sang the hymns of the Rgveda. Thus the Ahimsa cult revealed by Lord Rşabha was the most ancient of religious cults which must have been prevalent in the Nothern India and which must have been the practice in religion of the people of the land at the time of Aryan invasion.
88
ness.
Mokşa Marga:-What is the Mokṣamarga which is peculiar to Jainism? What are its special feature? How is it different from the religious principle associated with the other Indian Dharișanas. Mokṣamarga is defined by Umāsvāmī thus: Samyak Darśana Jñana Cariträni Mokṣamargaḥ: Right faith, right knowledge and Right conduct, these three constitute the path to salvation. This the first Sutra of Umasvami's monumental work called Tattvārtha Sutra. The emphasis is laid on all the three only when all the three characteristics are combined they can constitute to Mokṣamarga. Each by itself is imperfect and therefore insufficient. To depend entirely on faith as is maintained by some Hindu Darśana will not lead one to happiness or Mokşa. Similarly Jñana or knowledge alone cannot lead one to happiNor can Caritra by itself however admirable the conduct be, is sufficient to lead to the desired goal. Hence faith, knowledge, and conduct must be presented together by an individual if he is to walk the path of righteousness. Further it is emphasised that these three-faith, knowledge and conduct must be of the right type. Hence it is called right faith, right knowledge and right conduct alone when combined together would constitute the Mokṣamarga. Mere faith which is not of the right type will not be founded upon the ultimate nature of reality. Similarly right knowledge and not any other knowledge will constitute the Mokṣamārga. Right knowledge will therefore exclude all incorrect attitude and disruption of the nature of reality. Hence that prefix Samyak is used in each of the terms. The Commentator of the Sutras gives an interesting metaphor to bring out the force of the sutra. A person suffering from a disease, say fever, if he desires to cure himself of the disease must have faith in the capacity of the doctor and must know the exact nature of the medicine prescribed by him for his disease and must drink the madicine according to the instructions of the doctor. Mere faith in the doctor will be of no use. Faith in the capacity of the doctor and the knowledge of the nature of the medicine would equally be useless unless the patient takes the medicine. The person who expects to be cured of his disease must not only have faith in the doctor's capacity, and full knowledge of the nature of the medicine but also take the medicine according to the prescription. In this case beings in the world of Samsara are assumed to be patients suffering from a spiritual disqualification or disease who desire to get rid of this disease and to attain perfect spiritual health. Thus for the

Page #104

INTRODUCTION
89
purpose of helping such persons this Mokşamarga is prescribed as a spiritual remedy and the spiritual remedy therefore must be associated with all three characteristics of right faith, right knowledge and right conduct in order to be effective. These three constituent elements of the path to salvation are called Ratnatraya or the three jewels. These Ratnatraya or the three jewels of the Jaina Dharma should not be confounded with the three jewels or the Ratnatraya of the Bauddhas, where they mean three different thingsThe Buddha, founder of Buddhism and Dharma, the message revealed by Buddha, and the Sangha, the social federation organised by him. Therefore the three jewels of the Bauddhas are Buddha, Dharma and Sangha which are quite different from the Ratnatraya of the Jainas, which constitute the Mokşamärga.
What is Samyak Darsana or Right faith? Samyak Darśana is defined in the following sutra :
Tattvārtha Sraddhānam, Samyak Darśanam: Faith or belief in the nature of the reality is right faith or Samyak Darśana. Belief in the Tattvas or the reals as they exist forms the foundation of Jaina faith. What are these Tattvas ? Belief in it is emphasised as the important foundation of Jainism. These tattvas or the reals are said to be seven in number. Jiva the living entity, Ajiva non-living entity, Aśrava, Bandha, Samvara, Nirjarā and Mokşa. Aśrava means flow of karmic matter into the nature of self or soul. Bandha implies the mixture of the karmic matter with nature of the sole on account of which the soul looses its intrinsic purity and brilliance, Sarvara represents the act of preventing the inflow of the karmic matter and hence it is the blocking of Aśrava. Nirjarā represents the act of destroying the karmic matter which may adhere to the soul. As a result of blocking up the flow of fresh karmic matter and destruction of the old karmic matter clinging to the soul you have the emergence of the soul in its pure form, free from karmic upadhis, whose state is represented by the term Mokşa. These are the several fundamental realities proclaimed by the Jaina Darśana, which every Jaina is expected to believe. Of these the first two Jiva and Ajiva the living and the non-living, form the primary categories and the others are only secondary. The third and fourth represent the association of the first and the second. The fifth and the sixth represent partial dissociation of the first (Jiva) from the second Ajīva or matter. The seventh represents the complete dissociation of the first.
Before examining these categories in detail let us explain some of the fundamental philosophical doctrines associated with Jaina Darśana. Let us take first the doctrine of Sat or Reality. The definition of Sat given in Jaina Metaphysics is that it is a permanent reality in the midst of change of appearance and disappearance. Utpada-vyaya-dhrauvya-yuktam Sat. This conception of reality is peculiar to Jainism. The only parallel that we can think of is the Hegelian conception of reality in Western thought. The real

Page #105

SAMAYASĀRA
xistence is not merely the state of static and permanent existence. An Existing reality in order to maintain its permanent and continued existence nust necessarily undergo change in the form of appearance and disappearince. This may appear to be apparently a paradox. But when we ippreciate the significance of this description of reality, it may be found that t is the most accurate description of reality of the actual state of things. Everywhere we find growth and development and this is manifest in the organic world. Whether we look to the world of plants or of animals, the ield of botany or biology, this description of reality is clearly borne out. Let is confine ourselves to the life history of a plant. It begins itself in the form of a seed. The seed which is planted in the soil must necessarily break he shell and sprout out. That is the first step in its attempt to grow. If the seed remains as a seed without this change there will be no growth and no plant; the seed will be condemned as a lifeless one. Hence it is necessary that it should change its own form and assume a new form which is the necessary stepping stone for the growth of the plant. This sprouting seed must further undergo change and some portion of it must come out seeking the sunlight and another portion of it must go down into the earth in order to obtain nourishment from the soil. That portion of the sprouting which goes down into the soil will undergo enormous changes into the root system, all engaged in acquiring nourishment for the mother plant. Similarly the portion that shoots up into the air and sunlight will undergo enormous change, of sprouting out in tendrils and leaves finally resulting in branches and stem of the plant all engaged in the task of procuring nourishment with the help of sunlight, from among the chemicals available in the atmosphere, such as carbondioxide. At every stage thus we find change, the old leaves being shed off and the new sprouts coming in. This seems to be the general law of Nature by which life maintains its identity and permanence because without this change life will cease to be life and organism will die. What is true of a plant is equally true with the life history of an animal. The life history of a mammal or a man may be of the same principle with similar process of growth starting with a single cell organism with fecundated ovam in passing through the multiplicity of cells constituting a mass undergoing elaborate anatomical change within the uterus of the mother till the time of the birth when it comes out as fully constituted body waiting to grow further in the outer environment. Here also the same principle is maintained, i.e., identity in the midst of change appearance and disappearance the old disappearing and the new appearing in the organism. Every part of the physiological system of the body of the child will thus undergo change till the child grows into an adult and full-grown individual. It is this Law of nature that is observed to be prevalent in the world of reality. That is implied in the definition of reality given above. The apparent paradox thus reveals the intrinsic nature of reality and we find it illustrated everywhere in the world of nature. It is this very same principle that is associated with the great

Page #106

INTRODUCTION
91
German Philosopher Hegel, who spoke of the dialectical nature of reality, dialectic implying thesis passing to its opposite, the antithesis, and the both opposites being comprehended under the general principle synthesis. What are apparent contradictions are but two essential aspects of the same higher reality which comprehends within itself two conflicting principles. The general biological conception of life in the form of metabolism may be taken to be a fit illustration of this Hegelian dialectic, as well as the Jain conception of Reality,--Sat. Life activity or what is called Metabolism implies conflicting process of anabolism and catabolism which are the two necessary aspects of life-activity and the healthy balance between these two conflicting activities is the general characteristic of metabolism. In this respect Jaina conception of reality is different from the other Indian Darsanas, because the other Darśanas some of them would emphasise permanency alone as the nature of reality while some others would emphasise change alone as the characteristic of reality. Vedāntism may be taken to be an example of a philosophical system which emphasise permanency as the characteristic of reality and dismisses change as sheer illusion. Similarly Buddhistic Kşapikavāda-momentary change over-emphasises change to the utter neglect of the underlying permanency. The one sided emphasis either of permanency or change is rejected by Jaina thinkers who condemn such systems as Ekantavāda, a system which clings to a partial aspect of the reality. It neglects to note the other aspects which are also necessarily present in the system of reality. After rejecting the non-Jaina systems as a group of Ekāntavādins, the Jaina thinkers call their own system as Anekantavāda, a system of philosophy which maintains that Reality has multifarious aspects and that a complete comprehension of such a nature must necessarily take into consideration all the different aspects through which reality manifests. Emphasis on one particular aspect of reality and building up the system of philosophy on that alone would be similar to a fable of blind men attempting to describe the nature of an elephant. A clear and correct description of the animal, elephant, would be accurate only when you take into consideration all the descriptions which the blind men make by their partial contact with the real animal. Hence the Jaina Darśana is technically called Anekāntavāda as it attempts to apprehend fully the whole of reality by taking into consideration the defferent aspects through which this reality manifests.
The Concept of Dravya-This conception of Sat or the existing reality that is a permanency in the midst of change leads us to another philosophical concept associated with the Jaina Darśana, the Concept of Dravya, The term Dravya is generally applied to different classes of objects that constitute the whole of reality. The term Dravya itself is derived from a root which means the flow. Any object of reality which persists to exist in the midst of continuous disappearance and appearance may be described to be a flow of reality just like a stream of water. This autonomic fluidity of an object of reality is what is implied by the technical term Dravya which is applied

Page #107

92
to any class of objects constituting the Reality. This Dravya is defined thus: Guna-paryayavat Daravyaḥ-that which has characteristic qualities and that which is undergoing constant modifications is what is called Dravya. The general illustration of a dravya given in textbooks is the substance, gold. This dravya-gold-has got its characteristic quality of yellowness, brilliance, malleability, etc., and it may be made into several ornaments One ornament of gold may be changed into another ornament if the owner so desires. The changing form into which this substance, gold, shall be constituted is its mode. The substance, gold, out of which these ornaments are made is the Dravya and the characteristic attributes of yellowness, etc., constitute its Guņa. Here also the conception of Dravya is peculiar to the Jaina Darśana, and to a very large extent differs from the conception of Dravya found in the other Non-Jaina Daršanas. The substance and qualities cannot be separated. Dravya and Gupa are inseparable and yet the substance is not the same as its attributes nor the attributes same as the substance, though it is a fact it is the substance that manifests this nature through its attributes. Substance without attributes and attributes dissociated from the underlying substance would all be meaningless abstractions. Guna cannot exist apart from the Dravya nor the Dravya apart from the gupas. A real Dravya is that which manifests through its Gunas and real gunas- are those that have their roots in the underlying Dravya. Gupas which are not based upon the underlying Dravya, whose manifestations they are, would be merely sensory illusions having no claim to the status of reality. Hence in the world of reality there can be no separate éxistence either of Dravya or Gupa from each other. It may be clearly seen that according to Jaina Darśana, the systems which speak of a real existence without Guņas, Nirguna or of Gunas existing separately from the substance till they are brought together by a third entity called Samavāya, are erroneous philosophical views not corroborated by facts of reality. As we shall see later on, according to this conception even Cetana or Soul or Atma cannot separate its quality of Cetana or consciousness but some other philosophical systems do maintain that the Cetana quality and Atamadravya are two different entities occasionally brought together by extraneous circumstances. These two doctrines as to the nature pertaining to reality-Sat, and Dravya lead us to the consideration of fundamental and logical doctrine which is also peculiar to Jainism.
SAMAYASARA
Asti-Nasti Vada-According to this logical doctrine every fact of reality is capable of being described in two logical propositions-one affirmative and the other negative. This paradoxical logical doctrine of Asti-Nasti Vada has perplexed many non-Jaina thinkers including even the great philosopher Sankara. Apparently this conception will be meaningless. How could the same fact be described by two contradictory logical propositions? How can we say that it is and at the same time it is not? Because Asti-Nasti literally means the thing is and is not. If we remember the two previous

Page #108

INTRODUCTION
93
philosophical doctrines of Sat and Dravya and if we remember that the ultimate reality is a permanent and changing entity manifesting through constant change of appearance and disappearance, then we can understand that a fact of reality when looked at from the underlying permanent substance may be described to be unchanging and permanent, where from the point of view of the modes which appear and disappear, the thing may be described to be non-permanent and changing. This difference of aspect is called Naya technically by the Jaina thinkers. Describing a thing from the aspect of the underlying substance or Dravya is called Dravyarthikanaya whereas the description based upon the modifications or changes is called Paryayarthikanaya. Thus the same fact of reality may be apprehended and described from the Paryāyārthikanaya or from Dravyarthikanaya. From the point of view of the former it may be called an ever-changing fact whereas from the latter point of view it may be said to be an unchanging permanent entity. Hence these two apparently contradictory logical propositions though applicable to the same fact of reality are predicated from two distinct aspects, one emphasising the underlying substance, the other emphasising the changing modes. If we recognise that the conflicting predications are logically possible and fully significant since they refer to two different aspects of view, the logical doctrine of Asti-Năsti Vada looses much of its mystery and apparent contradictory nature. This Asti-Nästi Vada doctrine is further elaborated by Jaina Logicians. Take the case of a piece of furniture, the chair or the table before us. If we enquire into the nature of the material, the timber, the same piece of furniture admits of two different logical propositions, one affirmative and the other negative.
If the chair is made of Rosewood then it is capable of being described as furniture made of rosewood. Can we describe the same chair as made of teakwood ? Certainly Not. We have to say emphatically that it is not made of teakwood. The same piece of furniture therefore admits an affirmative proposition that it is made of rosewood, when you take into consideration the actual timber out of which it is made and a negative proposition that is it not made of teakwood when you take into consideration some other timber alien to its own nature. Similarly when we want to know whether a piece of furniture is in the drawing room or in the verandah of your house, and if it actually exists in the drawing room we have to say that is in the drawing room and it is not in the verandah. It is according to this doctrine of Asti-Nasti Vāda as elaborated by the Jaina logicians every fact of reality may be described according to four different conditions-Dravya, Kşetra, Kala and Bhava-Nature of the substance, the place where it is, the time when it exists, and the characteristics intrinsically presented in it. Every object from its own Dravya or substance admits of an affirmative predication and looked at from the paradravya, alien substance, admits of a negative predication,

Page #109

94
SAMAYASARA
The example of a chair given above from swadravya rosewood admits of affirmative predication, it is made of rosewood; and from the point of view of paradravya, alien substance, negative predication. Similarly from svakşetra it is said to be in the drawing room and from parakşetra it is said it is not found in the verandah. This principle of predications may be extended to any object of reality. When we say an animal Cow, and one question arises what kind of animal it is, we have to say affirmatively it is a cow and negatively it is not a horse. If the question is where is the cow and if it is actually grazing in the compound we have to answer the cow is in the compound and it is not in the cattleshed. Affirmative predication from the svakşetra and negative predication from parakşetra where it is not. Similarly historical proposition may be said to be true in its own period, and not true in another historical period, Alexander's invasion of India is an event which took place before the beginning of the Christian era and therefore cannot be associated with the historical period of the Christian era. Hence we have to say that the invasion took place in B.C. and not in A.D. from the point of view of kala. So this doctrine becomes an obvious statement according to common sense point of view and need not be considered to be an extremely intricate philosophical doctrine. Yes, in spite of its obvious nature based upon commonsense point of view it has been misunderstood by many non-Jaina thinkers and even the great Sankara dismisses the doctrine as a prattlings of a mad man. With this short account of philosophical background of Jaina darśana, we may go to examine some of the important categories in detail.
Jiva or Soul The term Jiva represents a living being. It denotes a spiritual entity. Its essential nature is Cetana or thought. Jiva is defined by the Jaina thinkers as an entity which lived in the past, which continues to live in the present and which will certainly live in the future also. From this definition it is clear that the term Jiva or soul is an entity which had no beginning and which will have no end. It is beginningless and unending continuous existence of a spiritual nature. This Jiva or soul is mainly of two kinds--Samsāra Jiva and Moksa Jiva. The soul that is embodied, life in the concrete world of biological kingdom associated with the karmic bondage is the Samsāra Jiva; the soul that is free from such karmic bondage and which transcended the cycle of Samsāra and which had attained its nature of intrinsic purity as a result of liberation from karmic bondage is Mokșa Jiva. This conception of Jiva may be said to be the central doctrine of Jaina philosophy, all the other categories being merely secondary and subsidiary to the central entity. The Sarnsära Jiva itself is divided into four main classes, or Gatis as they are technically called Catur Gatis. These Gatis are Devagati, Manusyagati, Tiryaggati and Narakagati. The first represents the class of devas living in what are called Devalokas. The second term Manuşyagati refers to the human being living in this world. The third term refers to the sub-human creatures or

Page #110

95
INTRODUCTION lower animals of the zoological and botanical kingdoms which are found with mankind in this world. The fourth term refers to the beings in the hell or the Naraka - Netherworld. The Devaloka or the upper world and Narakaloka the world of hell are recognised in Jaina cosmology, according to which the concrete world of living beings men and lower animals is called the Madhyama loka, the middle world. All beings of these four different groups are called Saṁsāra Jivas, that is a Jiva which is subject to the cycle of birth and death, which cycle is denoted by the term Samsāra. All Samsārajivas are embodied according to their individual spiritual status. Each Samsăric soul is born with a body and continues to live as embodied soul subject to growth, old age, decay and death; when it has to quit its body in search of another body it acquires another body consistent with and determined by its own karmic conditions. Throughout the series of births and deaths thus associated with the appearance and disappearance of the corresponding body the underlying Jiva or the soul is a perpetual entity serving as a connecting thread of unifying the various births and deaths associated with that particular Jiva. This Sarnsāra Jiva associated with its own karmic bondage and its own corporeal existence is considered to be uncreated and therefore beginningless. For the Jaina metaphysician the question when did the soul get associated with material body is a meaningless question, because they say Samsāra is anādi. The cycle of births and deaths has no beginning. Whatever may be the difference of opinion between Jaina metaphysics and the other schools of Indian thought, in this particular point all agree. All maintain that the Saṁsāra is Anādi. Hence no school of Indian thought would allow the question when did Samsāra begin to be a sensible question. While all the systems maintain that Samsāra is beginninglessAnadi, all of them do maintain that this series of Samsāra will come to an end. At the time of liberation of the soul from material and karmic bondage it is said to attain Moksa or liberation. In this respect also they are at one with the Jaina thinkers that the Sarnsăra Jiva is capable of liberating itself ultimately from the sami sāric cycle of births and deaths and of obtaining its form of intrinsic purity when the soul is called Mukta Jiva or Paramātma. Fundamentally therefore there is no distinction between the soul that lives in Saṁsāra and the soul that attains liberation or Moksa. The Jivātmā of the embodied soul in Saṁsāra is identical with the would be Paramātmā. The two are one and the same. The doctrine that maintains that the Jivātma and Paramātmā are intrinsically identical is the fundamental Jaina doctrine of Advaitism, which is also the fundamental doctrine of Advaitism of Sankara of latter days. In fact Sankara dismissed all the other systems which do not accept this doctrine as erroneous ones to be discarded and emphasises this doctrine of identity between the Jivātmā and Paramātmā as his own Siddhānta. The nature of Jiva is Cetana or thought and is therefore quite different from all the other categories which are not so characterised by Cetana or thought. The other Acetana categories are

Page #111

96
SAMAYASARA
called Ajiva in Jaina metaphysics. This term Ajīva includes Pudgala or matter, Akāśa or space and two other principles called Dharma and Adharma. Principles of equilibrium and motion which are peculiar to Jaina Physics.
The four categories which are grouped in the Ajiva class are distinctly non-spiritual and hence incapable of consciousness or thought. They are grouped under Acetana. All Ajiva categories are called Acetana. It is only the Cetana entity, Jiva, that is associated with the consciousness. This consciousness or thought which is the characteristic of Jiva may manifest in three distinct psychological activities of cognition. The process of knowing, emo tion-the process of feeling pleasure or pains, and conation--the process of activity culminating in voluntary activity. All Jivas therefore are associated with these three different forms of psychic activity of consciousness and are technically called Cetana Paryāyas--awareness of the environment, hedonic reaction to the objects so cognised and the characteristic activity manifesting as a result of this feeling of pleasure or pain. This Jiva is intrinsically the Knower, the Enjoyer and the Actor. Every soul according to its own status in the course of evolution is thus capable of being in its own way the knower, the enjoyer and the actor-Jñātā, Bhokta and Kartă. This process of knowing may be limited according to the biological conditions of the individual being. Knowledge may be wider or narrower according to the scale of evolution. The environment and knowledge expected of a lower animal will be much narrower than that of a human being and the environ. ment and knowledge of a cultured individual will be very insignificant when compared to the knowledge of a person who by yoga or tapas acquired supersensual knowledge whose extensity would be very great. Thus the growth of knowledge is conditioned by the spiritual growth of the individual soul or Jiva. In the case of Mokşa Jiva the knowledge becomes infinite comprising within itself all the three worlds, when he becomes the knower par-excellence who acquires the nomenclature of Sattvajña, the Omniscient and whose extensity is limitless in space and powers. This Paramātma is jñāni, par-excellence. This Jaina conception of Jiva though fundamentally identical with the concept of Jiva in other Indian systems of thought, still differs from the other view in certain respects. For example, Sankhya Puruşa which corresponds with the Jiva of the Jaina metaphysics is slightly different from the Jaina concept of Jiva. The Sāükhyas thought that Puruşa is a Cetana entity, but Puruşa is the knower and the enjoyer, Jñātā and Bhoktā but he is not active. He is not a Karta. All activities in the concrete world according to Sankhya school is associated with body, the material entity which is called Praksti in the Sikhya school and which is called Pudgala in the Jaina school of thought. Since all activities associated with nonthinking Prakrtis in Sarikhya system, the Cetana entity Puruşa is not connected with any kind of activity. Then why should he be responsible for the

Page #112

97
INTRODUCTION activity carried out by some other entity? He is really non-active Akarta. The Jaina thinkers object to this Sankhya view. They say that if the Puruşa is Akarta or non-active and merely a spectator of an activity carried out by another agency there is no moral justification in maintaining that he is the Bhokta or the enjoyer of the fruits of such an activity. The fruits of activity are either pleasurable or painful, and why should an entity which is not responsible for the activity be destined to enjoy the result of pain or pleasure. Similarly the other schools of thought such as the Mīmāṁsakas and the Vaišeşikas maintain that Jñana or the knowing capacity gets associated with the soul which is by nature intrinsically devoid of this guna or quality. The knowing capacity or Jñana which is a distinct entity from the soul is brought in association with the soul or Jivātma by combination; then the soul becomes the knower. This doctrine also is rejected by the Jaina thinkers as most contradictory, because it would reduce the Ātmā or the soul to a non-thinking entity before it has the good fortune to be combined with Guna or quality of knowledge or Jñana, The knowing capacity or Jñāna is intrinsic manifestation of the spiritual entity Cetana dravya or Jiva. To imagine that the quality of guna can exist separately from the Jíva or the Atma is according to Jaina metaphysics quite impossible and meaningless, because according to this central doctrine of Jainism Guna and Dravya cannot be separated and when so separated each becomes meaningless abstractions incapable of existence in reality. Hence the triple psychic characteristics of knowing, feeling and action are considered inalienable qualities of the Cetana entity, Ātma or Jiva, and they should not be considered to be of independent existence brought together by combination or association. Each quality may vary in intensity or in extensity. But all the three characteristics must be present in any Jiva however high or low it be in the scale of development. The process of Jñana being an intrinsic quality of the Cetana entity or Atma introduces a peculiar attitude in the matter of epistemology according to Jaina thinkers. The basic principle of knowing process of the Jiva or the Ātma, and the variations in the knowing process of a particular Jiva are due to associated conditions. An ordinary living being has access to the environmental objects through sense-perception. Sense perception is through the medium of sense-organs of the body. Since they are parts of the body, physical and physiological the sensory-organs are distinctly material in nature and thus distinct from the nature of Jiva or the Atmā. Sense-perception therefore according to Jaina epistemology is the knowledge which the Ātman acquires of the environment through the intermediary of material sense-organs. Since it is through the intermediary of physiological organs of sense, perceptual knowledge cannot be considered to be immediate access of the soul to the environment objects. Hence senseperception becomes mediate and not immediate. Direct contact of Jiva with the object is what is called pratyaksa by the Jaina thinkers. Since the sense-perception is conditioned by physical sense-organs, it is not immediate.
13

Page #113

98
SAMAYASARA
Sense-perception becomes Parokşa, mediate knowledge, according to Jaina epistemology. In this respect the terms Pratyaksa and Paroksa are completely reversed in Jaina epistemology. What is directly in contact with the soul is pratyaksa and what the soul acquires through intermediary agent is parokşa. Hence the sense-perception is a parokşa knowledge and not, pratyakşa as described by the other Indian systems. But Jaina epistemology recognises two kinds of supersensory knowledge, (1) awareness of objects in distant places and times and (2) contact with thought present in other individual beings. The former is called Avadhijñāna which may be translated as clairvoyant knowledge and the latter is called Manaḥparyāya Jñāna which means telepathy in the language of modern psychology. These two features of supersensory knowledge, Avadhi and Manahparyayajñana, clairvoyance and telepathy are recognised to be knowledge of immediate type or pratyakşa since they do not depend upon any intermediary of sensoryorgans. Of course, the real pratyakşa knowledge is the supreme knowledge of Paramātmā when he gets rid of karmic bondage and when he attains Kevalajñāna the knowledge par excellence. This knowledge is infinite in nature and unlimited by spatial and temporal conditions. In this belief that the Jīvātmā is capable of becoming Paramātmā or the Sarvajña, we find similarities and divulgence between the various other Indian systems. The Mimãmsakas whose fundamental doctrine is that the Vedas are eternal and apauruşeya not revealed by any individual person, do not believe in any Sarvajña or Omniscient being. In this respect the Mimārsaka system is wholly opposed to Jaina system of metaphysics and also the Vedāntic school of thought. The Mimāṁsakas who deny the reality of the Sarvajña also go to reject the doctrine of a creator and the doctrine of creation-Isvara as the Sșstikartā. In this respect the Mimārusakas entirely agree with the Jaina and Sankhya systems in rejecting the creation theory. The Sarvajña of Parmātma in Jaina system is not a Sristikartā or the creator. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of creation may be said to have been completely rejected by all the Indian systems and not merely by the Jaina school of thought. No Indian system, not even the Vaiseşikas and Naiyāyikas who speak of an Isvara as the Sțstikaria accept the doctrine of creation as bringing into existence of non-existing entity. That form of creation is entirely foreign to Indian thought. This doctrine is vehemently opposed and rejected by the Mīmāṁsakas as most ridiculous contradiction. All systems begin with the uncreated Ātmas or soul and the uncreated world of physical objects. Transformation in these objects, conjunction and separation between the living and the non-living in various forms are accepted and described by the Indian thinkers as the primary entities so combined or so undergoing transformations are all postulated to be uncreated and indestructible having a permanent existence of their own. In this respect also the Jaina philosophy

Page #114

INTRODUCTION
99
agrees with the other Indian systeins in mainiaining that the Jiva and Ajiva categories are permanent and uncreated and indestructible.
SELF IN MODERN SCIENCE
Even the biological developments of lower organism may be said to be a preparation for building up a vehicle for the self to express
itself. From the lowest mono-cellular organism and ameaba right to man, the process of evolution is a process of building up the body enabling the self to express its nature and characteristics fuller and fuller. Psychological development of man illustrates the same point of view.
Further cultural development involving socio-political organisations and metaphysical evolution all point to the same end. It is now a recognised fact that the character and behaviour of living organisms are entirely distinct from that of the inorganic things. Life's activity is characterised by an underlying purpose. Purposive behaviour of organism marks the distinguishing characteristic of the biological kingdom. No biologist nowadays has faith in famous Belfast declaration by Professor Tyndall that matter contains the promise and potency of life and consciousness. The mechanical aspect of the physical realm is recognised to be different from the teleological aspect of the kingdom of life. Even the case of ameaba which consists of protoplasmic matter covered by the cellular wall containing inside it a nucleus behaves characteristically in a purposive manner. This monocellular organism is able to recognise in a mysterious way the difference between friend and foe. It is able to run away from a powerful enemy. It is able to attack and defeat an enemy of modest intensity and power. It is able to stretch out pseudo-podia from the cell-wall to capture food-stuff and assimilate it. Thus it has in its own way the glimpse of sensitive awareness to help its behaviour. It exhibits the main functions of life such as motion and locomotion, digestion and assimilation and even reproduction by a process of gemmation. This acquatic mono-cellular organism does not carry on with this mode of life and character for long. Nature seems to be dissatisfied with this process of evolution. Then begins the process of building up a colony of cells clinging together with a sort of co-operative purpose of common life. Thus arises the beginning of multi-cellular organism. The mother cell separates into two cells which is brought about by a process of gemmation. These clinging together resulting in the consitution of the colony of cells, form the multi-cellular organism. The change naturally brings about a change in the characteristics of the behaviour of the organism. The cells in the outer periphery of the organism have the chance of coming in contact with the environment whereas the cells inside the mass have no such chance. This necessarily brings about a division of labour in order to promote the common life of the colony of cells. The outer cells are practically specialised to perform the function of awareness of the environment

Page #115

100
and also the function of motion and locomotion whereas the cells inside the mass specialise in the function of digestion and assimilation. In order to facilitate this functional differentiation the colony of cells provides a central channel through which food is shoved in which is assimilated by the inner cells and circulated to the cells in periphery also. This central channel is a representative of the future digestive system of the major organisms and also the circulatory systems. The cells in the periphery get on specialised further into sensory-motor systems of the higher organism. The front opening of this colony of cells represents the primitive mouth of the organism. It is this side of the colony that approaches and catches foodstuff which are shoved into the central channel for purpose of digestion and assimilation. Hence the multi-cellular organism develops tentacles at the frontal orifice for the purpose of capturing food-stuff and shoving them in. Some cells at the frontal orifice further specialise into different types of sensory awareness while the ameaba had the privilege of contact awareness only, the multicellular organism develops in addition the sense of taste and the sense of smell, the former to distinguish food from the non-edible object and the latter to recognise the approach of an object whether it is friend or foe through scent. Thus the cells of the periphery near the central orifice must further specialise another functional structure some devoted to the awareness of taste and others to smell. Thus form the beginnings of the sensory systems in the organism. Even an organism of this type which is merely a mass of cells with the central orifice with the tentacles near the orifice is able to express its characteristics in a significantly purposive manner.
SAMAYASARA
Professor Loeb conducted certain experiments to determine the behaviour of such primitive organisms. He introduced pieces of bread near the mouth, the tentacles caught these pieces and examined these and shoved them in. When the experiment was repeated the tentacles were eagerly awaiting for small bits of bread and the moment these pieces were introduced without further examination they were pushed in. When this behaviour was fully developed, he introduced pieces of card-board, the first piece of cardboard was eagerly caught and shoved in. After a little while this was brought out without being digested and kicked away by the tentacles. Afterwards this primitive organism was able to recognise the difference between the piece of bread and piece of cardboard. The latter when introduced would be kicked away without ceremony a characteristic behaviour fully illustrative of the purposive nature of life-activity.
The next stage in the sensory development consists in the appearance of the beginnings of eye which will be sensitive to light. Certain other cells about the frontal orifice develop a sensitiveness to light which is the primitive representative of future-Eye of the higher organism. The differentiation of cells thus responding to different sensory stimuli constitutes the origin of the

Page #116

INTRODUCTION
different sense-organs, which naturally must get coordinated by interconnections if they are to subserve the general purpose. Such interconnections of these sensory regions from the primitive nervous system form the brain of the higher organism.
Let us pursue the development of the sensory organism and the other systems in the higher organisms. All this development in the multi-cellular organism is associated with acquatic organisms. When these animals become amphibians partly living on earth and water, then there is the scope of further sensory development of hearing. The latter evolution branches off in two directions one towards the fowls of the air and the other towards the beasts of the earth.
101
Confining ourselves to the career of the quadrupeds we find a wonderful development of the nervous system and specially the brain. Examination of the brain of the lowest types of quadruped, say the rabbit, we find that the whole mass of the brain consists of the sensory centres connecting with the peripheral sensory organs, such as taste. smell, touch, sight and sound. Besides these central sensory organs and the brain, there are what are called motor regions of the body, some controlling the movements of the hind legs, some controlling the movements of the front legs and so on. When we follow the development of this brain in the mammals, we find the appearance of some brain regions which are not characterised either by sensory functions or motor functions. These areas of the brains were called silent areas, because the physiologists were not able to determine their function accurately by experiment. Later on it was discovered that these silent areas perform a very important function of coordinating the different elements of sensory awareness with appropriate mascular reactions controlling the general behaviour of the animal and these serve as the fundamental basis of the origin and development of consciousness. This hypothesis is fully corroborated when we watch the development of these silent areas in the brain surface of the mammals.
When we come to the simian type of quadrupeds, we find a critical and interesting turn in the brain development. Probably frightened by the pre-historic giants, certain quadrupeds had to take up to arboreal life by climbing up the trees and living there the major part of the time in order to preserve themselves, from the danger of the enemies below. This necessarily resulted in the liberation of the front legs which were converted into hands capable of grasping at things with the flexible fingers and so on. This liberation of the front leg led to immense possibilities of future developments found in man. Beginnings of the human culture and civilisation may be traced to this critical turn in the evolution of life where the front legs changed into hands and which again led to an erect posture of the animal standing on the hind legs alone, thus assuring in the advent of man in the world.

Page #117

102
SAMAYASARA
We now perceive the subordination of the sensory areas of the brain and the major portion of the surface of the brain assigned to motor functions to the functions of the association of different centres. Thereafter we find that the so-called silent centres otherwise called association centres of the brain becoming the dominant area of the brain, and they are at the maximum in the human brain, thus indicating that they form the functional basis of consciousness which is the fundamental characteristic of man. Thus the process of building up the body for the purpose of serving as a vehicle for the expression of consciousness, which seems to be the guiding principle in the whole process of evolution. This principle is generally recognised by modern biologists who refute the inadequacy of Darwinian theory of natural selection based upon mere mechanical environment.
Let us confine ourselves to human brain. Here you have the centres representing the various sense-organs of the periphery, the motor centres controlling the various systems of the body and besides these large tracks of association centres which cover the major portion of the brain area. Modern physiologists recognise the importance of their association areas and they believe that the same form the physiological basis of conscious activity. But the psychological development and especially the study of abnormal psy. chology brought to the forefront certain important facts, which necessitate the modification of the theory postulating that conscious activity is generally based upon physiological functions of the different centres of the brain, sensory and motor. Since these facts indicate that sometimes consciousness functioning in a mysterious way completely transcends the activity of the brain this result is obtained from two independent sources. Mental disorders brought about by violent shock or accident are observed in cases where the medical men were not able to detect any injury to the brain. A person falling from his dogcart, was found to be completely devoid of his past memory. He was not even able to speak. His condition was just like that of a baby incapable of uttering coherent words and incapable of recognising familiar objects. In this case, the medical men were not able to find any damage to the brain and they were in a fix to account for this tragic wiping out of past memories. The case was finally taken up by a psychologist. He began to teach this patient a few words and made him understand few objects in the environment. Thus he was equipped with a few words to carry on conversation. Then he was subjected to hypnotic treatment and to the great surprise of the psychologist the patient when in hypnotic sleep remembered all his past experince vaguely as if in a dream. Feeling glad that the past memory is not altogether wiped off, the treatment was continued for some time, the patient was given the post-hypnotic suggestion that he would remember all the past experiences which he vaguely recognised as dreams in the hypnotic trance. When the patient woke up to normal consciousness from the hypnotic sleep, to his great joy, he remembered the whole of his past

Page #118

INTRODUCTION
103
experience which was temporarily wiped out and became his former self once again. Such cases were numerous during the last war, when men in the front through shellshock suffered such mental aberation. All such cases were treated by the psychologist and restored to normal life to the joy of the patient.
It is clear that verdict of modern psychology is that the human personality is distinct from the material body with which it is associated and that it survives even after death.
SANKARA AND KUNDAKUNDA
Sankara's introduction to his Bhasya is a philosophical masterpiece by itself. There he gives his own personal opinion without being constrained to follow the text of the sutras Hence he freely expresses his views on life and things. First he maintains that the Self and the Non-Self are two entirely distinct entities. He begins his introduction with the following words:
"It is a matter not requiring any proof that the object and the subject whose respective spheres are the notion of the 'Thou' (the Non-Ego) and the 'Ego' and which are opposed to each other as much as darkness and light are, cannot be identified. All the less can their respective attributes be identified, Hence it follows that it is wrong to superimpose upon the subject-whose Self is intelligence, and which has for its sphere the notion of the Ego-the object whose sphere is the notion of the Non Ego and the attributes of the object and vice versa to superimpose the subject and the attributes of the subject on the object."
From this it is clear that these two distinct entities the Self and the Non-Self, have no common nature and no common attributes. One is Cetana and the other Acetana. The attributes of the one cannot be superimposed upon the other. Such a confusion is a distinct philosophical error and correct knowledge necessarily demands complete escape from such an error. Otherwise it is not possible to realise the true nature of the Self which is the ultimate object of all philosophical and religious discipline. "In spite of this it is on the part of man a natural procedure which has its cause in wrong knowledge-not to distinguish the two entities (object and subject) and their respective attributes, although they are absolutely distinct, but to superimpose upon each the characteristic nature and the attributes of the other, and thus coupling the Real and Unreal, to make use of the expressions such as That I am.' 'That is mine"."
The second point which he brings out in the introduction is the distinction between the two points of view, Vyavahara and Paramarthic, practical point of view and the absolute point of view. The confusion of attributes referred to above is brought about by Nescience or Avidya. The discriminating knowledge of the true nature of the Self is therefore to be obtained by the opposite Vidya or knowledge. He maintains that the

Page #119

SAMAYASARA
concrete life in this world is vitiated by Nescience and is real only from the practical point of view. "The mutual superimposition of the Self and the Non-Self, which is termed Nescience, is the presupposition on which there base all practial distinction--those made in ordinary life as well as those laid down by the Veda-between means of knowledge, objects of knowledge and all scriptural texts, whether they are concerned with injunctions and prohibition (of meritorious and non-meritorious actions) or with final release." Thus he points out that in ordinary life, every individual has to operate only through his body and sense without which life itself would be impossible in the concrete world. Even the cognitive process of knowledge depends upon sense-perception and intellectual activity which naturally presupposes the organic body. Even when the individual is looked upon as an agent carrying out the injunctions religious and ethical an organic body must be presupposed for carrying out all those injunctions. His conduct as the social being in the world is therefore inextricably mixed up with bodily behaviour, without which he can neither discharge his duties as a social being nor as a religious devotee. In this respect he is of common nature with other animals, who also behave in an identical manner in reacting to the environment. In the presence of an enemy, the animal tries to run away and escape and in the presence of a friendly environment it feels happy. Thus this concrete world of natural experience which is common to both men and animals though philosophically supposed to be the result of Nescience, is to be considered real and important from the practical point of view. In this concrete world which is real in its own way, the social distinctions based upon rank and birth hold good. That one is a Brahmin and another is a Kṣatriya, one is a master and another is a servant, are all distinctions based upon the body and hold good, only in the empirical world.
104
The third point which he emphasises is that this empirical world resulting from the non-distinction between the Self and the Non-Self exists without beginning and without end. This natural world which is without beginning and without end is produced by the Nescience or wrong conception which is the cause of individual souls appearing as agents and enjoyers in the empirical world which is eternal and uncreated. The individual self in the empirical world or Samsara is influenced by this wrong knowledge and identifies himself with external objects.
"Extra-personal attributes are superimposed on the Self, if a man considers himself sound and entire, or the contrary, as long as his wife, children and so on are sound and entire or not. Attributes of the body are superimposed on the Self, if a man thinks of himself (his Self) as a stout, lean, fair as standing, walking or jumping, Attributes of the sense-organs, if he thinks I am mute or deaf or one eyed or blind. Attributes of the internal organs when he considers himself subject to desire, intention, doubt, determination, and so on."

Page #120

INTRODUCTION
105 Lastly he indicates the true nature of the Self which should be discriminated from the Non-Cetana bodily attributes as free from all wants and raised above all social distinction as Brahmin and Kşatriya and so on, and entirely transcended the empirical samsărika existence to whom even Vedic injunctions will cease to be operative, because he is placed in a region from where he does not want to achieve anything more, because he is completely self-sufficient.
This introduction of Sankara may be taken to be an introduction to Śri Kundakunda's Samayasāra also. The philosophical work of Samayasara deals with all these points and practically adopts indentically the same attitude. Śrī Kundakunda begins his work with the distinction between the two points of view Vyavahărika and Niscaya, practical and real. He describes the empirical world where the individual identifies himself with the characteristics of the external objects as a result of the absence of true knowledge. The course of conduct prescribed by practical ethics is said to have only a secondary value as a probation for the higher class. Bodily characteristics, instincts, and emotions and the various psychic states of the individual Self are all dismissed to be the result of the operation of the erroneous identification of the Self or Paramātmā. Thus without changing the words, Sankara's introduction may be considered to be a fitting introduction to Sri Kundakunda's Samayasara. We shall later on point out the various points of similarity between the two, Sarkara and Sri Kundakunda, which would constrain the reader to accept the suggestion that Śarikara was well acquainted with Kundakunda's philosophy either in the original or in the Samsksta commentary by Amộtacandra.
ŚANKARA AND HIS POINTS OF VIEW The distinction between Vyavabā rika and Paramarthika points of view which Sankara makes throughout his commentary is said to have been copied from the Buddhistic philosophy. A writer in the Journal called "Achūta" referring to this says, that Sankara must have copied this from the Buddhistic metaphysics because the distinction is not found anywhere else. This writer evidently is not acquainted with Jaina philosophy. If he were acquainted with the Jaina philosophy, he would not have made such a sweeping statement that the distinction is not found anywhere else. In fact the doctrine of Naya or the points of view is peculiar to Jaina metaphysics, which maintains that knowledge is to be obtained from pramāpas and nayas. Pramāna-Nayadhigamaḥ-is the fundamental Jaina doctrine of knowledge. Following this Jaina tradition Kundakunda starts his work Samaya sāra by mentioning this distinction between Vyavahāric and Paramärthic points of view in his study of the nature of the real Self or Samayasāra. He justifies the adoption of the vyavabāric point of view even in the approach of a student towards the ultimate reality of the Self, as a

Page #121

SAMAYASARA
preparatory method of his adopting the Niścaya or the Paramarthic point of view. According to him all persons are not capable of understanding the real nature of the ultimate Self. Therefore the information must be conveyed according to the capacity of the student; just as it is necessary to adopt as a means of communication the language with which the student is acquainted so also it is necessary to adopt a method of instruction which will be within the reach of the individual student. When a guru teaches an individual not acquainted with Samskṛta language through the medium of Samskṛta it would not be intelligible to the person concerned and the instructor would defeat his purpose. Hence it is absolutely necessary to speak to him in the language which is his mother tongue and which may be some vernacular other than Samskṛta. Similarly it is necessary to adopt vyavaḥāric point of view in communicating metaphysical truths to ordinary people. With this justification Śrī Kundakundà examines every problem from these two points of view, practical and real, the practical point of view in dealing with problems of an empirical life and the real point of view in dealing with supreme reality transcending limitations of the empirical life. In this respect as was pointed above. Śankara closely follows Kundak unda's methods, with obviously he was familiar when he began his Bhǎşya.
which
106
THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE SAMSARA
Both Sankara and Kundakunda adopt identically the same attitude as to the nature of the individual self. Both maintain that the individual
soul is identical with the ultimate reality, the Supreme Self, Sankara following the traditional language of Jaina metaphysics calls this ultimate reality Paramātman, or the Supreme Self. I ven according to Sankara the Brahma and Paramatma are synonymous and interchangeable. Both the thinkers maintain that the individual self in the concrete world is ultimately identical with this absolute reality or Paramātmā. The nature of the individual self in concrete experience is the result of limitations imposed upon the ultimate reality, Paramātmā. The limiting conditions are very often spoken of as Upadhi, which is responsible for clouding the true nature of the ultimate reality. Kundakunda compares the ultimate reality with the shining sun in all his brilliance and the individual self is compared to the sun hidden by a dense layer of clouds which hides the sunshine. According to the variation in the density of the cloud, the rays of the sun will permeate through the clouds and make the sun visible in varying intensity. These variations in the appearance of the sun correspond to the various stages of spiritual developments of the individual soul. When the clouds completely get dispersed the sun begins to shine in all his glory without any intervening interruption. Exactly in a similar manner, Karmic upadhis of different density obstruct the self-shining Supreme. Atman where the Self will shine in his pristine

Page #122

INTRODUCTION
107 purity and glory when all the karmic upādhis are destroyed and got rid of. The doctrine of identifying Jivātma and Paramātmā is common to both Saukara and Kundakunda. In this connection it is worth pointing out that both Kundakunda and Sankara in their commentaries used the word "Advaita" the indication of the oneness of Jivātma and Paramātmā, a term which becomes the central doctrine of Sankara's philosophy. It only means that the doctrine is common to both the Upanişadic thought and the Jaina thought. This individual self which is merely the Paramātmā limited by Upadhic conditions is subject to transmigration, the cycle of births and deaths This career of births and deaths which is the peculiar property of the individual self is a result of the ultimate self-forgetting its own nature and identify in itself with the external objects of the non-Self. This confusion between the nature of the Self and the non-Self is pointed out as the ultimate cause of transmigratory existence of the individual soul both in the Jaina system as well as in the Vedāntic systems. The initial error or Adhyāsa or Mithya is recognised to be the cause of Saṁsāric existence by both the thinkers. Both maintain that this Sansăric existence is without beginning-Anādi. Moksa or Liberation consists in getting rid of this transmigratory existence through the discriminating knowledge of the self as distinct from the external objects. The individual self in this transmigratory existence or Samsāra is determined by its own karmic activity at every stage. If his conduct is good he is destined to have happiness as the fruit of karma, if otherwise misery. The variation in the individual hedonic experience is thus attributed to the individual's own action good or bad. Even here both the thinkers are at one. Sarkara in spite of his enthusiastic advocacy of unqualified monism concedes this point that the individual souls are determined by their respective karmas, good or bad, and that the ultimate Brahma is not responsible for such individual conduct.
Answering to the objection that the creative Brahma must be responsible for the inequalities among the individual souls, Sarkara writes:
“The Lord, we reply, cannot be reproached with inequality of dispensation and cruelty because he is bound by regards. If the Lord on his own account, without any extraneous regards, produced this unequal creation, he would expose himself to blame; but the fact is, that in creating he is bound by certain regards, i.e., he has to look to merit and demerit. Hence the circumstances of the creation being unequal is due to the merit and demerit of the living creatures created, and is not a fault for which the Lord is to blame. The position of the Lord is to be looked as analogous to that of Parjanya, the Giver of rain. For as Parjanya is the common cause of the production of rice, barley and other plants, while the difference between the various species is due to the various potentialities lying hidden in the respective seeds, so the Lord is the common cause of the creation of gods,

Page #123

108
men, etc., while the difference between these classes of being are due to the different merit belonging to the individual souls." In this passage Sankara appears to drop out the Advaitic doctrine that the Brahma is the material cause or the Upadana Karana of the individual souls. The individual souls are assumed to subsist with all their individual merits and demerits irrespective of the occurrence of Pralaya and fresh creation. By bringing in the analogy of Parjanya, he converts the first cause of Brahma to Nimitta Karta like the potter making a pot out of clay. This attitude is in conflict with the general advaitic attitude. In order to save the Brahma from the responsibility of being the author of inequality existing in the world, he has to assume the independent reality of the individual souls. So far Sankara entirely agrees with the Jaina attitude represented by Kundakunda.
SAMAYASARA
While maintaining that the confusion of the Self with the Non-Self constitutes the initial mithya or the error, both the thinkers part company in further elaborations of their systems. It is certainly an error to identify the Self with the sense-characteristics which are peculiar to the physical body because the sense qualities of colour, taste and smell have nothing to do with the nature of the Self. Birth, old age, decay and death are all characteristics alien to the conscious Self. Social and economic distinction in the individual also pertain to the body and cannot be transferred to the Self. In short the Self is a Cetana entity and the non-Self is an Acetana entity, which is the object of sense perception. Both Sankara and Kundakunda therefore maintain, one following the tradition of Vedantism and the other following the tradition of Jainism, that it is mithya to speak of the body as Self. Kundakunda stops with this statement and Śankara goes beyond this. For the latter it is not only an error to confuse Self with the body, the body itself becomes mithya or illusion. Therefore Kundakunda has to call, Halt! It is only the false identification that is error. The nonSelf is not mithya or illusion. This is the fundamental difference between the two systems of metaphysics, Sankara's Advaitism and Śrī Kundakunda's Jaina metaphysics. Sankara seems to forget his own statement in the introduction of the fundamental distinction between the Self and the Non-Self when he comes to propound his theory of unqualified monism, by denying the reality of external world itself.
NATURE AND THE EXTERNAL WORLD
The reality of the external world is admitted by the Jaina metaphysics as in the case of Sankhya philosophy. The Upanisadic thought also maintains the reality of the external world in spite of its pantheistic monism. The other commentators of Vedanta Sutras, besides Sankara also maintain the reality of the external world. Śankara himself while contradicting the Buddhistic school of Vijñānavāda accepts the doctrine of the reality of the external world in refuting the Buddhistic school, The Vijñānavāda school of the Buddhistic philosophy which maintains that the external reality is

Page #124

109
merely a manifestation of consciousness is condemned by Sankara by pointing out the difference between the purely imaginary world of dream and the concrete world of sense-perception. There he maintains that the difference in the psychic ideas are intelligible only on the supposition that the psychic images are direct effects of a permanent object in reality. This faith in the reality of the external world which he employs in refuting the Buddhistic metaphysics, he drops out completely when he tries to propound his own theory of Maya according to which the whole of the external reality is converted into a dream-world of unreality. This particular doctrine of Sankara is incompatible with the Jaina metaphysics.
The Origin of the concrete world-The popular view as to the origin of the concrete world that it is due to the creative activity of an Iśvara is rejected by Jaina philosophy. It is also rejected by Sankhya, Yoga and Mīmāmsă systems of thought. Sankara also rejects this theory when he criticises the Vaiseșika system and the Pasupata system. The concrete world from the creator or an Iśvara as a result of his creative Will is thus completely discarded by Sankara also. He maintains that it is a result of the manifestation of the ultimate reality, Brahma. In order to establish this doctrine that the world is the result of the manifestation of the Brahma he elaborately discusses the Sankhya view of deriving cosmos from Prakṛti, the Acetana root cause of the concrete world according to the Sankhya school. Sankhyas and the Jainas staunchly maintain the difference between the Cetana Self and the Acetana Non-Self. Prakṛti of the Sankhyas exactly corresponds to Pudgala or matter of the Jains. Since this is contradictory to the nature and attributes of the Self both the systems maintain that it is impossible to obtain one from the other. Therefore they regard both the Cetana and Acetana entities as not only distinct and independent of each other, but both are utlimate realities existing permanently uncreated and indestructible. But Śankara in order to defend the Vedantic doctrine of the Brahma has somehow to derive the Acetana entity also from the same first cause, Brahma. Kundakunda clearly points out that this is impossible. If the doctrine of the identity of the cause and effect is accepted-Śańkara also does accept this doctrine-these two contradictory effects, the Aceta na Non-Self and the Cetana Self, cannot be produced by the same cause, the Brahma, which is taken to be a Cetana entity according to the Upanisadic thought. How can the Cetana Brahma produce Acetana effect-matter, is the objection raised by the Sankhyas as well as the Jainas. Sankara himself concedes to the fundamental difference between the two in his introduction when he speaks about the Adhyasa which is the root cause of Samsara and yet since he has to defend the Vedantic pantheism he seems to forget his own doctrine and uses his ingenuity to prove that it is possible to derive Acetana non-Self from the Cetana Brahma. How far he succeeds in his attempt is certainly an open question to be decided by the readers of his commentary.

INTRODUCTION

Page #125

110
SAMAYASĀRA
THE DOCTRINE OF CAUSATION
Kundakunda following the tradition of Jaina metaphysics speaks of two different causes, Upadana kārana and Nimitta karana, material cause and instrumental cause. For example, clay is the material out of which the jar is made. In this case the material out of which the thing is made is the Upadana kāraṇa. For transforming the clay into the Jar you require the operating agent, the potter, the potter's wheel on which the clay is moulded, and the stick with which he turns the wheel and so on. All these come under the Nimitta kárana or the instrumental cause. This distinction is considered very important in Jaina metaphysics. The Upādāna kāraņa or the material cause must be identical with its effect. There can be no difference in nature and attributes between the material cause and its effect. From clay we can only obtain a mud-pot. Out of gold you can only obtain a golden ornament. Out of gold you cannot obtain a mud-pot nor out of clay can you obtain a golden ornament. The relation between the material cause and its effect is exactly corresponding to the modern conception of Causation, that wherever the cause is present the effect would be present and wherever the effect would be present the cause must have been present. Again negatively, if the cause is absent the effect must also be absent and conversely if the effect is absent the cause must also be absent. Following this doctrine of identity between the cause and effect, Kundakunda maintains consistent with the Jaina metaphysics, that the Cetana cause can only produce Cetana effects, and that non-Cetana cause can only produce non-Cetana effects. Accordingly he has to reject the Vedantic doctrine of deriving both Cetana and non-Cetana effect from the real causes of Brahma which cannot contain in himself, the contradictory causal potencies to produce two contradictory effects. Strangely the Vedāntic doctrine which maintains the Brahma to be the ultimate cause of all reality also maintains the non-difference in cause and effect.
Commenting on these sūtras, Salikara writes, "For the following reason also the effect is non-different from the cause, because only when the cause exists the effect is observed to exist and not when it does not exist. For instance, only when the clay exists, the jar is observed to exist. That it is not a general rule when one thing exists, another also is observed to exist, appears for instance, from the fact that a horse which is other or different from a cow is not observed to exist only when a cow exists. Nor is the jar observed to exist only when the potter exists. For in that case the nondifference does not exist although the relation between the two is that of an operating cause and its effect."
Again he writes "Ordinary experience teaches us that those who wish to produce certain effect such as curds, or earthern jars, or golden ornaments employ such as milk, clay and gold. Those who wish to produce sour-milk do not employ clay, nor do those who intend to make jars employ

Page #126

INTRODUCTION
111
milk and so on. But according to that doctrine which teaches that the effect is non-existent (before its actual production) all this should be possible. For if before their actual origination all effects are equally non-existent in any causal substance, why then should curds be produced from milk only and not from clay also and jar from clay only and not from milk as well.
Again he writes, “As the ideas of cause and effect on the one hand and of the qualities on the other are not separate ones, as for instance the ideas of a horse and a buffalo, it follows that the identity of the cause and the effect as well as of the substance and its qualities has to be admitted.
From these quotations it is quite clear that Sankara's conception of cause and effect is the same as Kundakunda's. The former following the traditions of Vedāntism and the latter the tradition of Jaina metaphysics. Both maintain that the cause and effect are identical and that particular cause can produce an effect entirely identical in nature with the cause. They both maintain that the cause and effect are identical in nature. Hence they both reject the view that the effect is non-existent in the cause and occurs as a new thing just after the cause. And therefore they both maintain that the effect is present in the cause though only in the latent form. Clay is shaped into a jar and gold is transformed into an ornament. The jar as such is not present in clay already, nor is the ornament as such present in gold. Therefore the effect is the result of causal manifestation. Thus according to Jaina Metaphysics, the effect is identical with the cause and yet the effect is slightly different from the cause. From the point of view of the underlying substance the effect and cause are identical. From the point of view of manifested form and change, the effect is different from the cause. Thus cause and effect may be said to be identical in one sense and different from another point of view. In the last quoted paragraph Sankara applies the same doctrine of identity and difference also to the relation between substance and its qualities. The substance and its qualities are inherently identical though they are different in another aspect. This attitude of Sankara is identical. with the Jaina attitude as to the relation between Dravya and Gupa, substance and attributes. Both Sankara's Vedāntism and Kundakunda's metaphysics are at one in rejecting the Vaiseşika doctrine that substance and qualities are two different distinct categories brought together by a third category Samavāya which conjoins the two. Rejecting this Vaišeşika view of the difference between substance and qualities it is maintained by both Sarikara and Kundakunda that they are identical in nature.
ONE AND THE MANY To speak of a thing as one or many is entirely dependent upon the point of view you, adopt. The same material clay may be transformed into various clay vessels and the same material substance gold may be transformed into various kinds of ornaments. If you emphasise

Page #127

112
SAMAYASĀRA
the underlying substance the mud-pots and jars will be identical in the same nature. They all belong to one class and similarly orna. ments may be said to be golden since they belong to one class. But if you emphasise the ornaments or the pots, they are many in number. Or take the case of a tree. It may be spoken of as one or many. It is one when taken in its complex as a whole and it will be many when you emphasise the number of branches in it.
"We point out that one and the same thing may be the subject of several names and ideas if it is considered in its relations to what lies without it. Devadatta although being one only form the object of many different names and notions according as he is considered in himself or in his relations to other; thus he is thought and spoken of as man, Brāhmin, learned in the Veda, generous, boy, young man, old man, father, son, grandson, brother-son-in-law, etc. etc.”
This last passage from Sankara completely coincides with the Jaina point of view that any assertion about a thing would take different forms according to the relations of the thing to other things. A person is said to be father when he is taken in relation to his son, as the son when the same is taken in relation to his father. Therefore the question how can the same man be father and son would entirely be meaningless and it will only exhibit the ignorance of the logical theory of predication. The same principle is extended by the Jaina metaphysics to other relations, such as space, time, substance and modes. This obvious truth forms the basis of the Jaina logical doctrine of predicationAstinástivāda. That you can have two assertions about a thing positive and negative according to the relation of the thing to other things. Strangely this principle thus accepted by Salikara is forgotten by him when he goes to criticise the Sūtra relating to Jainism, that two contradictory things cannot exist in the same. This inconsistency is probably due to the fact that he was only a commentator of an already existing work.
Sankara commenting on the first sūtra 'Atbăto Brahma-jijñāsa.' Let us then enquire into the nature of the Brahma or the Self. “Where is the reason why such an enquiry should be taken up ? says, Since there are various erroneous things as to the nature of the self held by different schools of thought it is necessary to clear up the errors and to establish the correct notion of the self.” He enumerates various schools he considers to be erroneous as Buddha, Sankhya, Yoga, Vaiseșika and Pasupata etc., etc. It is strange that he does not mention the Jaina account of Self as one of the erroneous views. Probably the reason why he omits this is his own siddhanta is identical with the Jaina concept of self that the Jivātmā and Paramātmā are identical. This exactly is Sankara's considered view. Hence - he cannot condemn this as one of

Page #128

INTRODUCTION
113
the erroneous views for this forms the foundation of Advaita, which forms the central doctrine of his commentary.
Sankara and Amsticandra : We mentioned above that Sankara was acquainted with Sri Kundakunda and Amộtacandra. We refer to this fact in connection with Sankara's distinction between the Vyāvahārika and Paramarthika point of view. We have here to mention the fact that the doctrine of Adhyāsa is also peculiar to Sankara. Adhyāsa is the technical term he used to denote the confusion between self and non-self, a confusion due to Avidyā or Ajñāna. This term Adhyāsa is not found in any of the philosophical writings prior to Sankara. Probably Savikara took a hint from Amstacandra who freely uses this concept in his commentary called Atmakhyāti on Śrī Kundakunda's Samayasára. Probably Amstacandra and Salikara must have lived in the same century, Amstacandra being slightly older than Sankara. The language of Atmakhyati is very similar to Sarkara's Śārīraka Bhāşya. This suggestion is made because Sankara himself speaks on one occasion that he is influenced by one Dravida Ācārya. Probably this refers to Amộtacandra---the great Commentator on Samayasära. The following quotations from Atmakhyāti will clearly bear out our suggestion that Sankara and Amstacandra were of the same age and that the former was acquainted with the writings of Amộtacandra especially in his commentary Atmakhyati.
"Ajñāna or ignorance causes Adhyāsa 'or confusion of the intellect. On account of this, thirsty animals run towards mirage to quench their thirst thinking it is a lake full of water.
Again the same Adhyāsa or confusion caused by ignorance frighten men is dusk at the sight of a rope and make them run away from it thinking it is a snake.
"Similarly on account of this confusion caused by ignorance men falsely identify their pure and unruffled nature of the Soul with the body and imagine that they are the author of the various psycho-physical activities caused by impure karmas, just as the numerous waves in the ocean are caused by atmospheric pressure while the ocean itself remains calm and unruffled. But Jñana or knowledge produces discrimination between the self and the non-self just like the harsa bird is able to separate water from milk. Unruffled self firm in its pure nature is able to understand that it is not the author of the various impure psycho-physical changes caused by an alien agency.".
ĀTMAKHYATI.

Page #129

Page #130

SAMAYASĀRA
CHAPTER 1. वंदित्तु सव्वसिद्धे धुवम'चलमणोवमं गदि पत्ते ।
वोच्छामि समयपाहुडमिणमो सुयकेवलीभणियं ॥१॥ vandittu savvasiddhe dhuvamacalamanovaman gadim patte, vocchāmi samayapāhudaminamo suyakevalibhaniyan (1)
वन्दित्वा सर्वसिद्धान् ध्रुवामचलमनुषमां गतिं प्राप्तान् ।
वक्ष्यामि समयमाभृतमिदम् अहो श्रुतकेवलिभणितम् ॥१॥ 1. Bowing to all the Siddhas who have attained a state of existence, permanent, immutable and incomparable, I will speak of this Samaya Pāhuda which has been uttered by the allknowing Masters of Scripture. Oh, Bhavyas, listen to this.
COMMENTARY The author begins the work with the worship of the Siddhas. The term Siddha implies the Supreme Self which has realised its true nature. He uses the word sarvasiddhe all the Siddhas, probably to distinguish the Jaina conception of Mokşa from the non-Jaina conceptions. Jainism recognises plurality of selves not merely in the world of Saṁsāra but also in the liberated state or Siddhahood which is a sort of divine republic of Perfect Souls, where each Self retains its individual personality and does not empty its contents into the cauldron of the Absolute as is maintained by some other systems of philosophy. It is but proper that the work should begin with the worship of the Siddhas, since the author is going to discuss the true nature of the Self in this treatise. In the first line of the Gāthā, he mentions the various attributes of the Siddha, the Perfect Self. The attribute dhuvam implies an unchanging permanency because, the Self, after achieving its true nature on the destruction of all karmic shackles, is not subject to any further manifestation and hence is characterised by unchanging permanency.
१. Other Reading धुवममल ।

Page #131

SAMAYASĀRA
The term acalaṁ implies the complete cessation of transmigratory existence. The Self in the world of Samsāra, determined by its own Karmic conditions, roams about in the empirical world, being born in any one of the four gatis, or major organic classes as determined by one's own Karma. When Karmas are completely destroyed, when the Self achieves his true nature and becomes a Siddha, this roaming about in the transmigratory world comes to a full stop. This is what is implied by the attribute acala. If the other reading, amala, is accepted then the attribute would refer to complete absence of Karmic impurity which is the sine qua non for achieving Siddhahood. The next attribute is anupama, having no pa rallel or comparison. This characteristic naturally follows a corollary because the excellence of the Siddhahood far transcends the excellent things of the concrete world. Hence Siddhahood cannot be indicated by comparison with any concrete object of the empirical world, however great and good it may be. After offering his obeisance to Siddha of such characteristics, the author addresses the faithful ones, for whose sake he composes the work called Samayapāhuda.
The first part of the word Samaya means the Self, the knower, the latter part of the word Pāhuda is interpreted to mean the essence or Sāra. Further, he declares that the treatise which he is going to compose is in conforrnity with what is taught by the Śruta Kevalis, the omniscient masters of the scriptures. The author mentions this fact not merely to defend his own work as is consistent with the revealed Word of the Lord, but also to imply that what is not so based upon such divine revelation is neither worthy of speaking about nor worthy of listening to.
In the next gāthā, the author takes up for discussion the two kinds of Self, the Pure One which is termed as sva-samaya, and the Impure One which is designated as para-samaya. The latter refers to the empirical ego and the former to the pure ego which transcends the empirical conditions,

Page #132

CHAPTER Í
जीवो चरित्तदंसणणाणट्ठिदो तं हि ससमयं जाण । पोग्गलकम्मुवदेसट्ठियं च तं जाण परसमयं ॥२॥
jivo carittadamsaṇaṇāṇaṭṭhido tam hi sasamayaṁ jāṇa, poggalakammuvadesaṭṭhiyam ca tam jāņa parasamayaṁ जीवश्चारित्रदर्शनज्ञानस्थितः तं हि स्वसमयं जानीहि ।
पुद्गलकर्मोपदेशस्थितं च तं जानीहि परसमयम् ॥२॥

3
2.
Know ye that the Jiva which (in its intrinsic purity) rests on Right Conduct, Faith and Knowledge is the real Self. But that which is conditioned by Karmic materials is other than
the real.
(2)
COMMENTARY
This gathā states the fundamental problem of philosophy which is discussed by all the systems of thought, both in the East and in the West. The term Svasamaya, the Ego-in-itself is the pure and ultimate reality which is considered to be the ideal aimed at by all the Indian Darśanas and also by some of the western schools of thought. This Ego-in-itself is characterised by the three qualities of Darśana, Jñāna, and Caritra-Belief, Knowledge and Conduct. These three attributes are also associated with the ordinary human personality in the empirical world. In the latter case the terms have quite intelligible significance in as much as the activity of the ordinary human personality manifests through his own body. The threefold characteristics of Darśana-Jñāna-Câritra are to be understood in relation to the body. But in the case of the Ego-in-itself, which is entirely free from upadhic conditions, the ordinary significance associated with the terms will not hold good. Here we have only to consider the nature of the Pure Self and hence these terms must be interpreted consistent with the state of the Self which is free and pure from upadhic conditions. Caritra cannot therefore mean the same thing as conduct associated with an ordinary man. It must imply the pure and intrinsic activity of the spiritual entity which goes by the name of Paramātmā or the Ego-in-itself. Similarly the other two characteristics must imply the intrinsic vision and knowledge which are associated

Page #133

4
SAMAYASARA
with the Pure Self which has destroyed all the upadhic conditions constituted by karmic matter.
After stating the characteristics of sva-samaya the author indicates the nature of the empirical ego by stating that it is in association with the very upadhic conditions of karmic matter which are absent in the case of the Pure Self. The Self in association with the upadhic conditions is not an entirely different entity from the Pure Self which is designated as Svasamaya. If the two are identical in nature, the question naturally arises, how does the Ego-in-itself which is pure in nature and which is free from extraneous contamination of Karmic material, become degraded to an empirical ego entirely enmeshed in Karmic upadhis. Here is a distinct deterioration in the nature of the Self which may be termed as the Fall of Man. This Fall of Man, as is already stated, is the central theme of religious philosophy all over the world. The self in its pure nature is recognised to be entirely free from Karmic shackles and yet in the concrete world he is found always in chains. He is by nature free and yet he is everywhere found in chains. What is the explanation of this great spiritual degradation? The Semetic religions, Judaism and Christianity, conveniently answer the question of the Fall of Man by the hypothesis of the original sin. But the Indian systems of thought do not adopt such a cheap and convenient hypothesis. The explanation offered by the Jaina system of metaphysics, places the association of the Self with extraneous matter in the beginningless past. The empirical Self in samsara is assumed to be in association with upadhic conditions and it is said to struggle to extricate itself from the shackles of Karmic conditions in its attempt to realise the ideal and goal-the Liberated Self. The problem therefore for the Jaina metaphysician is not the problem of the Fall of Man and the Lost Paradise. On the other hand, it is the reverse of this. It is a grand pilgrimage to the spiritual goal, a noble excelsior towards the hilltop of the Region of Peace and Purity towards which the whole creation moves. This conception in some form or other is accepted by the other Indian systems also. Sankara in

Page #134

CHAPTER I
the very beginning of his Bhāșya enumerates the various hypotheses as to the nature of the Self which he rejects as incorrect and finally states his own position which is the identification of Brahma or Ātmā, the Ultimate Reality, with the empirical ego in the concrete world. In describing the nature of the latter, empirical ego in Samsära, he also speaks of Samsāra being anādi without a beginning and that the career of the empirical Self is also anādi without a beginning. Why is the Self found in association with upādhis in its empirical form? Sankara distinctly mentions that the Self builds a tabernacle of upādhis by its own Karmas. The building up of the Karmic upādhis takes the form of its corporeal existence where the Self, through its own body as its vehicle, is able to enjoy the fruits of its own Karma, good or bad, in the form of happiness and misery.
This association of the Self with the extraneous material upādhis is thus explained to be the result of avidyā or ignorance which is present in the empirical self from time immemorial The attempt to get itself liberated from the bondage of upādhis or Karmic shackles must begin with getting rid of the avidyā. When once this avidyā is got rid of, the Karmas, good or bad, are got rid of and the individual soul realises its own pure nature in the form of Paramātmā or Brahma, as it is generally designated by the Vedāntic writers. This career of the individual Self sketched by Sankara is exactly parallel to the sketch given by Jaina metaphysics and the theory is quite unaffected by the other Vedānta theory, that the Brahma is the ultimate cause of things and persons. The similarity is much more marked when we turn to the Mimāṁsā conception of the Self. This is not encumbered with the Vedāntic hypothesis of Brahma as the original cause. It freely assumes the Self to be eternal and uncreated. It postulates a plurality of Selves each having its own individual career. This individual Self is present in the beginningless Samsāra in association with Karmic upādhis which are material in nature. This association with material upādhis is determined by the Self's own conduct according to Dharma or Adharma. Hence, liberation from the upādhis, must be obtained through discarding both Dharma and Adharma.

Page #135

6
SAMAYASARA
Thus the association of the Self with Karmic upadhis, its liberation from the same, are both explained without bringing in the aid of any extraneous causal agency. In fact both the Mimäṁsakas and the Vedantins stoutly repudiate the hypothesis of a creator or an Isvara put forward by the Nyaya-Vaiseṣika systems in order to explain the association of the Self with material Karmic upādhis resulting in the corporeal existence of the empirical self.
Our author therefore starts with the central theme of the association of Self with karmic material, and his work is an elaborate explanation of the problems of why' the individual Self is found in Karmic chains and how it can break the shackles and assume its own true nature, pure and free. This is the aim of Samayasara.
एयत्तणिच्छयगदो समओ सव्वत्य सुंदरो लोए । बंधका एयत्ते तेण विसंवादिणी होई || ३ || eyattanicchayagado samao savvattha sundaro loe bandhakaha eyatte tena visamvadiņi hoi (3) एकत्वनिश्चयगतः समयः सर्वत्र सुन्दरो लोके ।
बन्धकथा एकत्वे तेन विसंवादिनी भवति ॥ ३ ॥
3. The Self which has realised its oneness (uncontaminated by alien conditions) is the beautiful ideal in the whole Universe. To associate bondage with this unity is therefore self-contradictory.
COMMENTARY
The author further emphasises the greatness and sublimity of the Ego-in-itself or sva-samaya. This is said to be the sublime and the beautiful in the whole world. The whole of the orga: nic world from the one-sensed organism right up to man is viewed from this angle of vision. It is this sublime and beautiful Egoin-itself that constitutes the inner reality of every organism. That being the ultimate goal, recognition of this Ego-in-itself as the object to be aimed at is therefore the most desirable thing. This ultimate ideal is so far removed from the concrete world of the empirical reality that it would be erroneous to associate upadhic shackles with the sublime and beautiful entity of the Ultimate

Page #136

CHAPTER I
7 Self. It is difficult to understand what the author has exactly in his mind, when he says that it is erroneous to predicate bondage of this reality. Neither of the commentators is of any help to us. When he says that it is erroneous to associate bondage with Paramātmā, the author must be thinking about some rival theory which in his opinion makes that mistake. To predicate a further career for the Paramātmā leading to a further manifestation would certainly be considered by our author as an erroneous hypothesis. Probably he is thinking of the Upanisadic system which not only presupposes that Atmā or Brahma is the original cause of the world but also postulates the periodic evolution and involution in the life-career of the ultimate Brahma which our author evidently thinks reduces the Brahma to a Samsāric entity and therefore amounts to predicating bondage to the Paramātmā Svarūpa. It would probably be more plausible to suggest that he was thinking of the popular deities of the Purāņic Hinduism. But such a suggestion would be an anachronism, because Purāņic Hinduism and Purāņic deities were not fully developed about the Ist century B. C., which is the date of our author. Internal evidence clearly shows that he was fully acquainted with Upanișadic literature; hence our suggestion that the author was having in his mind the Brahma's periodic career of manifestation and dissolution, an idea prominently present in the Upanişadic thought. This Upanişadic Brahma, which is also designated as Paramātmā, is the same as our author's SvaSamaya--the Ego-in-itself; but the Vedāntic Brahma or Paramātmā is credited with periodic manifestation and dissolution, a characteristic entirely foreign to our author's concept of Sva-Samaya. This is only offered as a suggestion of a probable implication of the author's intention and we cannot assert anything dogmatically about that.
Next, the author goes to show that of these two Egos, the empirical Ego and the metempirical Ego, the former is easily apprehended whereas the latter is very difficult to realise.
सुदपरिचिदाणुभूदा सव्वस्स वि कामभोगबंधकहा । एयत्तस्सुवलंभो णवरि ण सुलभो विभत्तस्स ॥४॥

Page #137

SAMAYASARA
sudaparicidāņubhūdā savvassa vi kāmabhogabandhakaha eyattassuvalambho navari na sulabho vibhattassa (4)
श्रुतपरिचितानुभूता सर्वस्यापि कामभोगबन्धकथा ।
एकत्वस्योपलम्भः केवलं न सुलभो विभक्तस्य ॥४॥ 4. The proposition that all living beings are characterised by desire for worldly things, enjoyment of the same and conse
uential bondage has been heard, observed and personally experienced by all. But the realisation of the unity of the Higher Self which is free from all such empirical conditions, by our own personal experience, is not easy of achievement.
COMMENTARY Here the author frankly states in the beginning that it is extremely difficult to apprehend the nature of the metempirical Self or the Ego-in-itself. He contrasts it with our knowledge of the empirical Ego. The nature of the empirical Self can be easily apprehended from the concrete world of living beings. The behaviour of a living organism is a clear indication of its nature. The instinct of self-preservation in an organism is the main motive force of its behaviour. Every animal has to seek its food from the environment to appease its hunger, to search for water to quench its thirst, and to roam about in search of a mate to satisfy its sex desire. This tendency to seek objects from the environment, to acquire them and to enjoy them is a common characteristic of the behaviour of all living beings from the lowest to the highest. This knowledge we obtain from our observation of other animals and by the study of books on natural history describing the behaviour of animals in general. The information so gathered by observation and study is further corroborated by our own personal experience since our own behaviour as an organic being is no exception to the general law of animal behaviour. The information thus obtained from different sources gives us a fairly accurate knowledge of the nature of the empirical Ego. But when we begin to talk about the metempirical Ego we feel extremely helpless. None of the above sources of information is available to us. The reality which we try to apprehend has nothing in

Page #138

CHAPTER I
common with our empirical reality. That is why the Upanisadic thinker frankly states that it can be described only by negative attributes. We can only speak of it as neti neti, not this, not this. That is exactly why Gautama Buddha kept silent whenever he was asked by his disciples to give some information about the Self or Atma. Again, that is exactly the reason why the founder of Christianity always emphasised that the Path leading to the Kingdom of God is extremely narrow and steep. It is this very same truth that is communicated to us by our author in this gāthā. Instead of taking refuge in a cheap agnosticism that the Ultimate Reality is unknowable, he merely states that it is extremely difficult to apprehend. Then he promises that one who has the courage and conviction to plod along the steep and narrow path can, however, reach the Summit, the spiritual hilltop, and thus have a complete view of the sublime reality, a privilege not available to the ordinary mortals roaming about in the valley below.
तं यत्तविभत्तं दाहं अप्पणी सविहवेण ।
जदि दाएज्ज पमाणं चुविकज्ज छलं ण घेत्तव्वं ॥ ५ ॥
tam eyattavibhattam dayeham appano savihavena
jadi dayejja pamāņam cukkijja chalam na ghettavvam (5) तमेकत्वविभक्तं दर्शयेऽहमात्मनः स्वविभवेन ।

9
यदि दर्शयेयं प्रमाणं च्युतो भवामि छलं न गृहीतव्यं ॥ ५ ॥
5. That Higher Unity differentiated from alien conditions, I will try to reveal as far as I can. Accept it if it satisfies the condition of Truth or Pramaņas. But if I fail in my description, you may reject it.
COMMENTARY
It is a general belief among Indian thinkers that the metempirical Self or the Ego-in-itself is to be approached only through undergoing a special kind of spiritual discipline called yoga or tapas. This discipline opens up a new door-way to approach the Ultimate Reality which cannot be apprehended through ordinary sense-perception. Such a super-sensuous faculty of apprehending the Inner Self is the privilege of those few who by the practice of yoga successfully obtain it. Such a supersensuous experience of metempirical Reality must have 2

Page #139

10
SAMAYASĀRA
been obtained by our author through the practice of the spiritual discipline or Yoga which is the necessary condition for such an acquisition. Otherwise he would not make bold to promise that he would reveal the nature of that Ultimate Reality--the Metempirical Self. But when he begins to translate this spiritual intention in terms of ordinary vocabulary for the benefit of his readers, he is not sure about the adequacy of language to express the complete implication of his inner vision. Therefore he cautions the reader to test the message offered to him according to the canons of pramāņa or correct knowledge before accepting it. If it does not stand the test, then it need not be accepted. That would only prove the inadequacy of language to express accurately the knowledge obtained by supersensuous experience. The term pramāṇa is to be interpreted in this context not in the ordinary sense of sense-perception, inference, etc. As a matter of fact, the Jaina thinkers, when they speak of pratyakşa, do not mean sense-perception, which is the meaning given to the term by the other Indian systems. Sense-perception or pratyakşa according to the ordinary meaning is called paroksa by the Jaina thinker because such knowledge is obtained through an intermediate instrument of sense-organ and not directly by the Self. It is the latter that is called pratyakşa, what is directly present before the Self without the mediation of any external instrumentality. It is such a pramāna, the supersenuous perception of the Self, that the author must be thinking of when he enjoins the reader to test his message before accepting it.
One other point we have to notice is this. Though he says that he is going to follow the footsteps of the Masters of the scripture who went before him, and who theniselves had the information directly from the Omniscient Lord, the Sarvajña, still he does not want to impose this on the reader on the authority of the Revealed Word of the Lord. His frank advice to the reader to submit this message to the touch-stone of pramāna clearly implies two things. He does not want to adopt the method adopted by those thinkers whose systems of thought are based upon the authority of the Vedas. These philosophers,

Page #140

CHAPTER I
whenever they are confronted with intellectual difficulties incompatible with the Vedic traditions, reject these, even though they are ordinarily in conformity with the usual pramāņas To them, the pramāņa of the Veda is the most important and, before that, the other pramāņas become inadequate and hence lose their value of authority. The attitude adopted by our author is entirely different from the Vedic tradition. The other point to be noticed here is the implication that such an inconvenient situation will not arise here, that is the conflict between what is revealed by the Divine Word and the value of the pramanas. The bold suggestion that his information should be tested before acceptance expresses his complete confidence that what is revealed by the Sarvajña and what is also experienced by his own supersensuous method will stand the severest test when critically examined by the canons of Truth. He is sure that his message will certainly pass through the ordeal of critical examination and he will not need to take refuge in some kind of authority, superhuman and unchallengeable. Thus in short the author expresses the nature of Truth as he understands it, and how it is different from Truth resting upon the authority of the Vedas which is alleged to be superhuman and therefore above criticism.
Next the author describes the nature of the Pure Self which is free from the impure psychic states such as desire, etc. वि होदि अप्पमत्तो ण पमत्तो जाणगो दु जो भावो ।
एवं भांति सुद्धा णादा जो सो दु सो चेव ॥ ६ ॥
navi hodi appamatto na pamatto jāņago du jo bhāvo evam bhaṇamti suddhā ņādā jo so du so ceva (6) नापि भवत्यप्रमत्तो न प्रमत्तो ज्ञायकस्तु यो भावः ।
एवं भणन्ति शुद्धाः ज्ञाताः यः स तु स चैव ॥ ६ ॥
11
6. That real being who is of the nature of the Knower, is neither identical with Apramatta nor Pramatta beings. His nature as the Knower is unique and self-identical. Thus declare the thinkers who adopt the pure (absolute) point of view.
COMMENTARY
The terms apramatta and pramatta, (vigilant of duties and non-vigilant of duties) are used as representative terms to denote

Page #141

12
SAMAYASĀRA
the various shapes of spiritual development which are implied by the technical term, guṇasthānas, which are gradations based upon ethico-spiritual development. Human beings are classified according to the principle of such a development and arranged according to various classes of ascending gradation beginning with mithyādịşti upto ayogakevalī, from the one in whom right faith is absent upto one who has attained spiritual perfection through liberation from Karmic upādhis. Apramatta, which is the seventh stage in the gradation, stands for the eight upper stages, whereas pramatta, which is the sixth in the gradation, represents the six lower stages. Thus the author emphasises the fact that the characteristics brought about by the association of the Self with upādhic conditions,-the guṇasthāna being based upon such qualitïes-must be understood to be entirely alien to the nature of the Pure Self.
The author, who proposes to investigate the nature of the True Self, thus starts with the thesis that his nature is distinct from modes and characteristics resulting from its combination with the upadhic material condition whose nature is entirely distinct from that of the Ego-in-itself. The intellectual at mos phere about the time of our author was pregnant with certain fundamental truths accepted by the various systems of thought then prevalent. There were thinkers paying allegiance to the Upanişadic movement, there were the Bauddhas and the Sānkhyas, besides the Jainas. There were also the materialistic free-thinkers about that time. All these different systems accepted certain principles in common., All started with the concrete world of experience as the point of departure for their in gations. In this concrete world they recognised the proud distinction between the organic and the inorganic, the living and the non-living, jiva and ajīva. They also noticed the fundamental difference between the behaviour of the living thing and that of the non-living thing. The behaviour of a living organism however rudimentary in development always indicates a purposive activity capable of spontaneous manifestation, whereas such a purposive spontaneous activity is entirely absent in the inorganic world. The physical object inert and incapable of

Page #142

CHAPTER Í
13
spontaneous movement will only move when hit by a moving object--the speed and direction of motion being determined by the original impact. Besides the purposive behaviour of the living organism they possess also certain other characteteristics which are altogether absent in the inorganic world. The characteristics are birth and growth, decay and death. Every living being must be born from living parentage, must have development upto a certain stage and then decay and end in death. These characteristics were carefully noticed by the Indian thinkers who postulated a life-principle which was supposed to be present in all organic bodies capable of purposive activity. The behaviour of organic bodies as contrasted with other nonliving physical bodies was thus explained by the presence of this lise-principle which operated through the living body which is also constituted by various inorganic elements. Thus as far as the organic body is concerned, they recognised two distinct entities. The constitution of the organic body is explained by the combination of various inorganic elements, and its purposive intelligent behaviour being credited to the operative life-principle called ātmā or Soul. After recognising the duality of the nature of organic beings, the various systems of thought attempted to probe into the secrets of the nature of this life-principle called ātmā or Soul. The materialist saved himself from the trouble of metaphysical investigation by a summary disposal of the problem. For him there was no entity called Atmā which is postulated by others in order to explain this purposive intelligent nature of animal behaviour. The organic body is constituted by the inorganic elements and there is nothing more in it. Its behaviour is due to the peculiar mode of combination of the inorganic elements, and the presence of consciousness in man and some other higher animals is merely a by-product resulting from the combination of the inorganic elements constituting the organic body. The other systems rightly rejected this view as erroneous because of its inadequacy to explain satisfactorily the purposive and intelligent behaviour of animals. Hence the other systems are at one in postulating a separate entity besides the body which is constituted by inorganic elements, in order to explain

Page #143

14
SAMAYASARA
the purposive behaviour of the organism. This entity which is so postulated is assumed to be a cetana, being of the nature of intelligence as contrasted with inorganic bodies which are said to be acetana and non-intelligent. Thus all the systems reduced the organic beings, including man, to a combination of two distinct entities cetana and acetana, intelligent and non-intelligent. Their whole philosophical attempt is directed to a clear determination of the nature of this intelligent principle which is supposed to be present in all living beings. Again, all these systems, minus the materialistic, agree in maintaining that this life-principle or ātmā should not be identified with the body or any organ of the body though it is the operative principle responsible for the activity of the organic body as a whole or of the various organs, sensorial and motor. Thus the philosophical investigation as to the nature of the life-principle of ātmā or Self, by a careful elimination of all that pertains to the body as alien to its nature. So far the systems agree in their ultimate aim as well as their method of investigation though the conclusion reached is differnt in each case thus resulting in different philosophical systems: Thus we see our author stating the nature of the Pure Seif by a process of elimination of all those characteristics which result from its association with inorganic material elements which are designated technically upādhis.
The author goes to point out next, that even in the case of the Self free from upādhic conditions, certain diverse qualities ordinarily associated with it such as Darśana, etc., when viewed from the absolute point, can be differentiated only verbally and not really.
ववहारेणुवदिस्सदि णाणिस्स चरित्तदंसणं णाणं ।
णवि णाणं ण चरित्तं ण दंसणं जाणगो सुद्धो ॥७॥ vavahāreņuvadissadi ņāņissa carittadísaņam nāņam, navi ņāņam na carittam na damsaņam jānago suddho (7)
व्यवहारेणोपदिश्यते ज्ञानिनश्चारित्र दर्शनं ज्ञानं ।।
नापि ज्ञानं न चारित्रं न दर्शनं ज्ञायकः शुद्धः ॥७॥ 7. From ehe vyavahāra point of view, conduct, belief and knowledge are attributed (as different characteristics) of the

Page #144

CHAPTER I
15 Knower, the Self. But from the real point of view there is no (differentiation of) knowledge, conduct and belief, in Pure Self.
COMMENTARY Jaina metaphysics always emphasises the nature of reality to be identity-in-difference and unity in the midst of multiplicity. This characteristic which is assumed to be present in reality in general is associated in a marked degree with the Self. The Self in association with material upādhic conditions is said to be born in the world of samsāra with various organic bodies in various places and various times. The various births associated with a particular Self will be practically infinite in number when the beginningless sainsēric career is taken into consideration. All these various forms are considered to be paryāya s or modifications of the self-same unitary ego. The Self is one and its modifications determined by upadhic conditions are infinite in number. It is in this sense that the saving that the ātmā is one and the rsis call it many is interpreted by the Jaina metaphysician. Another point which is generally noticed by Jaina metaphysics is the relation between the substance and its qualities. The complex nature of the substance with its qualities also interpreted to be identity-in-difference. The qualities cannot be considered as entirely distinct from the substance. It is the same identical substance that expresses its nature through qualities. No doubt the qualities may be spoken of as different from one another and all from the underlying substance. Such consideration of the quality in abstract is only verbal differentiation. But really the qualities cannot exist independent of the substance nor the substance independent of its qualities as is maintained by the Vaiseșika school of thought. It is this latter point that is emphasised in this gāthä. The self in its pure nature, which is entirely free from upādhic conditions, must be considered as an indivisible unity in spite of the different attributes associated with it ordinarily. The characteristics, Darsana, Jūāna, and Cāritra are only verbal differentiations employed to explain the complex nature of the unitary self. This point that the qualities can only be differentiated

Page #145

16
SAMAYASĀRA
verbally from the substance is illustrated by Jayasena in the following manner. We may speak of fire that it burns, that it cooks or that it shines, when we consider the various purposes for which it is employed. Burning, cooking and shining are spoken of as the various properties of fire, because of its relation to other things, based upon different purposes. In spite of the various descriptions of its properties, fire is one and the same. Similarly the Self is one indivisible identity and unity in spite of the various descriptions of its nature in terms of Darsana, Jñāna, and Cāritra. The same point is illustrated by Amrtacandra in the following manner. When an able teacher wants to inform his student about the nature of an extremely complex reality possessing innumerable properties, he will proceed cautiously in choosing one property after another in order to instruct the student accurately. Confronting him with the whole complex reality at the same time will only confound the student and the teacher's aim will be defeated. This process of selecting one characteristic after another in order to produce a clear understanding in the mind of the student of the extremely complex nature of the reality which is the object of study will not in any way really tamper with the identical unity of that object. In the same way the self which is a complex reality may for the purpose of instruction be described in different terms but in spite of the variety of these descriptions it does not lose its ultimate identity and unity. These two gāthās (6 and 7) may be taken to be an implied refutation of the Upanisadic pantheism, Buddhist Kşaņikavāda or momentariness of the Self, and the Vaisesika theory of the distinction between dravya and guna, as distinct categories.
1. Though the Jaina view recognises the identical unity of the Self throughout its career of transmigratory existence, still it does not reduce all the concrete personalities and organisms as the modifications of one and the same ātmā as is maintained by Upanișadic pantheism and later Vedāntism.
2. The Kșaņikavāda of the Bauddhas is also rejected by the Jaina metaphysics. The Bauddhas, like the western philosopher Hume, rejected a permanent objective reality as well as

Page #146

CHAPTER I
17
the permanent identity of the Self. This goes by the name of K sanikavāda or momentariness which is also designated by the term Anātmavāda. While the Bauddhas do not accept any individual identity of the Self besides and beyond the series of psychic states, Jaina metaphysics emphasises that these series of psychic states cannot be adequately explained without the postulate of a permanent ātmā.
3. We have indicated before, the Jaina conception of the relation between dravya and its gunas and how this account is different from the Vaiseșika one. Hence there is implicit refutation of the Vaiseșika theory also.
If the real nature of the Self is obtained only by adopting the paramārthika point of view, what is the use of adopting the inferior vyavahāra point which is able to give only a partial and incomplete account of the ultimate reality. The answer is given in the next gātha.
जह णवि सक्कमणज्जो अणज्जभासं विणा उ गाहेदूं ।
तह ववहारेण विणा परमत्थुवदेसणमसक्कं ॥८॥ jaha ņavi sakkamanajjo aħajjabhäsam viņā u gāhedum taha vavahāreņa viņā paramatthuvadesaṇamasakkam (8)
यथा न शक्योऽनार्योऽनार्यभाषां विना तु ग्राहयितुम् ।
तथा व्यवहारेण विना परमार्थोपदेशनमशक्यम् ॥८॥ 8. Just as a non-Aryan (foreigner) cannot be made to understand anything except through the medium of his nonAryan language, so the knowledge of the Absolute cannot be communicated to the ordinary people except through the vyavahāra point of view.
COMMENTARY Here the author enunciates an important principle of education which must be adopted by every teacher in instructing his pupils.. The teacher must take into consideration the understanding capacity of the pupil and he must adopt a method of instruction suitable to the situation and present the matter of instruction so as to be easily understood by the pupil. He illustrates this by pointing out how it is absolutely necessary

Page #147

18
SAMAYASĀRA
when talking to a foreigner to converse with him only through his own foreign language, in order to make him understand what he wishes to communicate to him. This is given as a justification for adopting the vyavahāra point of view which is recognised to be different from and inferior to the pāramārthika point of view. This distinction between the Paramārthika Naya and the Vyavahāra Naya, the two intellectual methods of approach towards the comprehension of reality, is adopted by the Jaina metaphysicians as a very important one. Our author adopts these two methods throughout the work as the occasion demands. Since Jaina metaphysics assumes the reality to be a complex entity it is bound to adopt both these points of view. The ultimate reality must be subjected to an intellectual analysis and the constituent elements so obtained must be selected and emphasised according to the interest of the student and also consistent with the purpose of the discussion. The variations in the context and the intellectual aim will naturally determine the nature of the descriptions adopted with reference to the reality studied. The method of selective description to suit the purpose of the context is the method adopted by the ordinary man who is engaged in his pursuit in life. Since the method is determined by a purpose of practical interest, the investigation will be relevant only to that purpose and the conclusion obtained must be therefore partial since it is not concerned with other aspects of the reality which are left out as of no concern, being irrelevant to the purpose on hand. This process of investigation goes by the name of the Vya vahāra Naya or the practical point of view as contrasted with the other method, Pāramārthika Naya. The term Paramartha refers to the ultimate and implies a philosophical attempt to probe into the inner core of reality with the object of comprehending the intrinsic nature of reality, whole and complete. It is also called Niscaya Naya, real point of view, since it is not concerned with the various aspects, partial and purposive, relevant only to the practical man and not to the philosopher. This distinction between the pāramrārthika view and the vyavahāra is also adopted by Sankara in his Bhāşya on the Vedānta Sūtras. Since Sankara came several centuries after

Page #148

CHEPTER I
19
Kunda Kunda, since he was also of South India, probably he was acquainted with Kunda Kunda's writings and adopted the method of distinction between the practical and the real point of view as suitable to his own purpose. Since our author has used the word anārya in the sense of the foreigner it must be noted that there is no race-superiority implied by term as is ordinarily assumed. In Vedic literature the term ārya is used exclusively to denote the immigrant clan of Aryans as contrasted with the people of the land who are described with the sinister name of Dāsas. This racial distinction ultimately led to the Hindu social organisation of four varnas in which the Dāsas were assigned the fourth name or the Šūdra caste. The Jaina conception of social organisation is different from this Hindu conception. Here the distinction is based more upon profession and qualification than upon birth, as is clearly evident from the Jaina tradition that such a social organisation was originally established by Lord Rşabha. Commenting upon the Sūtra äryā mlecchāsca 36. II of Tattvārtha Sūtra, the commentators both Pūjyapāda and Akalanka speak of five different classes of Aryas, Kśetra Āryas, Jāti-Aryas, Karma Āryas, Cāritra Āryas, and Darsana Áryas. The first class includes all those who live in the countries Kāsi, Kosala, etc.; the second class includes those who belong to the Ikşvāku clan, the third class includes all those who are engaged in the six kinds of professions such as defence, agriculture, trade, art, etc.; the fourth class refers to all those persons who ennoble themselves by moral conduct and spiritual discipline, and the fifth class to all those who adopt the right faith as the basis of their religious discipline. In speaking about the anāryas or mlecchas they refer to two classes of mlecchas, antardvīpaja, and karma-bhūmija, those that are born in foreign continents and those that are born in Bhāratakhanda, called Karmabhūmi.
The Sakas, Yavanas, Šabaras, and Puliúdas, etc. are anāryas living in the land. This description of Aryas and Anäryas is quite clear. All the people of the land irrespective of their birth and profession are included under the class ārya. The Śūdras engaged in agriculture, the blacksmith, the goldsmith

Page #149

20
SAMAYASĀRA
and the sculptor are all designated by the honorific term of āryas. The illustration given of non-Aryans, such as Śakas, and Yavanas clearly indicate that the term is used to designate foreigners. It is in this sense that our author uses the term in the above gathā, when he says that when you talk to an anārya you must talk to him in his language, that is in his anārya language, the foreigner's tongue.
जो हि सुदेणभिगच्छइ अप्पाणमिणं तु केवलं सुद्धं ।
तं सुयकेवलिमिसिणो भणंति लोयप्पदीवयरा ॥९॥ jo hi sudenabhigacchai appāņamiņam tu kevalaṁ suddhan, tam suyakevalimisiņo bhanamti loyappadīvayarā (9)
यो हि श्रुतेनाभिगच्छति आत्मानमिमं तु केवलं शुद्धम् ।
तं श्रुतकेवलिनमृषयो भणन्ति लोकप्रदीपकराः ॥९॥ 9. Whoever realises the absolute and pure nature of this Self through the knowledge of the scripture, him, the Rşis, the light of the world, call an all-knowing Master of Scripture.
COMMENTARY This gāthā refers to niscaya śrutakevali as contrasted with i; avahāra śrutakevali referred to in the next gātha. This real all-knowing Master of the Scripture, by the complete acquisition of the scriptural knowledge, is able to realise the Self as that which illuminates itself and the other and, hence, is of the nature of knowledge or Jñāna, an experience independently obtained by the Kevala- jñānī, or the Sarvajña, through the instrument of śukla--dhyāna, as the result of tapas Since almost the same result is obtained in these two cases, one through tapas and the other through the knowledge of the scripture, the Śrutakevali is designated as niscaya Śrutakevali. The author describes the Vyavahāra Śrutakevali in the next gāthī.
जो सुयणाणं सव्वं जाणइ सुयकेलि तमाहु जिणा ।
णाणं अप्पा सव्वं जम्हा सुयकेवली तम्हा ॥१०॥ jo suyaņāņam savvam jāņaï suyakevalin tamāhu jiņā, ņāņam appā savvam jamhā suyakevalī tamhā. (10)
यः श्रुतज्ञानं सर्वं जानाति श्रुतकेवलिनं तमाहुर्जिनाः ।। ज्ञानमात्मा सर्वं यस्मात् श्रुतकेवलो तस्मात् ॥१०॥

Page #150

21
10. The Jinas call him a (Vyavahāra) Śrutakevali who has full knowledge of the scripture; as all scriptural knowledge ultimately leads to the knowledge of the Self, therefore the (knower of the Self) is called Śrutakevali.
CHAPTER I
The person who masters completely the scripture comprising the twelve angas, is referred to as Vyavahara-śrutakevali, since he distinguishes himself by his study of the scripture, the dravya śruta or the different works constituting the angas or the agamas. Even with the complete study of the scripture he has not reached that stage of realising the Atma as the Pure Self, though he may reach that stage ultimately. Hence he is designated as Vyavahara-śrutakevali, as contrasted with the other who, through the acquisition of bhava śruta, is able to realise the real Self for which reason he is designated as Niścayaśrutakevali. The former has knowledge of all the reals, for which he is called Kevali and, since his knowledge of all the reals is through the scriptures, he is called Śrutakevali. And since his knowledge is obtained through the description of the reals given in the scripture, he is called Vyavaharaśrutakevali. The latter, through his knowledge obtained through the scripture, is able to immediately realise the true nature of the Self and the whole reality is called the Niścayasrutakevali. These two are contrasted with the Omniscient, par ercellence, one who obtains kevala-jñāna, through tapas.
ववहारोऽभूदत्थो भूदत्थो देसिदो दु सुद्धओ |
भूदत्थमस्सिदो खलु सम्मादिट्ठी हवदि जीवो ॥११॥ vavaharo abhudattho bhudattho desido du suddhanayo, bhudatthamassido khalu sammadiṭṭhi havadi jivo (II) व्यवहारोऽभूतार्थो भूतार्थो देशितस्तु शुद्धयः ।
भूतार्थमाश्रितः खलु सम्यग्दृष्टिर्भवति जीवः ॥ ११॥
II. The practical stand-point does not reveal the reals; the pure point of view is said (to relate to) the real; verily, the soul that takes refuge in the real is one of right vision.
COMMENTARY
The vyavahara point of view, since it is based upon practical interest, need not and does not take into consideration the

Page #151

22
SAMAYASĀRA reality as it is. Only that aspect of reality which is considered
seful by the practical view in the context is taken into consideration by the vyavahāra point of view. Both the commentators explain this first through an illustration. An ordinary illiterate person, when he feels thirsty, may freely drink muddy water if it is immediately available to him. He wants water to quench his thirst and does not wait to enquire whether it is pure or impure. But in the case of an enlightened person the behaviour will be slightly different. If he is thirsty and if he can't get pure water he would try to purify the muddy water by the application of the cleaning nut, thus separating the pure water from the muddy deposit before using it. Exactly similar is the attitude of man towards the nature of reality. The ordinary unenlightened person goaded on by practical interest may behave with the assumption that what is called Self is that which is in association with karmic impurities and thus get on in life trying to obtain as much satisfaction as possible; but an enlightened individual will not thus be satisfied. He will try to distinguish between the Self as a pure entity and the various impurities ordinarily associated with it. With this discriminative knowledge, he will try to guide his life as far as possible, thus basing his whole conduct on the true knowledge of reality as it is. It is the latter class of person that deserves to be called Samyagdsșți or right believer.
सुद्धो सुद्धादेसो णादव्वो परमभावदरिसोहि ।
ववहारदेसिदो पुण जे दु अपरमे टिदा भावे ॥१२॥ suddho suddhādeso ņādavvo paramabhāvadarisihin, vavahāradesido puņa je du aparame třhida bhäve (12)
शुद्धः शुद्धादेशो ज्ञातव्यः परमभावदर्शिभिः ।।
व्यवहारदेशितः पुनर्ये त्वषरमे स्थिता भावे ॥१२॥
12. The pure stand-point which reveals the pure substance should be adopted by (those whose object is to be) the seers of the supreme state of the soul; but the practical one by those who are satisfied with a lower status.
COMMENTARY Thus it is emphasised that the point of view adopted depends upon the object of the investigator. The commentators

Page #152

CHAPTER I
23
again elucidate this point with an illustration. A person whose aim is to obtain pure gold without any impurities will go on melting it a number of times till all the impurities completely disappear; but in the case of a person who does not want gold of such purity for making certain ornaments will not bother himself with such repeated processes of purifying it in the fire. He may be satisfied with two or three times of fire-purification since his aim is not to obtain gold of the sixteen-touch purity. Thus the object of the person determines the process of purification in the matter of gold. The analogy is applied in the context to the purification of the Self. Whether he adopts the pure point of view or the practical point of view depends upon the purpose in life adopted by the individual.
Here ends the pīțhikā or Introduction.
The author then proceeds to describe the nine padarthas or categories according to Jaina metaphysics.
भूदत्थेणाभिगदा जीवाजीवा य पुण्णपावं च।
आसवसंवरणिज्जरबंधो मोक्खो य सम्मत्तं ॥१३॥ bhūdattheņābhigadā jīvājīvā ya punnapāvan ca, āsavasamvaranijjarabamdho mokkho ya sammatta (13)
भूतार्थेनाभिगता जीवाजीवौ च पुण्यपाषं च ।
आश्रवसंवरनिर्जरा बन्धो मोक्षश्च सम्यक्त्वम् ॥१३॥ 13. Right belief is constituted by a clear comprehension, from the real point of view of the nature of the following categories:--Jiva (soul), Ajīva (non-soul), Punya (virtue), Papa (vice), Āśrava (inflow of kar mas), Samvara (stoppage of karmas), Nirjarā (shedding of karmas), Bandha (bondage), and Mokşa (emancipation).
COMMENTARY The nine padārthas or categories are important because of their relevancy for understanding the life-history of the soul. Of these, the first two, jīva and ajīva, the soul and the non-soul, are fundamental categories and associated with each other from beginningless time. The other seven categories, though they are enumerated on a par with the first two, according to the doctrine of nava-padārthas, must be recognised as resultant

Page #153

SAMAYASĀRA categories due to the interaction of the first two. In spite of the subsidiary nature of these seven categories, they are equally important as the first two inasmuch as their knowledge is quite essential to the process of self-development leading to the selfliberation which is the last of these nine categories and which is also the goal aimed at by spiritual development. Every one of these categories has a dual aspect. Externally it implies the material operative condition constituting the Karmic upādhi. Internally it also implies the psychic modification in the self caused by the corresponding Karmic upādhi. Thus each one of these seven categories has a two-fold nature, material and psychical, which are designated respectively by the terms dravya and bhāva. Thus we have in each case, dravya punya, and bhāva punya, dravya āšrava and bhāva āśrava, etc. These various categories in the life-history of the soul are objects apprehended by right belief. These various categories which are objects of right belief are identified by our author with right belief itself because there is really no fundamental distinction between belief and objects of belief. As has been pointed out above, these categories though considered as real entities because of their importance in the life-career of the soul, it must not be forgotten, are but the various aspects resulting from the interaction of the fundamental reals, jīva. and ajīva. Recognition of this fact would naturally imply that it is the same unitary Self that is present through these categories which are but the modifications of the same Self caused by the operation of the non-self upādhis. Thus it is possible to eliminate the modifications caused by external conditions since they do not form part of the real nature of the Self. Thus after eliminating all those modifications alien to the nature of the self caused by external conditions, it is possible to contemplate upon the nature of the pure Self. Such a realisation of the Self brought about by the discriminative knowledge of the true nature of the Self, as distinct from the operating external conditions, would ultimately reduce the categories which are considered real and important to a status of unreality and unimportance. Such a knowledge of the true Self present throughout these categories and yet transcending all these modifications

Page #154

CHAPTER I
25
is called atmakhyāti, knowledge of the Self par excellence, a name introduced by Amộtacandra in his commentary on this gātha. This term, ātmakhyāti or Self-knowledge, is also used by him to designate the whole of his commentary on Samayasāra.
जो पस्सदि अप्पाणं अबद्धपुढे अणण्णयं णियदं ।
अविसेसमसंजुत्तं तं सुद्धणयं वियाणीहि ॥ १४ ॥ jo passadi appāņain abaddhapuţtham anannayam niyadan avisesamasanjuttan tam suddhaņayam viyāṇīhi (14)
यः पश्यति आत्मानं अबद्धस्पृष्टमनन्यकं नियतम् ।
अविशेषमसंयुक्तं तं शुद्धनयं विनानीहि ॥ १४ ॥ 14. He who perceives the Átmā as not bound, not touched, not other than itself; steady, without any difference and notcombined, know ye him, as suddha-naya or the pure point of view.
COMMENTARY The person who has the pure point of view is himself called the pure point of view according to this gātha, as it is not altogether incorrect to equate the person with his intellectual attitude.
Not bound, not tovched: though the Atmā is associated with matter, Karmic and non-Karmic, it is neither bound by that matter nor contaminated by it. Really it retains its pristine purity just as a lotus leaf in water remains untouched by it.
Karmic matter means the subtle particles of matter suitable to constitute the subtle Karmic body which continues to be in association with the soul throughout its transmigratory existence of births and deaths till the Self obtains liberation by the destruction of Karma when the Karmic body vanishes. Non-Karmic matter refers to the material molecules constituting the organic body of each individual being, the body which appears at birth and disintegrates after death.
Not other than itself: though the soul is subject to different modifications in its roaming about in different gatis as a man or a deva, etc., the soul throughout retains its identity just as clay remains clay while it is shaped into different forms over the potter's wheel.

Page #155

26
SAMAYASARA
Steady: the soul in spite of its several psychic modifications remains steady in itself, unperturbed just as the sea which remains steady in spite of the disturbance caused on its surface by the waves.
Without any difference : the different qualities such as weight, colour, and malleability do not in any way interfere with the nature of gold. Similarly the possession of the psychic qualities like knowledge, perception, etc., does not in any way differentiate the Atmā. It remains undifferentiated in spite of the qualities.
Not combined: this quality refers to the impossibility of the accidental emotional characteristics such as desire and aversion, combining with the true nature of the soul. This implies that the Self cannot be identified with the various emotions which are accidental characteristics.
जो पस्सदि अप्पाणं अबद्धपुढे अणण्णमविसेसम् ।
अपदेससुत्तमझ पस्सदि जिणसासणं सव्वं ॥ १५ ॥ jo passadi appāņam abaddhapuţtham ananṇamavisesam apadesasuttamajjham passadi jiņasāsaņam savvam (15)
यः पश्यति आत्मानं अबद्धस्पृष्टमनन्यमविशेषम् ।।
अपदेशसूत्रमध्यं पश्यति जिनशासनं सर्वम् ॥ १५॥ 15. He who perceives the Self as not bound, not touched, not other than self, steady and without any difference, understands the whole Jaina doctrine which is the kernal of the Scripture.
COMMENTARY The author emphasises the fact that complete realisation of the full Self is identical with the perception of the whole reality, which is the topic discussed in the Jaina Scripture. Knowledge of the Knower is also the Knowledge of the Known.
दंसणणाणचरित्ताणि सेविदव्वाणि साहुणा णिचं ।
ताणि पुण जाण तिण्णि वि अप्पाणं चेव णिच्छयदो ॥ १६ ॥ damsaņaņāņacarittäņi sevidavvāņi sāhuņā ņiccam tāņi puņa jāņa tiņņi vi appāņam ceva nicchayado (16)
दर्शनज्ञानचारित्राणि सेवितव्यानि साधुना नित्यम् । तानि पुनर्जानीहि त्रीण्यपि आत्मानं चैव निश्चयतः ॥ १६ ॥

Page #156

CHAPTER Í
27 16. Faith, knowledge, and conduct should always be cherished by saints from the vyavahāra point of view. Know that, in reality, these three are the Self.
COMMENTARY Just as knowledge, belief, and conduct of a person called Devadatta, cannot have separate and independent existence apart from that person, so also knowledge, belief, and cor relating to the Pure Self cannot have any independent existence apart from it and hence may be identified with its true nature. The three jewels above referred to, when cherished as the ideal to be aimed at, constitute vyavahāra-ratna-traya. But when they are realised as identical with the Self, they constitute the niscaya-ratna-traya. Thus the niscaya and vyavahāra points of view in the case stand in the relation of sādhya and sādhana, the ideal achieved and the method of achievement.
जह णाम कोवि पुरिसो रायाणं जाणिऊण सद्दहदि ।
तो तं अणुचरदि पुणो अत्थत्थीओ पयत्तेण ॥१७॥ jaha ņāma kovi puriso rāyāņam jāņiūņa saddahadi to tam aṇucaradi puno atthatthio payatteņa (17)
यथा नाम कोऽपि पुरुषो राजानं ज्ञात्वा श्रद्दधाति । ततस्तमनुचरति पुनरार्थिकः प्रयत्नेन ॥१७॥ एवं हि जीवराया णादवो तह य सद्दहेदव्यो ।
अणुचरिदव्वो य पृणो सो चेव दु मोक्खकामेण ॥१८॥ evam hi jīvarāyā ņādavvo taha ya saddahedavvo aņucaridavvo ya puno so ceva du mokkhakāmeņa (18)
एवं हि जीवराजा ज्ञातव्यस्तथैव श्रद्धातव्यः ।
अनुचरितव्यश्च पुनः स चैव तु मोक्षकामेन ॥१८॥ • 17 and 18. As a man knowing the king believes in him and with the object of gain serves him with resourcefulness, even so should the king, the soul, be known, believed in and attended to with the object of emancipation.
COMMENTARY The nature of ratna-traya is explained by a simile. Any person who is desirous of obtaining presents from the king

Page #157

28
SAMAYASARA
must first of all find out who the king is through the royal paraphernalia of the royal umbrella, cāmara, etc. Then he must have faith in the benevolent nature of the king; then he must approach him and serve him whole-heartedly in order to attain his end. Similarly one who desires moksa or libera tion should obtain the knowledge of the true Self, should have faith in the possibility of realisation and finally make an effort to reach the goal. The approach towards the spiritual sovereign is compared to the approach towards a temporal king.
Thus it is emphasised that right knowledge is the indispensable condition of the attempt to successfully achieve liberation or mokşa
Next, the author points out that the view which identifies the Self with the body, etc. is the mark of ajñāna or wrong knowledge.
कम्मे णोकम्मम्हि य अहमिदि अहयं च कम्मणोकम्मं ।
जा एसा खलु बुद्धो अप्पडिबुद्धो हदि ताव ॥१६॥ kamme şokammamhi ya ahamidi ahayan ca kammanokamman jā esā khalu buddhi appadibuddho havadi tūva (19)
कर्मणि नोकर्मणि च अहमिति अहकं च कर्म नोकर्म । __ यावदेषा खलु बुद्धिरप्रतिबुद्धो भवति तावत् ॥१९॥
19. Karmic matter and non-Karmic body-matter constitute the I and (conversely) I am identical with Karmic matter and non-Karmic matter. So long as this belief persists in the Self, it is said to be aprati-buddha, one lacking in discriminative knowledge.
COMMENTARY This gāthā emphasises the fact that it is sheer ajñāna or ignorance to identify the Self with the various types of non-self. Karma, here, refers to the subtle matter constituting the various kinds of Karma, such as jñānāvaranīya, etc., and therefore implies the various psychic states such as delusion, desire, etc. NonKarma refers to the physical molecules constituting the organic body. One who recognises that the Self is by nature entirely distinct from the internal impure psychic states such as delusion, desire, and the external body, is said to be prati-buddha or one with discriminative knowledge. Therefore, one who believes that

Page #158

CHAPTER İ
the Atma is identical with the various impure psychic states caused by the subtle Karmic matter or with the gross organic body is called aprati-buddha, one devoid of discriminative knowledge. Such an aprati-buddha, is called bahir-ātmā or one who identifies himself with external objects.
अहमेदं एदमहं अहमेदस्स हि अत्ति मम एदं । अण्णं जं परदव्वं सचित्ताचित्तमिस्सं वा ॥ २०॥ ahamedam edamaham ahamedassa hi atti mama edam annanic jam paradavvain sacittacittamissain vā (20)
अहमेदेवदह महमेतस्य ह्यस्ति ममैतत् । अन्यद्यत्परद्रव्यं सचित्ताचित्तमिश्रं वा ॥ २० ॥
आसि मम पुव्वमेदं दस्स अहं पि आसि पुव्वं हि । होहि पुणो वि ममएदं अहमेदं चापि होस्सामि ॥२१॥
asi mama puvvamedam edassa aham pi asi puvvam hi hohi puno oi mam edam ahamedem cāpi hossāmi (21) आसीन्मम पूर्वमेतदहमेतत् चापि पूर्वं हि ।
भविष्यति पुनरपि ममैतत् अहमेतत् चापि भविष्यामि ॥ २१ ॥

एदं तु असम्भूदं भादवियप्पं करेदि सम्मूढो । भूदत्थं जाणंतो ण करेदि दु तं असम्मूढो ॥२२॥
eadm tu asambhūdam adaviyappam karedi sammūḍo bhūdattham jānanto na karedi du tam asammūdo (22)
एतत्वसद्भूतमात्मविकल्पं करोति संमूढः ।
भूतार्थं जानन् न करोति तु तमसंमूढः ॥२३॥
20 to 22. “I am other substance, animate, inanimate, or mixed; it is myself; I am its and it is mine; it was mine in past time and I was its; even again it shall be mine and I shall be its." Such erroneous notions about the Self (as identifying it with alien objects such as body, etc. (only the deluded one) bahir ātmā entertains. But one who knows the real nature of the Self, non-deluded ( antar-ātmā ) never entertains (such erroneous notions about the Self).
29

Page #159

30
SAMAYASARA
COMMENTARY These gāthās refer to the erroneous belief of identifying oneself with one's own body as well as the environmental objects. These alien objects such as wife and children, cattle and gold and land constitute one's home and property. Wife and children and cattle are designated as sacitta-paradravya, living objects in the environment. Gold ornaments, house and landed property constitute a-citta-paradravya, inanimate objects in the environment. Wife and children wearing ornaments and costly dress would be misra-paradravya, combined animate and inanimate objects of the environment. There is a tendency in the householder to identify himself with his wife and children and other properties. The identification may be as intimate as his relation to his own body. Just as he is interested in maintaining his own body free from injury or disease, so also he is interested in maintaining his property and possession free from damage by promoting the integrity and welfare of his relatives and property. Such an identification of one's self with the environmental objects is considered as an impediment to the realisation of the true Self. Such an illusory feeling of one-ness with the environmental objects, feeling elated when they increase and grow, feeling dejected when they decrease and decay, are all characteristics of self-delusion which must be got rid of by one who pursues the path of self-realisation.
Such a self-delusion, may also be present in an ascetic. Though he renounces his house and property, still he retains a few things such as piccha and kamandalu which constitute the insignia of an ascetic. For him these constitute the environmental objects and he shall not entertain the feeling that they are his personal property, lest he should be troubled by the characteristic emotions of joy in possessing them and sorrow in getting them damaged or lost. When the householder or the ascetic is enioined not to identify himself even with his own body it is much more important that he should be entirely uninfluenced by environmental objects --by the dear and near ones and by wealth and property.
अण्णाणमोहिदमदी मज्झमिणं भणदि पुग्गलं दव्वं । बद्धमबद्धं च तहा जीवे बहुभावसंजुत्ते ॥२३॥

Page #160

CHAPTER I
31.
aņņāņamohidamadi majjhamiņam bhanadi puggalam davvam baddhamabaddham ca tahd jive bahubhavasamjutte (23)
अज्ञान मोहितमतिर्ममेदं भणति पुद्गलद्रव्यम् ।
बद्धमबद्धं च तथा जीवे बहुभावसंयुक्ते ॥२३॥ 23. In the case of the soul that is characterised by various emotions (such as desire, etc.), there are physical objects some (of which are) intimately bound to it (like the body) and some not so intimately bound (such as wealth). "These material objects are mine” so declares one (the bahir-ātmā) whose intellect is deluded by wrong knowledge.
सव्वण्हुणाणदिट्ठो जीवो उवओगलक्खणो णिचं । किह सो पोग्गलदव्वीभूदो कि भणसि मज्झमिणं ॥२४॥ savvanhuņāradiţtho jīvo uvaogalakkhano niccam kiha so poggaladavvibhudo kim bhanasi majjhaminam (24)
सर्वज्ञज्ञानदृष्टो नीव उपयोगलक्षणो नित्यम् ।
कथं स पुद्गलद्रव्योभूतो यद्भणसि ममेदम् ॥२४॥ 24. The nature of the. soul as seen by the Omniscient, is permanently associated with its quality called upayoga (which comprises knowledge and perception, par excellence). How can such a spiritual entity become a physical object ? Then how can you say, “this physical object is mine ?
जदि सो पुग्गलदव्वीभूदो जीवत्तमागदं इदरं ।
तो सक्को वुत्तुं जं मज्झमिणं पुग्गलं दव्वं ॥२५॥ jadi so puggaladavvībhūdo jīvattamāgadam idaram to sakko vuttum jam majjhaminam puggalam davvam (25)
यदि स पुद्गलद्रव्यीभूतो जीवत्वमागतमितरत् ।
तच्छक्तो वक्तुं यन्ममेदं पुद्गलं द्रव्यं ॥२५॥ 25. If the soul becomes matter and if the matter becomes the soul then it is possible for you, Oh ! bahir-ātmā, to say “this physical object is mine."
COMMENTARY (23 to 25) These gāthās also deal with the illusion of identifying the Self with the physical objects. The physical. object may be intimately related to the soul as its own body or iridirectly related to the soul as one's own wealth and property.

Page #161

32
SAMAYASĀRA
In any case, identifying one's Self with these material objects is but a mark of the lack of knowledge as to the real nature of things. But if you say that the soul and the physical objects are not so very different in nature as to exclude all possible relations between the two, then you have to remember that your view would be in conflict with the Divine Word of the Sarvajía, or the Omniscient. According to the pravacana, the soul is fundamentally different in nature from pudgala (matter). Its nature is characterised by perfect knowledge and perfect perception, whereas matter is non-living, acetana, a characteristic which is contradictory to that of the soul. With such an incompatability of nature, how can they be reasonably identified with each other ? If your predication, “This is mine" is maintainable, it must be only on this condition, which is impossible, viz., that the soul can be transmuted into matter and matter into the soul. It is clear that the author addresses a deluded person, (bahir-ātmā) who is incapable of discriminating between soul and matter, and points out to him the fundamental differences between the two. It is the clear perception of this difference, vivekajñāna that forms the foundation of Right Faith.
Next the author states the possible defects which may be pointed out against the view that the Self and the body are absolutely distinct from each other.
जदि जीवो ण सरीरं तित्थयरायरियसंथुदी चेव ।
सव्वावि हवदि मिच्छा तेण दु आदा हवदि देहो ॥२६॥ jadi jivo na sarīram titthayarāyariya-sainthudi ceva savvāvi havadi micchã teņa du ādā havadi deho (26)
यदि जीवो न शरीरं तीर्थ कराचार्यसंस्तुतिश्चैव ।
सर्वापि भवति मिथ्या तेन तु आत्मा भवति देहः ॥२६॥ 26. If the soul is not the body then the hymns praising (the bodily excellence, rūpastava, of) the Tirthamkara or the Ācārya will all be false. Therefore the soul must indeed be the body.
COMMENTARY · The Tirthamkara as distinguished from Siddha has a body. Siddha is described as aśarīrī, without a body, arūpī, not perceivable, and so on; whereas the Tirthamkara or Arhat

Page #162

CHAPTER I
33
Paramesti has still a body even after attaining Omniscience or Kevala-Jõāna. It is with the help of this body that He is able to preach the dharma (Truth) to the people, because His main function is dharma-prabhāvanā or proclaiming the Dharna. His worshippers both human and divine praise His body in their adoration. The adoration of an Arhat consists in the enunciation of the marvellous characteristics of His body--such as its beauty and excellence, its freedom from natural impurities and defects, and that it is the cynosure of attraction and grace, that it is the fountain source of peace and harmony, that it is the physical embodiment of the eternal values of Truth, Goodness and Beauty. The term Acārya implies the master of a Samgha who in his turn transmits the divine message to his disciples and through them to the whole world. It is not necessary to emphasise the fact that in his case also adoration very often implies praising the beauty of his body as the embodiment of a great
soul.
The bewildered and the doubting disciple naturally asks his master: "If the soul is of supreme importance and if the body being acetana is without any spiritual grace and hence to be discarded as worthless, how can we justify the various songs of devotion of Arhanta and Ācārya, songs which are but the praise of their physical beauty and grace. If the songs in adoration are valid, would it not be proper to infer that after all, the soul and the body are not so fundamentally different ?”
The author clears the doubt expressed above by explaining the doctrine of naya or points of view.
ववहारणओ भासदि जीवो देहो य हवदि खलु एक्को।
णदु णिच्छयस्स जीवो देहो य कदावि एक्कट्ठो ॥२७॥ vavahāraṇao bhāsadi jīvo deho ya havadi khalu ekko nadu ņicchayassa jīvo deho ya kadāvi ekkattho (27)
व्यवहारनयो भाषते जीवो देहश्च भवति खत्वेकः ।
न तु निश्चयस्य जीवो देहश्च कदाप्येकार्थः ॥२७॥ 27. The vyavahāra point of view indeed declares that body and soul are one, but according to the niscaya point of view, the soul and body are never identical.

Page #163

34
SAMAYASĀRA
COMMENTARY Thus the devotional songs in praise of the bodily beauty of the Lord are justified from the vyavahāra point of view, because the beauty of the body is but the expression of the inner beauty of the soul with which it is found in union. Though considered as one from the vyavahara point, because of their association, still soul and body do not lose their intrinsic characteristics. They are really distinct in nature. The soul has its intrinsic characteristic of upayo ga (darśana and jñāna) which characteristic is not present in matter. This fact clearly brings out their intrinsic difference. The commentators explain this combination of different things to constitute a unitary whole by a practical illustration. Gold and silver, both being precious metals, may be used in combination for certain purposes such as ornament-making, etc. Though they go together to constitute the whole so manufactured, still they do not lose their respective qualities. Gold is gold and silver is silver. One is yellow and the other is white. Hence the two can never become one in nature really. In the same way, soul and body, though found together in an embodied individual, the unity must be taken to be true from the practical point of view and not from the absolute point of view.
इणमण्णं जीवादो देहं पोगलमयं थुणित्तु मुणी ।
मण्णदि हु संथुदो वंदिदो मए केवली भयवं ॥२८॥ iņamaņņas jīvādo deham poggalamayam Thuniltu munī maņņadi hu samthudo vamdido mae kevali bhayavai (28)
इदमन्यत् जीवादेहं पुद्गलमयं . स्तुत्वा मुनिः ।
मन्यते खलु संस्तुतो वन्दितो मया केवली भगवान् ॥२८॥ 28. By adoring the body which is different from the soul and which is constituted of matter, the saint believes, “The Omniscient Lord is thus adored and worshipped by me.”
COMMENTARY His assumption is justified from the vyavahāra point of view because the praise of the body is but the praise of the personality. But in reality, the bodily characteristics, however beautiful and adorable, connot be the genuine characteristics of the Paramātmā.

Page #164

35
CHAPTER İ तं णिच्छये ण जुज्जदि ण सरीरगुणा हि होंति केवलिणो।
केवलिगुणो थुणदि जो सो तच्चं केलि थुणदि ॥२६॥ tam nicchaye na jujjadi na sarīragunā hi homti kevaliņo kevaliguro thunadi jo so taccam kevalin thunadi (29)
तन्निश्चये न युज्जते न शरीरगुणा हि भवन्ति केवलिनः।
केवलिगुणान् स्तौति यः स तत्त्वं केवलिन स्तौति ॥२९॥ 29. That (body adoration is adoration of the Paramātmā) is not right from the niscaya point of view for the properties of the body are not the properties of the Omniscient Lord. One who worships the hevalin, the Omniscient Lord, must do so by adoring His genuine characteristics.
णयरम्मि वण्णिदे जह ण वि रण्णो वण्णणा कदा होदि ।
देहगुणो थुन्वंते ण केवलिगुणा थुदा होति ॥३०॥ ņayarammi vanşide jaha na vi raņņo var ņaņā kadă hodi dehaguna thuvvante na kevaliguna thuda homti (30)
नगरे वर्णिते यथा नापि राज्ञो वर्णना कृता भवति ।
देहगुणे स्तूयमाने न केवलिगुणाः स्तुता भवन्ति ॥३०॥ 30. As the description of a city does not constitute the description of its ruler, in the same way, the adoration of His body is not the adoration of the attributes of the Omniscient Lord.
COMMENTARY The same point that adoring the body can by no means amount to the adoration of the Paramātmā is emphasised by the example of a king and his capital.
Next the author describes the nature of adoration from the real point of view.
जो इंदिए जिणित्ता णाणसहावाधि मुणदि आदं।
तं खलु जिदिदियं ते भणंति जे णिच्छिदा साहू ॥३१॥ jo imdiye jinitțā ņāṇasahāvādhian munadi ādam tam khalu jidindiyam te bhanamtije nicchida sahu (31)
यः इन्द्रियाणि नित्त्वा ज्ञानस्वभावाधिकं मनुते आत्मानम् ।
तं खलु जितेन्द्रियं ते भणन्ति ये निश्चिताः साधवः ॥३१॥ 31. He who, subjugating the senses, realises that the Self is of the nature of real knowledge is verily called a conqueror of the senses by the saints who know reality.

Page #165

SAMAYASĀRA
COMMENTARY This is given as an illustration of the true worship of the Jina through praising His qualities. Control of the senses implies three things. Control of the sense-organs or dravyaindriyas; control of sense-perception which is bhāva-indriya and, finally, the control of the perceived environmental objects or indriya-vişaya. The sense-organs and sense-perception, though serving as instruments of knowledge to the soul, do only present the world of environmental objects and thus divert the attention of the soul to a world other than itself. Conquest of these senses therefore implies the acquisition of freedom from the influence of environmental objects. When such an intellectual attitude is secured through yoga or tapas, the attention thus liberated is directed inwards leading to the contemplation of the Pure Self. Contemplation of the Pure Self leads to becoming one with it. One who reaches this goal of self-realisation is known as Jina. This is the summum bonum of life to be achieved according to the Jaina faith.
जो मोहं तु जिणित्ता णाणसहावाधियं मुणदि आदं ।
तं जिदमोहं साहुं परमट्ठवियाणया विति ॥३२॥ jo moham tu jiņittā ņāṇasahāvādhiyan munadi ādam tam jidamohañ sāhun paramațțhaviyāṇayā vimti
यो मोहं तु जित्त्वा ज्ञानस्वभावाधिकं मनुते आत्मानम् ।
तं जितमोहं साधु परमार्थविज्ञायका ब्रुवन्ति ॥३२॥ 32. The saints who know the, nature of absolute reality, call him Jita-moha or conqueror of delusion who, by subjugating the delusion, realises that the self is intrinsically of the nature of knowledge.
COMMENTARY This is given as an illustration of the second type of adoration through the praise of quality. Conquest of delusion is the quality praised in this gātha. The term moha implies the various gross emotions such as anger, pride, deceitfulness, avarice, etc. These emotions naturally create undesirable excitement in the consciousness. These vari ous emotional disturbances and the consciousness which is so disturbed are all unwarrantedly identified with the rcal Sell. This identification
(32)

Page #166

CHAPTER I
of the higher Self with the empirical consciousness characterised by baser emotions is certainly an evil to be got rid of. One who is able to realise this higher Self as distinct from the empirical Self and to concentrate upon one's higher Self by the conquest of the baser emotions constituting what is called moha or delusion, is called Jita-moha, the Conqueror of Delusion. जिदमोहस्स दुजइया खीणो मोहो हविज्ज साहुस्स ।
तया दुखीणमोहो भण्णदि सो णिच्छयविदुहि ॥ ३३॥ jidamohassa du jaiyā khiņo moho havijja sāhussa taiya du khiņamoho bhannadi so nicchayavidūhim (33) जितमोहस्य तु यदा क्षीणो मोहो भवेत्साधोः ।
तदा खलु क्षीणमोहो भण्यते स निश्चयविद्भिः ॥३३॥
33.
The Ṛsi who, after conquering moha or delusion, further completely eradicates moha (the root cause of base remotions), is called by the Seers of Reality, the Destroyer of Delusion.
37
COMMENTARY
This is the third example of worshipping the Lord by praising His qualities. Conquest of moha implies merely the suppression of the baser emotions and pushing aside the empirical consciousness from the focus of attention in order to obtain the undisturbed contemplation of the higher self. But in the case of kşinamoha, the destruction of delusion, the baser emotions, and the association of the empirical Self, are completely eliminated leaving the higher Self as the unchallenged and undisturbed sovereign of the spiritual realm.
गाणं सव्वे भावे पच्चक्खादि य परेत्ति णादूण | तम्हा पच्चक्खाणं गाणं णियमा मुणेदव्वं ॥३४॥ ṇāņam savve bhave paccakkhādi ya paretti ṇādūņa tamhā paccakkhāṇam ṇāṇam ṇīyama mune davvam (34) ज्ञानं सर्वान् भावान् यस्मात् प्रत्याख्याति च परानिति ज्ञात्वा । तस्मात् प्रत्याख्यानं ज्ञानं नियमात् मन्तव्यम् ||३४||
34. The discriminative knowledge of the Self leads to discarding all alien dispositions, knowing them to be entirely foreign to the nature of the Self; therefore in reality, this discri

Page #167

38
SAMAYASARA
minative knowledge of the Self shall be known as pratyākhyāna or repulsion.
COMMENTARY The alien characteristics of the empirical Self, since they are foreign to the nature of the Self, get rejected by one who knows the true nature of the Self. This knowledge of the true nature of the Self in its isolation from all alien characteristics forms the indispensable condition of self-purification by the process of discarding all the foreign elements present in the Self. This process known as pratyökhyana is the great renu nciation
ejection of foreign encumbrances. Since the discriminative knowledge of the Self is the real and indispensible condition for pratyākhyāna which is the process of self-purification, such knowledge of Self is called the pratyākhyāna, renunciation itself, according to the principle of justifiable identification of cause and effect.
जह णाम कोवि पुरिसो परदव्वमिणं ति जाणिदुं चयदि ।
तह सव्वे परभावे पाऊण विमुंचदे णाणी ॥३५।। jaha ņāma kovi puriso paradavvamiņam ti jāņidum cayadi taha savve parabhāve ņāūna vimumcade ņāņi (35)
यथा नाम कोऽपि पुरुषः परद्रव्यमिदमिति ज्ञात्वा त्यजति ।
तथा सर्वान् परभावान् ज्ञात्वा विमुञ्चति ज्ञानी ॥३५॥ 35. As a person rejects a thing brought to him as his own, when he realises through certain marks that it belongs to somebody else, so also, does the sage discard all alien dispositions, as they are foreign to him.
COMMENTARY The author explains this fact with a practical illustration which is well brought out by the commentators. For example, a person may accept as his own a cloth brought by his washerman which might really belong to somebody else. Due to the ignorance of the real fact, he may put on the cloth. But when the real owner claims it as his own pointing to his proper washerman's mark, the mistake may be recognised and the cloth may be given up as not his own. Similarly a person due to ignorance inay call as his own the various emotional features

Page #168

CHAPTER 1
of the empirical Self. But when his attention is drawn to the error of such false identification by his spiritual master, he certainly realises his mistake and is bound to discard the alien features as not his own.
णत्थि मम को विमोहो बुज्झदि उवओग एव अहमेक्को । तं मोहणिम्ममत्तं समयस्स वियाणयाविति ॥ ३६॥
natthi mama ko vi moho bujjhadi uvaoga eva ahamekko tam mohanimmamattam samayassa viyāṇayā vimti. (36) नास्ति मम कोपि मोहो बुध्यते उपयोग एवाहमेकः ।
तं मोहनिर्ममत्वं समयस्य विज्ञायकाः ब्रुवन्ति ॥ ३६॥
36. I am unique inasmuch as I am of the nature of upayoga; hence no delusion whatsoever is related to me. He who thinks like this the knowers of the true Self call "one free from delusion."
COMMENTARY
Nirmamatva: without any personal interest, emphasises the former characteristic of nir-mohatva, freedom from delusion. This gatha reiterates the necessity for discarding all alien feautres of the empirical consciousness. "These are not mine. I am but the light that illuminates the inner Self as well as the outer cosmos, being all-illuminating pure consciousness. I certainly have no personal interest in things resulting from self-delusion." One who thinks like that is said to be free from delusion.
णत्थि मम धम्म आदी बुज्झदि उवओग एव अहमेक्को । तं धम्मणिम्ममत्तं समयस्स वियाणया विति ॥ ३७॥
natthi mama dhamma adi bujjhadi uvaoga eva ahamekko tam dhammanimmamatlam samayassa viyanaya vimti (37) नास्ति मम धर्मादिर्बुध्यते उपयोग एवाहमेकः ।
तं धर्मनिर्ममत्वं समयस्य विज्ञायकाः ब्रुवन्ति ॥ ३७॥
39
37. I am unique inasmuch as I am of the nature of upayoga. Hence dharma etc., are not related to me. Hence, he who thinks like this, the knowers of the true Self call, "one unrelated to dharma, etc."
erroneous
COMMENTARY
Previously the author has emphasised the fact that it is to identify the true Self with the empirical Self

Page #169

40
SAMAYASARA
characterised by various emotions. Here he turns his attention to the outer cosmos consisting of dharma, adharma, pudgala, akasa, kāla, and other jivas-the principle of motion, the principle of rest, matter, space, time, and other souls-respectively. Hence he wants to emphasise the fact that it is equally erroneous to identify oneself with these objects of the external world. The constituent objects of the cosmos have their own intrinsic inalienable nature and can by no means be derived from the nature of the Self. No doubt the upayoga nature of the Self in its twin aspect of knowledge and perception can completely comprehend the cosmos so that the various objects of the external world, living and non-living, may get immersed in the ocean of light that proceeds from the Perfect Knowledge of the Self. But this fact of being comprehended does not in any way interfere with the intrinsic individual reality of the objects themselves which are related to knowledge. As was already explained in a previous gatha, the physical body and the Self have each an immutable and independent nature of their own, non-trasmutable one into the other. This assertion relating to matter and soul is applied to the whole of the cosmos consisting of the various objective reals such as dharma, adharma, etc. Here we have to note one important point that one's Self is not only distinct from the various non-living objects of the environment but also from the various personalities which are present in the outside world in the human society and the various living organisms of the biological kingdom. To talk of a mass consciousness or world-consciousness, offering only a subsidiary existence to the personalities which are but chips of the particular adjectives of the Whole would be incompatible with Jaina metaphysics.

अहमेक्को खलु सुद्धो दंसणणाणमइओ सदारुवी ।
वि अस्थि मज्झ किंचिवि अण्णं परमाणुमित्तं पि ॥ ३८ ॥
ahamekko khalu suddho damsanaṇāṇamaio sadārūvī navi atthi majjha kimcivi annam paramāņumiitam pi (38) अहमेकः खलु शुद्धो दर्शनज्ञानमयः सदारुपी |
नाप्यस्ति मम किंचिदप्यन्यत् परमाणुमात्रमपि ॥ ३८ ॥

Page #170

CHAPER I
41
38. Absolutely pure, having the nature of perception and knowledge, always non-corporeal, I am indeed unique. Hence not even an atom of alien things whatsoever (whether living or non-living) is related to me as mine.
COMMENTARY Aham: the Self implies this: The soul from beginningless eternity associated with ignorance and delusion forgets its true nature, gets identified with alien features and characteristics till he is roused from slumber by a benevolent spiritual master who repeatedly strives to wake him up to his true nature. Just as a person who has lost his jewel feels a joy and surprise when it is brought and placed in his hands, so also the jīva wakes up as a result of the master's effort to realise that his Self is the Paramešvara, that his nature is pure and unsullied by alien features, shedding the pure light of pure consciousness all around.
Ekah: the undivided unity implies that in spite of the several psychic states, emotional, cognitive and conative, experienced by the Self, it is an indivisible unity.
Suddhaḥ: pure. The Self, in spite of its gati, modification, such as human and divine and in spite of the nine types of psycho-physical modifications called nava-padārthas, never loses its intrinsic pure nature and hence he is suddha.
Arūpī: non-corporeal. Since the pure soul has no other nature except upayoga, the pure knowledge and perception, and since it transcends the sense-perception of vision, taste, touch, etc., it is always non-corporeal. The Self having this nature and illuminating all things around through its light of knowledge remains absolutely uninfluenced by alien psychic states and physical objects so that not even an iota of the alien things it can call its own.
Thus ends the jiva-padārtha or category of Soul. The author takes up next the ajīva-padārtha for discussion.
The Samskrit commentators use the term ranga. Here ends the first Scene, pūrva-rangah samāptah, thereby suggesting that the whole work is a Cosmic Drama in which the chief hero is the Self who appears on the stage in different characters and in association with different actors---certainly a beautiful metaphor in depicting the career of the Ātmā.

Page #171

42
SAMAYASĀRA
CHAPTER II AJIVA OR NON-SOUL.
Thus after describing the category of jīva, the author takes up now the category of ajīva or non-soul for discussion, First he states the pūrvapakṣa or the prima facie argument of those (bahirātmavādins) who believe that there is no soul besides and beyond the various psychic activities characteristic of the empirical Self.
आप्पाणमयाणंता मूढा दु परप्पवादिणो केई ।
जीवं अज्झवसाणं कम्मं च तहा परूविति ॥ ३९ ॥ appanamayānaitā mūdhā du parappavādino kei. jīvain ajjhavasäņam kammam ca tahā parūvimti (39)
आत्मानमजानन्तो मूढास्तु परमात्मवादिनः केचित् ।
जीवमध्यवसानं कर्म च तथा प्ररूपयन्ति ॥ ३९ ॥ 39. Some of those ignorant people who maintain that the Self is but the non-Self, not knowing the true nature of the Self, assert that the Self is identical with such psychic states as desire, etc. In the same way some others state that the Self is indentical with Karmic matter.
अवरे अज्झवसाणेसु तिव्वमंदाणुभावयं जीवं ।
मण्णंति तहा अवरे णोकम्मं चावि जीवो त्ति ॥ ४० ॥ avare ajjhavasān" su timamamdūņubhavayain jīvam mannamti tahā avare nokammai cūvi jīvotti (40)
अपरेऽध्यवसानेषु तीव्रमन्दानुभागकं जीवं ।।
मन्यन्ते तथापरे नोकर्म चापि जीव इति ॥४०॥ 40. Others believe the psychic potency which determines the intensity or mildness of conscious states to be the soul. Still others identify the soul with non-karma matter which forms the constituent elements of the various kinds of organic bodies.
कम्मस्सुदयं जीवं अवरे कम्माणुभायमिच्छति । तिव्वत्तणमंदत्तणगुणेहि जो सो हवदि जीवो ॥४१।। kammasundayat jivan avare kammānubhāyamicchanti tivratlaramandal lanagunchin_jo so harvadi jivo (41)

Page #172

CHAPTER II
कर्मण उदयं जीवमपरे कर्मानुभागमिच्छन्ति ।
तीव्रत्वमन्दत्वगुणाभ्यां यः स भवति जीवः ॥ ४१ ॥
41. Some consider the manifestation of karma (resulting in pleasure or pain) to be the Self; some others believe that what determines the intensity or mildness of the edonic state (which is the fruit of karma) is the Self.
जीवो कम्मं उहह्यं दोण्णिवि खलु केवि जीवमिच्छति । अवरे संजोगेण दु कम्माणं जीवमिच्छति ॥४२॥
jivo kammam uhayam donnivi khalu kevi jivamicchamti avare samjogena du kammānam jivamicchamti (42) जीवकर्मोभयं द्वे अपि खलु केऽपिनीवमिच्छन्ति ।
43
अपरे संयोगेन तु कर्मणां जीवमिच्छन्ति ॥ ४२ ॥
42. Some others state the Self to be jiva and karma taken variously or together; still others consider the self to be the product of the combination of the various karmas.
एवंविहा बहुविहा परमप्पाणं वदंति दुम्मेहा |
ते ण दु परप्पवादी णिच्छयवादीहि णिद्दिट्ठा ॥ ४३ ॥ evamvihā bahuvihā paramappānam vadamti dummeha na du parappavādr nicchayavādhim niddittha ( 43 ) एवंविधा बहुविधाः परमात्मानं वदन्ति दुर्मेधसः ।
te
ते न तु परात्मवादिनः निश्चयवादिभिः निर्दिष्टाः ॥ ४३ ॥
43. Thus in many ways perverse-minded people identify the Self with the non-Self; therefore, by believers in reality, they are declared to be not parätmavadins (those who do not believe in the identity of jiva and paramātmā).
COMMENTARY

Discussing the nature of ajiva-padartha or the non-living substance the author introduces first that type of ajiva-padartha or non-living substance which is intimately associated with jiva or soul. This type of non-living substance which is associated with life is of two kinds, Karmic matter and matter called nonKarma which constitutes the various types of body associated with jiva other than the Karmic body. Karmic matter constitutes the Karmic body and is inseparable from the soul throughout its samsaric pilgrimage from one birth to another, till the soul

S

Page #173

44
SAMAYASARA
liberates itself in the pure state by breaking all shackles of Karma. Besides this Karmic body which is extremely minute and imperceptible, there are other types of organic bodies in association with the jiva or Soul. Birth, growth, decay, and death characteristic of organic beings, man and animals, are all characteristics of grosser bodies which form the physical associates of the Self. The Self in association with these material vehicles, to which it is bound has to undergo corresponding changes in its conscious nature. These changes may manifest in three different forms of experience: cognitive, pertaining to perception and knowledge; conative; pertaining to voluntary activity; and affective, pertaining to the various affective states of emotions, pleasant and unpleasant. All these conscious characteristics of the empirical Self are in reality unconnected with the real nature of the Self. These characteristics of the empirical Self in the embodied form, are the result of the Self with the various material tabernacles in which it resides. Hence there is the possibility of mistaking these characteristics to be the real nature of the Self. These gathās refer to the various errors of identifying the Self with the various types of material bodies and with the consequential changes in his consciousness due to his association with such bodies.
एदे सव्वे भावा पोग्गलदव्वपरिणामणिप्पण्णा ।
afaff four fag à citat fa safa 118811 ede savve bhāvā poggaladavvapariņāmanippanņā kevalijinehim bhaniya kiha te jivo tti uccanti (44) gà að 411: genozoqqfeuiafacqzar: 1
केवलिनिनैर्भणिताः कथं ते जीवा इत्युच्यन्ते ॥४४॥
44, It is said by Jina, the All-knowing, that the various characteristics referred to above are all the result of the manifestation of Karmic matter. How can they be then attributed to the Pure Self?
COMMENTARY
This gatha refutes the various erroneous positions stated in the previous gāthās as belived by the various Ekāntavādins. No doubt it is true that the embodied associated with attributes such as desire, and aversion;
Self is
so also gold, as found

Page #174

CHAPTER II
in nature in the form of mineral ore, is found in association with various mineral impurities. Similarly fire is usually found in association with smoke. Nevertheless fire in itself is not smoke, nor gold is the same as the impure mineral ore. In the same way the Self cannot be identified with various psychic manifestations to which it is subject because of its association with impurities. In spite of the forms in which they are found in nature, gold in its pure condition is distinct from the impure ore, and the pure self is distinct and different from the embodied līva. No doubt the Self is found always in association with its body throughout the cycle of births and deaths, but on that score it cannot be identified with the body since the Self as distinct and different from the body is realised in its pure form. No doubt the Karmic body may be an inevitable condition of the transmigration of the Self in this sämsäric cycle; nevertheless this non-cetana material condition because of its invarible association with the Self cannot be identified with it, as they are different in nature and hence distinct from each other. In short, what is found in association with a thing need not necessarily be identical with its true nature. The realisation of the true Self will obviously expose the alien nature of the various attributes, physical and psychical, with which it is associated in its impure state, an association which leads the uninstructed to erroneous conclusions.
अट्टविहं पि य कम्मं सव्वं पुग्गलमयं जिणा विति ।
जस्स फलं तं वुच्चइ दुक्खं ति विपच्चमाणस्स ॥४५॥ atthaviham pi ya kammaṁ savvaṁ puggalamayam jiņā vimti jassa phalar tam vuccai dukkham ti vipaccamāṇassa. (45)
अष्टविधमपि च कर्म सर्व पुद्गलमयं जिना अवन्ति ।
यस्य फलं तदुच्यते दुःखमिति विपच्यमानस्य ॥४५॥ 45. The Jinas declare that all the eight kinds of Karmas are material in nature; and also suffering which is the effect of Karmic fruition (is said) to be material.
COMMENTARY According to Jaina metaphysics the various Karmas are intrinsically material though of subtle form. Since they are material

Page #175

46
SAMAYASARA
in nature they are quite distinct from jiva whose characteristic is cetana. The Karmic matter which is acetana in nature while operating, interferes with the pure consciousness of the jiva. On account of this interference the various psychic states present in the empirical Self are really the effect of the operative cause of the Karmic matter. These psychic states constitute the suffering associated with samsārī jiva. These unpleasant psychic states, as they are the effects of Karmic matter, are considered to be material, since the cause and the effect are ultimately identical. If these psychic states, since they are produced by Karmic matter, are also to be considered material in nature, what is the justification for referring these states of consciouiness as the attributetes of the jiva ? The answer is given in the next gāthā. ववहारस्स दरिसणमुवदेसो वण्णिदो जिणवरेहि । जीवा एदे सव्वे अज्झवसाणादओ भावा ॥ ४६॥ vavahārassa darīsaṇamuvadeso vannido jinavarehim jiva ede savve ajjhavasāṇādao bhāvā (46)
व्यवहारस्य दर्शनमुपदेशो वर्णितो जिनवरैः ।
sîar çà a¤seaaalagd 4171: ||18&||
47. It is only from the vyavahara point of view that these various psychic states are declared by the Jinas to be of the nature of the Self.
COMMENTARY
Though these mental states have nothing to do with the real Self, the attention of the ordinary man must be drawn to the fact that from the practical point of view, they are characteristic of the empirical ego. The practical point of view is an important method of instructing the unenlightened ordinary man. Otherwise there will be an extremely disastrous effect on his conduct. Waiving the practical point of view and presenting only the absolute and real nature of the Self, may result in the perverse conduct of the ordinary man. Directing his attention to the ultimate nature of the jiva, he may forget altogether the difference between the vegetable kingdom and the animal kingdom, the difference between the sthavara jiva and trasa jiva. Man has

Page #176

CHAPTER II
47 to live on cereals and fruits, products of the vegetable kingdom. Since the product of the vegetable kingdom is indispensable for his life, the ordinary man may unwillingly adopt a similar attitude to the animal kingdom and hence he may not care to appreciate the importance of Ahimsā Dharma. If you can eat with impurity the products of the vegetable kingdom, you may also eat meat, the product of the animal kingdom. This undesirable result in the conduct of the ordinary man is the result of not emphasising the vyavahāra point of view and the intrinsic difference between the vegetable and the animal kingdoms.
ough the ultimate nature of jīva in both is the same. Similarly if the ultimate and real nature of the Self is emphasised without describing the nature of the empirical ego, the Self as a saṁsāri jīva, it will create an undesirable attitude in the ordinary man's life. If the ultimate nature of the Self is pure and unsullied, if it is identical with the liberated Self or Mukta jīva, then the ordinary man may argue, why should I unnecessarily worry myself about mokșa-mārga, or the path to Salvation, when my soul is already pure and liberated in nature. Both ethics and religion would appear to him superfluous and unnecessary. Presenting an ultimate ideal and prescribing a course of conduct for realising the same would all be vain and useless, because the ideal is already there. This pervers moral attitude is also to be avoided and this could be achieved only by emphasising the vyavahāra point. The ordinary man must be made to realise that though he has the element of divinity in him, still it is found in association with impurity while he is in the concrete world of experience. It is not enough to realise that his ultimate nature is pure. He must also realise that this pure nature is clouded and contaminated by Karmas. This latter knowledge is possible only when his attention is directed to the vyavahāra point of view. Only when he realises that he has fallen from a high stage, he will make a genuine 'effort to regain his lost glory and eminence. Hence is the need for and the importance of the vyavahāra point of view. Therefore it would be unwise to come to the hasty conclusion that vyavahāra naya and niscaya naya, the practical point of view and the real point of view, are mutually contradictory and hence incompatible with each other.

Page #177

48
SAMAYASARA
या हुणिग्गदो त्तिय एसो बलसमुदयस्स आदेसो । ववहारेण दु उच्चदि तत्थेक्को णिग्गदो राया ॥ ४७॥ rāyā hu niggado tti ya eso balasamudayassa adeso vavahāreņa du uccadi tatthekko niggado rāyā (47) राजा खलु निर्गत इत्येष बलसमुदयस्यादेशः ।
व्यवहारेण तूच्यते तत्रैको निर्गतः राजा ॥४७॥
47. At the sight of the military procession, one may exclaim: "The king has started." This statement is made from the vyavahāra point of view, because only one person is the king in the whole procession.
एमेव य ववहारो अज्झवसाणादिअण्णभावाणं । जीवति को सुत्ते तत्थेक्को णिच्छिदो जीवो ॥ ४८ ॥ emeva ya vavahāro ajjhavasāṇādi aṇṇabhāvāṇam jivotti kado sutte tatthekko nicchido jivo (48) एवमेव च व्यवहारोऽध्यवसानाद्यन्यभावानाम् ।
tata इति कृतः सूत्रे तत्रैको निश्चितो जीवः ॥ ४८॥
48.
In the same way, from the vyavahara point of view, the various psychic states such as desire, aversion, etc., may be said to be the ego. But the real Self is none of these states but remains as the unitary substratum of which these are empirical modifications.

COMMENTARY
Ordinary people, when they see the military procession marching along, speak of the king going out. The military procession may be really very long, but really the whole of it is not the king however important; he is only one person in the whole procession. Similarly the series of psychic states and modifications may be spoken of as the Self. The whole series is not the Self. Really the Self is the underlying unitary existence whose manifestation appears in the various conscious states from which the Self is distinct and independent. The author employs a popular example to illustrate the relation between the everchanging series of conscious states and the permanent unitary real self.

Page #178

CHAPTER IL
49
अरसमरूवमगंधं अव्वत्तं चेदणागुणमसइं।
जाण अलिंगग्गहणं जीवमणिद्दिट्टसंठाणं ॥४६॥ arasamarūvamagandham avvattam cedaņāgunamasaddam jāņa alimgaggahaņam jīvamanidditthasamthāņaṁ (49)
अरसमरूपमगन्धमव्यक्तं चेतनागुणमशब्दम् ।
जानीहि अलिङ्गग्रहणं जीवमनिर्दिष्टसंस्थानम् ॥४९॥ 49. Know ye that the pure Self is without taste, colour, without smell, imperceptible to touch, without sound, not an object of anumāna or inferential knowledge, without any definite bodily shape and is characterised by cetană (consciousness).
COMMENTARY Taste is a distinct quality of matter or pudgala. This attribute is not found anywhere else. Since the nature of the Pure Self or śuddha jīva is entirely distinct from that of matter, it is described tasteless, in order to distinguish Self from matter. Similarly colour is an intrinsic attribute of matter. It is not found as an attribute of anything else. So the Pure Self which is distinct from acetana matter, is described as colourless. Again smell is an attribute of physical objects and it cannot be associated with anything else. The Self being distinct from matter is therefore said to be smell-less. Similarly being perceptible to touch is a characteristic of material objects and cannot be attributed to anything else. Since the nature of the Self is transcending sense-perception it cannot be an object of contact sensation. Hence it is described as beyond touch. In the same way, sound, since it is the effect of concussion between material particles, is associated with inatter alone and with nothing else. That which sounds must be a material object as a non-material entity cannot produce sound. Hence the Self also is soundless because it is non-material in nature. Thus the Self is entirely beyond the scope of sense-perception. Can it be approached by in ference or anumāna? No, because anumāna or inference entirely depends upon what must necessarily be obtained by sense-perception. Perception of smoke may lead to the inference that there is fire. But smoke must be obtained by senseperception and then only it is possible to infer that there is fire. An entity which is quite beyond the scope of sense-perception

Page #179

50
SAMAYASĀRA
cannot be approached by inferential knowledge either. Hence śuddha-jiva is said to be alimga-grahaņa, not approached by inference. In the organic world jīva is always found in association with its characteristic body. These characteristic bodies are classified according to their various shapes which are called samsthānas. Since these shapes of the organic body are entirely determined by the physical structure, they are purely bodily qualities and cannot be transferred to the Self associated with body. Hence the Self is without definite shape or structure. In short the pure Self whose intrinsic nature is cetanā is entirely different from the whole external world and hence the characteristics of the external world cannot be predicated of the Self. It is entirely devoid of the physical qualities of colour, taste, etc., it is also devoid of the characteristics of the other external entities such as space, time, etc. Resting on its own intrinsic nature, infinite knowledge, infinite vision, and infinite bliss, the pure Self is not to be associated with the various varnāsrama distinctions such as Brāhmaṇa, Ksatriya, etc., since these distinctions rest on the birth of the body. It is not only distinct from the characteristics of the external world, it also remains distinct from the various inner psychic qualities which are produced by its association with acetana material environment. Neither the characteristics of the material world nor the indirect effect of the same can rightly be associated with the Pure Self.
जीवस्स णत्थि वण्णो णवि गंधो णवि रसो णवि य फासो ।
णवि रूवं ण सरीरं णवि संठाणं ण संहणणं ॥५०॥ jīvassa matthi vanno ņavi gand ho navi raso ņavi ya phāso ņavi rūvam na sariram ņavi samthäņam na samhananam (50)
जीवस्य नास्ति वर्णो नापि गन्धो नापि रसो नापि च स्पर्शः ।
नापि रूपं न शरीरं नापि संस्थानं न संहननम् ॥५०॥ 50. In the (pure) soul there is no colour, no smell, no taste, no touch, no visible form, no body, no bodily shape and no skeletal structure.
जीवस्स णत्थि रागो णवि दोसो णेव विज्जदे मोहो । णो पच्चया ण कम्म णोकम्मं चावि से त्थि ॥५१॥

Page #180

CHAPTER 11
51
jīvassa ŋat thi rāgo navi doso neva vijjade moho ņo paccayā ņa kantman nokammam cāvi se ṇatthi (51)
जीवस्य नास्ति रागो नापि द्वेषो नैव विद्यते मोहः ।
नो प्रत्ययः न कर्म नोकर्म चापि तस्य नास्ति ॥५१॥ 51. In the (pure) soul there is neither desire nor aversion. No delusion is found therein. There is no Karmic condition, nor Karmic matter, nor non-Karmic matter in it.
जीवस्य णत्थि वग्गो ण वग्गणा णेव फड्ढया केई । णो अज्झप्पट्ठाणा णेव य अणुभायठाणा वा ॥५२।। jīvassa natthi vaggo na vaggaņā ņeva phaddhayā kei mo ajjhappatthāņā ņeva ya anubhāyathāņā vā (52) जीवस्य नास्ति वर्गों न वर्गणा नैव स्पर्द्धकानि कानिचित् ।
नो अध्यवसानानि नैव चानुभागस्थानानि वा ॥५२॥
52. In the (pure) soul there is no varga (atomic potency), no vargaņā (molecules or group of atoms), no spar dhaka (aggregates of molecules). There is no ego-consciousness of different types and no (karmic) manifestations (resulting in pleasure-pain experience).
जीवस्स णस्थि केई जोग्गट्ठाणा ण बंधठाणा वा ।
णेव य उदयट्ठाणा णो मग्गगट्टाणया केई ॥५३॥ jīvassa natthi keī jogatthāṇā na bardhathāṇā vā neva ya udayalthānd no magganatthānaya kei (53)
जीवस्य न सन्ति कानिचिद्योगस्थानानि न बन्धस्थानानि वा ।
नैव चोदयस्थानानि न मार्गणास्थानानि कानिचित् ॥५३॥ 53. In the (pure) soul there is no activity of yoga (through manas, vacana, kāya), no Karmic bondage, no effective manifestation of Karma, and no variations according to method of inquiry into the nature of the soul (based upon the principle of classification).
णो ठिदिबंधट्ठाणा जीवस्स ण संकिलेसट्टाणा वा ।
णेत्र विसोहिट्ठाणा णो संजमलद्धिठाणा वा ॥५४॥ no țhidi bamdhatthāņā jīvassa ņa samkilesathāņā vä neva visohitthāņā no sanjamaladdhithāņā vā (54)

Page #181

52
SAMAYASARA
नो स्थितिबन्धस्थानानि जीवस्य न संक्लेशस्थानानि वा । नैव विशुद्धिस्थानानि नो संयमलब्धिस्थानानि वा ॥५४॥
54. In the (pure) soul there is no stage of the duration of bondage, or of emotional excitement or of self-purification or of the acquisition of self-control.
व य जीवद्वाणा ण गुणट्ठाणा य अत्थि जीवस्स । जेण दु एदे सव्वे पोग्गलदव्वस्स परिणामा ॥ ५५ ॥ neva ya jivaṭṭhāņā ņa guṇaṭṭhāṇā ya atthi jīvassa jena du ede savve poggaladavvassa pariņāmā (55)
नैव च जीवस्थानानि न गुणस्थानानि वा सन्ति जीवस्य । da g và að yquzz6ata qfzonar: 1|44||
55. The classification of the organic beings (according to the principle of biological development) and the classification of man (according to the principle of ethico-spiritual development) are not applicable to the pure soul, since all the abovementioned differences are the result of the manifestation of the material conditions.
COMMENTARY
Varna or colour, such as black, green, yellow, red and white, are qualities of physical objects and physical objects alone, and hence they cannot be predicated of jiva which is entirely non-physical and spiritual in nature.
Gandha or smell is of two kinds. Pleasant odour and
unpleasant odour. These are also characteristics of physical objects and hence cannot be predicated of the soul.
Rasa or Taste, is as follows:-Sweet, bitter, acid, pungent, and astringent. These tastes are also associated with material things and hence cannot be transferred to the soul because of the intrinsic difference between the two.
Sparsa or contact sensation consists of smooth or rough, cold, hot, heavy or light, and hard or soft sensations. These different contact sensations are all again associated with physical objects. Hence these physical qualities cannot be predicated of jiva or soul.
Sarira or body. The body associated with jiva is of five different, kinds: audārika sarīra body given birth by the mother;

Page #182

CHAPTER II
53
vaikrīyaka śarīra, various bodily forms, magical and hallucinatory in nature assumed by a yogi because of his yogic powers āhāraka sarira is the body drawn out of the physical body in the form of plasma by the magic powers of the yogi with the object of carrying out something which is beyond the reach of the physical body. Taijasa sarira refers to the brilliant form of halo which shines forth from the physical body under certain spiritual conditions. Lastly, kārmaņa sarīra is the body constituted by Karmic matter, which is extremely subtle and which is inseparable from the soul throughout its saṁsāric career. Since all these different bodies are constituted by matter either gross or subtle, these cannot be identified with jīva or soul.
Samsthöna refers to the different shapes of the organic bodies. These are samacatura sansthāna, body that is symmetrically developed; nyagrodha parimandala saisthana, body that is top-heavy like the banyan-tree; swāti samsthānu, body that is long and thin like a sword, kubja samsthana, hunch-backed body, vāmana saisthāna, dwarfish body, and hunda sarnsthāna, an ugly mass of flesh. All these shapes of organic bodies are nothing but the different manifestations of matter in the organic world. Hence these physical forms which are of material origin cannot be attributed to the soul.
Samhanana, the assemblage of bones of the skeletal structure. This refers to six types of bony joints which pertain to vertibrate animals. It is obvious that these varieties of bone-joints cannot be applicable to jīva which is ašarira by nature, a bodiless spiritual entity.
Rāga, the pleasant feeling of desire, and dveşa the unpleasant experience of aversion, all these being products of Karmic matter cannot be attributed to the soul.
Moha or delusion which clouds the knowing faculty and prevents its apprehension of reality, is also an effect of Karmic matter and hence cannot be attributed to the soul.
The different kinds of pratyaya or Karmic condition such as mithyātva false faith, avirati, absence of moral discipline, kaşāya soul-soiling gross emotions, and yoga, activity of thought, speech and body, all being effects of matter either direct or indirect have no relation to the soul.

Page #183

SAMAYASĀRA
Karmas are of eight different kinds, such as jñānavaraniya, darśanāvaranīya, etc. These are also mainly material in nature. Hence these karmas cannot be spoken of as belonging to the soul. Non-karma refers to the various physical molecules that build up the three types of grosser bodies of fully developed biological species. Since these body-building molecules are material they have nothing to do with jīva or Soul.
Varga refers to the bundle of potencies incorporated in a single indivisible atom which forms the basis of Karmic matter.
Vargaņa refers to the type of Karmic molecules constituted by a number of vargas or Karmic atoms.
Spardhaka refers to aggregates of vargaņas or Karmic molecules
All these three refer to the development of Karmic matter from the subtle type to the grosser type. These types of Karmic matter cannot be predicated of jīva.
Adyātmasthāna. On account of the ignorance of its true nature, the ego may identify itself with the various objects and persons of the external world. This false feeling of one-ness with external things has nothing to do with the Pure Self since the confusion is due to the interference of the physical objects. Similarly anubhāgasthānas, the various types of pleasure-pain consciousness resulting from the manifestation of corresponding Karmas, cannot be spoken of as belonging to the soul.
Yogasthānas, the different grades of activity relating to thought, speech, and body which form the condition for attracting Karmic molecules towards the soul are also main ly physical in nature and hence cannot be spoken of as of the soul. Similarly bandhasthāna, various kinds of Karmic bondage and udayasthāna, fruit-yielding manifestation of Karmas are also not of the soul.
Marganasthāna, an inquiry into the nature of jīva, is based upon the method of classification according to various principles which are fourteen in number, such as gati, indriya, etc. These different principles of classification are distinctly material, since they pertain to the nature of the organic bodies, and hence they are not of the soul.

Page #184

CHAPTER II
Similarly the different classifications of jivas or jivasthāna and the classification of man according to spiritual development or gunasthana, are all ultimately traceable to the different manifestations of matter. The nature of the Pure Self must therefore be understood to be entirely different from the above-mentioned various physical modes.
If the material characteristics, physical and psycho physical, are thus summarily disposed of either as qualities and modes of matter or as psychical effects produced thereby, then how can it be justified that the jiva is described in the scripture in terms of the very same attributes which are dismissed as being alien to its nature. The answer to this apparent self-contradiction is given in the next gāthā.
वत्रहारेण दु एदे जीवस्स हवंति वण्णमादीया |
55
गुणठाणता भावा ण दु केई णिच्छयणयस्स ॥ ५६ ॥ vavahāreņa du ede jīvassa havamti vaṇṇamādīyā guṇaṭhāṇamtā bhāvā ņa du keī ņicchayanayassa (56) व्यवहारेण त्वेते नीवस्य भवन्ति वर्णाद्याः
गुणस्थानान्ता भावा न तु केचिन्निश्चयनयस्य ॥ ५६ ॥
56. These characteristics beginning from varņa (colour) and ending with gunasthana or stages of spiritual development are (predicated) of the soul from the vyavahāra point of view; but from the point of view of reality, not one of these can be predicated of the soul.

COMMENTARY
Vyavahāra or the practical point of view is taken for emphasising the jiva-paryaya or modifications of the soul. Emphasis of paryaya or modification naturally implies diversion of attention from dravya, the real substance. These jiva-paryāyas or modifications of the soul are the results of immemorial association of the soul with matter. Just as cotton cloth puts on the colour of the dyeing substance, so also the jiva puts on the characteristics of the associated matter. Since the empirical Self is so coloured in ordinary life, it is described in those terms though in reality it is alien to those characteristics.
The next gatha explains why from the real point of view the characteristics of colour, etc., cannot be predicated of the jiva.

Page #185

56
SAMAYASARA
एदेहि य संबंधो जहेव खीरोदयं मुणेदव्वो ।
a gifa au arfo 3 casingnfant azı 1140||| edehi ya sambandho jaheva khirodayaṁ muṇedavvo naya humti tassa tāņi du uvaogaguṇādhigo jamhā (57)
एतैश्च संबन्धो यथैव क्षीरोदकं मन्तव्यः ।
a a nafta ara aifa againganfaat aara ||40||
57. The association of these characteristics with soul must be understood to be like the mixture of milk and water. They are not certainly present in the soul since it is mainly characterrised by upayoga (cognitive activity of knowledge and perception.)
COMMENTARY
The relation of one thing to another may be in the form either of a mixture or in the form of substance and its qualities. Milk-cum-water is given as an example of mixture. Fire-cum -heat is given as an example of substance and its quality. The different things constituting the mixture can be separated from each other. But the substance and its quality cannot be separated at any time. Quality without substance and susbtance without quality will be empty abstractions incapable of independent existence. But a mixture is not so, because the intermixing substances can be separated when necessary. The predominating substance in the mixture will give its colour to the mixture. Thus in the case of milk and water which is compared to the intermixture of soul and its material upadhis, the dominant substance being milk it is still called milk, when diluted with water. Exactly similar is the relation between jīva and its upādhis. Though their intermixture is from time immemorial, they can be separated from each other, as when the jiva attains mokṣa or liberation. Since the dominant factor in this mixture is jiva, the characteristics of the mixture from colour onwards to stages of spiritual development are considered as the attributes of the soul from the vyavahāra point of view. From the real point of view, the soul must be described in terms of upayoga (cognitive activity of knowledge and perception) which quality is inseparable from jiva. Even when the jiva becomes perfect through self-realisation this quality of upayoga will be inseparably

Page #186

CHAPTER II
57
present in it, in its complete form as Kevala-jñāna and Kevaladarsana.
The reconciliation between the vyavahāra point of view and the real point of view is effected by bringing in a popular illustration.
पंथे मुस्संतं पस्सिदूण लोगा भणंति ववहारी।
मुस्सदि एसो पंथो ण य पंथो मस्सदे कोई ॥५८॥ paộthe mussamtam passidūņa logā bhanamti vavahārī mussadi eso pamtho na ya pamtho mussade kor (58)
पथि मुष्यमाणं दृष्ट्वा लोका भणन्ति व्यवहारिणः ।
मुष्यते एषः पन्था न च पन्था मुष्यते कश्चित् ॥५८॥ 58. Seeing some one robbed on a road, ordinary people adopting the vyavahāra point of view, say "this road is robbed." But really what is robbed is not the road.
तह जीवे कम्माणं णोकम्माणं च पस्सिदुं वण्णं ।
जीवस्स एस वण्णो जिणेहि ववहारदो उत्तो ॥५९॥ taha jive kammānam nokammānam ca passidum vannas jīvassa esa varno jinehi vavahārado utto (59)
तथा जीवे कर्मणां नोकर्मणां च दृष्ट्वा वर्णम् ।
जीवस्यैष वर्णो जिनैर्व्यवहारत उक्तः ॥५९॥ 59. Similarly perceiving the colour which belongs to the material entities of karma and non-karma, which are found in association with jīva, the all-knowing Jina describes it from the vyavahāra point of view, as the quality of the soul.
एवं गंधरसफासरूवा देहो संठाणमाइया जे य ।
सव्वे ववहारस्स य णिच्छयदण्हू ववदिसंति ॥६०॥ evam gamdharasaphasarūvā deho samthānamā iyā je ya savve vavahārassa ya nicchayadanhū vavadisainti (60)
एवं गन्धरसस्पर्शरूपाणि देहः संस्थानादयो ये च ।
सर्व व्यवहारस्य च निश्चयदृष्टारो व्यपदिशन्ति ॥६०॥ 60. Thus are smell, taste. touch, figure etc, predicated (of the soul) from the vyavahāra point of view by the All-knowing.
Why there is no intrinsic identity between jīva and varna, soul and colour, is explained next.

Page #187

SAMAYASĀRA
तत्थभवे जीवाणं संसारत्थाण होंति वण्णादी ।
संसारपमुक्काणं णस्थि दुवण्णादओ केई ॥६१॥ tatthabhave jīvāṇaḥ samsāratthāņa homti vannādı saṁsārapamukkāņam natthi du vaņņādao keī (61)
तत्र भवे जीवानां संसारस्थानां भवन्ति वर्णादयः । '
संसारप्रमुक्तानां न सन्ति खलु वर्णादयः केचित् ॥६१॥ 61. So long as jīvas have embodied existence in the world of samsāra, attributes of colour etc., are present in them. The moment they liberate themselves from the samsāric bondage, these characteristics such as colour, etc., have absolutely no relation to them.
COMMENTARY This gātha emphasises the fact that the relation between soul and colour is one of mere association and not of identity. If in spite of this, it is obstinately maintained that there is an intrinsic identity between jīva and varņa it will lead to an erroneous attitude as is indicated next.
जीवो चेव हि एदे सव्वे भाव त्ति मण्णसे जदि हि ।
जीवस्साजीवस्स य णत्थि विसेसो दु वे कोई ॥६२॥ jivo ceva hi ede savve bhāva tti maņņase jadi hi jīvassājīvassa ya natthi viseso du de koī (62)
जीवश्चैव ह्येते सर्वे भावा इति मन्यसे यदि हि ।
जीवस्याजीवस्य च नास्ति विशेषस्तु ते कोऽपि ॥६२॥ 62. If you mainrain that all these modes pertain to the soul itself then according to you there would be no difference whatsoever between soul and ron-soul.
COMMENTARY Dravya and guna, subsiance and quality, have been described to be inseparable from each other and intrinsically identical. What differentiates one substance from another is the difference of qualities. Colour, taste, smell, etc. are the intrinsic qualities of matter, just as cognitive qualities are the intrinsic qualities of jīva or soul. If it is perversely maintained that the qualities of colour, taste, etc., are also the qualities of jīva, then there will

Page #188

CHAPTER IT
59
be no fundamental difference between jīva and pudgala, a soul and matter. Since the qualities are identical in both, the underlying substance will become the same in nature, that is jiva having identical physical qualities and hence becoming identical with matter will cease to be an independent category as a jīva or soul. The whole scheme of things will then become all-devouring materialistic monism.
But if it is maintained that the identity between colour, taste, etc., and jīva or soul is true only in the case of the samsārī jīva or empirical Self, even then it will lead to an erroneous position which is pointed out next.
अह संसारत्थाणं जीवाणं तुज्झ होंति वण्णादी।
तम्हा संसारत्था जीवा रूवित्तमावण्णा ॥६३॥ aha samsāratthānam jīvānam tujjha ho mti vannādi tamhā samsāratthā jīvā rūvittamāvannā (63)
अथ संसारस्थानां जीवानां तव भवन्ति वर्णादयः ।
तस्मात् संसारस्था जीवा रूपित्वमापन्नाः ॥६३।। 63. If, as you maintain, the samsārī-jīvas, the empirical egos, are identical with the characteristics of colour, etc., then these empirical souls will be endowed with physical forms.
एव पोग्गलदव्व जीवो तह लक्खणेण मूढमदी। णिव्वाणमुवगदो वि य जीवत्तं पोग्गलो पत्तो ॥६४॥ evam poggaladavvam jīvo taha lakkhaņeņa mūdhamadī nivvāņamuvagado vi ya jīvattam poggalo patto (64)
एवं पुद्गलद्रव्यं जीवस्तथा लक्षणेन मूढमतेः ।
निर्वाणमुपगतोऽपि च जीवत्वपुद्गलः प्राप्तः ॥६४॥ 64. If, according to thy philosophy, O Thou deluded one, (soul gets physical form) then it is matter that assumes the form of jīva in saṁsāra and it is again the very same matter that figures in nirvāṇa, the state of liberation of the soul.
COMMENTARY Thus it is maintained that even in the samsāric state, there is no identity between the soul and the physical qualities of colour, etc.
e sbal even in the saioa

Page #189

60
SAMAYASARA
If there is no identity between jiva and the qualities of colour etc., then how is it possible to describe jiva according to the different stages of sense-development as ekendriya-jiva or onesensed organism, etc. The point is cleared up in the next two gāthās.*
एक्कं च दोणि तिण्णि य चत्तारि य पंच इंदिया जीवा । बादरपत्तिदरा पयडीओ णामकम्मस्स ॥ ६५ ॥
ekkam ca donni tinni ya cattari ya pamca indiya jivā badarapajjattidara payaḍio namakammassa (65) एकं वा द्वे त्रीणि च चत्वारि च पञ्चेन्द्रियाणि जीवाः । बादरपर्याप्ततराः प्रकृतयो नामकर्मणः ||६५ ||
65. Living beings with one, two, three, four, and five senses, gross and fully developed and their opposites (minute and undeveloped) are all determined by the nature of nama karma or body-building karma.
एहि यणिव्वत्ता जीवट्ठाणा दु करणभूदाहि ।
पडीहि पोग्गलमहि ताहि कह भण्णदे जीवो ॥६६॥
edehi ya nivvattā jīvaṭṭhānā du karaṇabhūdāhim payadihim poggalamathiin tāhim kaha bhannade jż00 ( 66 ) एताभिश्च निवृत्तानि जीवस्थानानि करणभूताभिः ।
प्रकृतिभिः पुद्गलमयीभिस्ताभिः कथं भण्यते जीवः ॥ ६६॥
66. These classes of living beings are the result of Karmic matter which constitute their operative cause. How can these physical products be identified with soul?

COMMENTARY
In reality there is no fundamental difference between cause and effect; for example, gold-leaf which is made of gold is of the nature of gold and nothing else. Similarly the various jivasthana or classes of living beings are the result of nama karmas, the physical conditions which determine the building up of the body. Since the causal conditions are physical in nature, their products must also be physical. Hence they cannot be really identified with the nature of the soul.
पज्जत्तापन्नत्ता जे सुहुमा बादरा य जे चेव । देहस्स जीवसण्णा सुत्ते ववहारदो उत्ता ॥६७॥

Page #190

CHAPTER II
pajjattāpajjattā je suhumu bädarā ya je ceva dehassa jīvasaņņā sutte vavahārado utta (67)
पर्याप्तापर्याप्ता ये सूक्ष्मा बादराश्च ये चैव ।
देहस्य जीवसंज्ञाः सूत्रे व्यवहारतः उक्ताः ॥६७॥ 67. Completely developed, incompletely developed, minute and gross, all these modifications pertaining only to the body are given the appellation of jiva in the scripture from the vyavahāra point of view.
COMMENTARY Paryāpta and aparyāpta are terms applied to organisms, fully developed or incompletely developed. These attributes apply to all organisms in general. Sūkşma and bādara, minute and gross, are attributes applicable only to ekendriya jīvas or one-sensed organisms. Sūkşma ekendriya jīvas are the microscopic organisms present in earth, water, air, etc. Badara ekendriya jīvas are the plants and trees of the whole botanical world. These two types of ekendriya jīvas are also called sthāvara jīvas, living organism incapable of locomotion or stationary beings. The types of organisms beginning with the two-sensed organisms are called trasa jīvas, organisms capable of locomotion. All these are various terms describing the bodily differences and yet they are used as names of jīvas. The commentators explain this practical point of view with a popular illustration. Ordinarily, a vessel containing ghee is called a ghee-pot. The pot is made of clay and it is called a ghee-pot because it is used to keep ghee in it. The name of the contained article is transferred to the container, the pot of clay from the practical point of view in order to distinguish it from a water jug or a milk jug. In the same practical way, the various organic bodies get the name of the jīvas, which are associated with them. This transfer of nomenclature of the jīva to the body is only from the vyavahāra point of view.
मोहणकम्मस्सुदया दु वण्णिदा जे इमे गुणट्ठाणा ।
ते कह हवंति जीवा जे णिचमचेदणा उत्ता ॥६॥ mohaņakammassudayā du vannidā je ime gunaţthāņā te kaha havanti jivā je niccamacedanā utta (68)

Page #191

62
SAMAYASARA
मोहनकर्मण उदयात्तु वर्णितानि यानीमानि गुणस्थानानि ।
तानि कथं भवन्ति जीवा यानि नित्यमचेतनान्युक्तानि ॥ ६८ ॥
68.
The stages of spiritual growth are stated to be due to the (mohaniya) deluding karmas which are permanently (acetana, non-intelligent. How can they be identified with soul?

COMMENTARY
The various stages of spiritual development called gunasthanas are based upon the varying influence of mohaniya karma which manifests in two different ways. One method of its influence is to interfere with the correct perception of reality on account of which it is called darsana mohaniya, deluding the right perception. The other way of its influence is perverse conduct on account of which it is called caritra mohaniya. The various gunasthānas which are the results of the varying operations of this mohaniya karma, must maintain the relation of cause and effect. As already mentioned, cause and effect must be identical in nature. Wheat when sown will produce wheat alone and not paddy. In the same manner, the operative cause being material, the effect it produces must also be material. Hence the guṇasthānas must be recognised to be distinctly material in nature. Hence these cannot be taken as attributes of the soul. Neither the characteristics of the body nor the emotions and feelings of inner consciousness of the empirical Self can really be attributes of suddha jiva or Pure Self.
Thus ends the Chapter on Ajiva Padartha
The two previous chapters constitute the two different scenes of the First Act of the great Cosmic Drama, in which the two actors Jiva and Ajiva appear on the stage. The Ego, the living and intelligent, and the non-Ego, non-living and non-intelligent, first appear on the stage forgetting their self-identity, clasp each other as infatuated lovers and behave as if they were identical with each other. But after recognising their distinctness and difference in nature, they become chastened from their delusion of false identity and depart from the stage.
Thus ends the First Act of the Drama.

Page #192

CHAPTER III KARTĀ AND KARMA–THE DOER AND THE DEED
Dealing with the remaining seven padārthas such as (punya, pāpa, etc.) virtue, vice, etc., the author wants to emphasise once again that these seven padārthas are but the resultant secondary padārthas of the interaction of the two primary padārthas, jīva and asīva, which are dealt with already. These two reappear again on the stage in different forms as agent and his action, Karta and Karma.
__ जाव ण वेदि विसेसंतरं तु आदासवाण दोहुणंपि ।
अण्णाणी ताव दु सो कोहादिसु वट्टदे जीवो ॥६६॥ jāva na vedi visesamarain tu ādāsavāņa dohunampi annānī tāva du so kohādisu vattade jivo (69) यावन्न वेत्ति विशेषान्तरं त्वात्मास्रवयोर्द्वयोरपि ।
अज्ञानी तावत्स क्रोधादिषु वर्तते जीवः ॥६६॥ 69. As long as the jīva or soul does not recognise that the entities, ātmā and Asrava-Self and Karmic inflow--are absolutely different from each other, so long will he remain devoid of knowledge and will identify himself with baser emotions of anger, etc.
कोहादिसु वटुंतस्स तस्स कम्मस्स संचओ होदि ।
जीवस्सेवं बंधो भणिदो खलु सव्वदरसीहि ।।७०॥ kohadisu vattamtassa tassa kammassa samcao hodi jīvassevam baṁdho bhanido khalu savadarasīhiṁ (70)
क्रोधादिषु वर्तमानस्य तस्य कर्मणः संचयो भवति ।
जीवस्यैवं बन्धो भणितः खलु सर्वदर्शिभिः ॥७०॥ 70. That jīva which thus indulges in anger, etc., will only have an increased inflow of Karmas and finally end with Karmic bondage. Thus was it truly declared by the All-knowing.
COMMENTARY Ignorance of the distinction of the true nature of the Self and of the other alien entities is the root-cause of the trouble. The Self forgetting its pure nature imagines himself to be other than what he really is. He identifies himself with baser emotion al experiences such as, “I am angry." This vitiated state of

Page #193

64
SAMAYASĀRA
experience leads to the attraction and deposit of Karmic molecules in the Self. The Self behaves like a person besmeared with oil all over the body walking through a cloud of dust. Dust particles get easily deposited all over the oily surface of his body. So the Self, ignorant of his own nature, provides the necessary condition for attracting the Karmic particles which, when accumulated, permeate the whole nature of the soul thus clouding the intrinsic spiritual luminosity of the Self. This means Karmic bondage. This Karmic bondage in its turn produces the samsārio cycle of births and deaths, which is the inevitable carere of the unenlightened Ego. Thus the unenlightened Ego imagines himself to be the agent of all disturbances which take place in the inner series of consciousness and outer scheme of things. Thus appears the drama of the deluded Self in the form of Karta and his Karma, agent and his action.
जइया इमेण जीवेण अप्पणो आसवाण य तहेव ।
णादं होदि विसेसंतरं तु तइया ण बंधो से ॥७१॥ jaiyā imeņa jīveņa appaņo āsavāņa ya taheva ņādam hodi visesamtaram tu taiyā ņa bandho se (71)
यदानेन जीवनात्मनः आस्रवाणां च तथैव ।
ज्ञातं भवति विशेषान्तरं तु तदा न बन्धस्तस्य ॥७१॥ 71. As soon as the absolute difference between Ātmā and āsrava is appreciated by jīva, bondage ceases to be.
COMMENTARY Just as the absence of discriminative knowledge is the root-cause of bondage in samsāra, the appearance of true knowledge has the opposite result of dissolution of bondage and disappearance of samsāra.
णादण आसवाणं असुचित्तं च विवरीयभावं च ।
दुक्खस्स कारणं ति य तदो णित्ति कुणदि जीवो ॥७२॥ ņāduņa āsavāņāṁ asucittam ca vivarīyabhāvam ca dukkhassa kāraṇam ti ya tado nīyattiin kuņadi jīvo. (72)
ज्ञात्वा आस्रवाणामशुचित्वं च विपरीतभावं च ।
दुःखस्य कारणानीति च ततो निवृत्तिं करोति जीवः ॥७२॥ 72. Knowing that the äsravas are impure, of contray nature to Self, and the cause of misery, the soul abstains from them.

Page #194

CHAPTER III
COMMENTARY
Just as water gets muddy through association with clay, the asravas, because of association with impurities, are impure. But the Bhagavan Atmā, because of his eternal association with the absolutely clear nature of cit or intelligence, is perfectly pure. Asravas being physical modes are non-intelligent and hence of contrary nature. But the Lord Atma is eternally of the nature of knowledge and hence uncontaminated by an alien characteristic. Asravas, because they always are productive of unpleasant experience, cause misery. But Bhagavan Atmā, in his state of eternal bliss, cannot be the causal agent of any thing else and much less be the cause of misery. Hence asrava is impure, acetana and the cause of misery, whereas the Atmā, is always, pure, cetana and the cause of eternal bliss. Their natures thus being fundamentally different, the jiva that possesses the discriminative knowledge naturally abstains from the asravas, such as anger, etc. The discriminative knowledge thus leading to abstention from the impure asravas is emphasised here, for otherwise, the Jaina point of view would be indistinguishable from that of the Samkhyās. According to the Samkhyas, vivekajñāna, the discriminative knowledge, constitutes the summum bonum of life. But according to the Jaina thought right knowledge must necessarily lead to right conduct and only then it will lead to moksa or Liberation.
अमेको खलु सुद्धो णिम्ममओ णाणदंसणसमग्गो । दो चित्त सव्वे एदे खयं णेमि ॥ ७३ ॥

ahamekko khalu suddho nimmamao ṇāṇadamsaṇasamaggo tamhiṭṭhido taccitto savve, ede khayam nemi (73) अहमेकः खलु शुद्धनिर्ममश्च: ज्ञानदर्शनसमग्रः ।
aftĦz feyatafaa: gafàarą gå auıfa 1103 ||
65
73. I am really one, pure, without the sense of ownership or "mine-ness" and full of complete knowledge and perception. Firmly resting in the true consciousness of such a Self, I shall lead all these asravas such as anger, etc, to destruction.
COMMENTARY
The Pure Self provided with discriminative knowledge resting on its own innate perfection of consciousness is able to
9

Page #195

66
SAMAYASĀRA
destroy all those ásravas, alien psycho-physical characteristics with which he identified himself in the empirical state. Next it is stated that the āsravas which are intrinsically and are the products of evil should be abstained from.
जीवणिबद्धा एदे अधुव अणिच्चा तहा असरणा य ।
दुक्खा दुक्खफलाणि य णादूण णिवत्तदे तेहिं ॥७४॥ jīvanibaddhä ede adhuva aņiccā tahā asarana ya dukkha dukkhaphalāņi ya ņādūņa ņivattade tehim (74)
जीवनिबद्धा एते अध्रुवा अनित्यास्तथा अशरणाश्च ।।
दुःखानि दुःखफलानि न ज्ञात्वा निवर्तते तेभ्यः ॥७४॥ 74. Knowing them, bound as they are to the soul, to be impermanent, evanescent, unprotected and misery in their nature and also to be misery as their fruit in future (the Self) abstains from them.
COMMENTARY
The realisation of the Self and the disappearance of the asravas are inter-dependent and simultaneous. The moment the Self realises its true nature, the cloud of āsarvas gets dispersed. The moment this cloud of asravas gets dispersed, the Self shines in all its glory. Thus both are causally inter-dependent and the events occur simultaneously.
Adhruva means impermanent and extremely momentary like a flash of lightening. The ūsravas may appear at one moment and disappear at the next. This characteristic is indicated by the word adhruva, non-persisting.
The term anitya implies the quality of vanishing like temperature in a fever patient which may vary and finally disappear altogether. As against these attributes of āsravas, the śuddha jīva or the Pure Self is dhruva constant and permanent, and nitya, unchanging and eternal. Similarly the āstavas, since they are produced in the soul by alien conditions, are really asarana or unprotected, since they are dependent upon something other than themselves. Not so is the suddha jīva or Pure Self, since it is self-conditioned and hence undisturbed by anything else. The āsravas such as desire and hatred, constitute the misery in life. They are not only misery by nature, they carry with them the misery-producing potency through their association

Page #196

CHAPTER III
67
with saṁsāric jīva which has to experienee the same misery even in its future birth. But the suddha jīva, the Pure Self, not only shines with its intrinsic brilliance of knowledge but also rests in its own inalienable state of eternal bliss. Certainly the Self who knows his greatness and glory will never think of identifying himself with the impure and misery-producing ăsravas.
कम्मस्स य परिणामं णोकम्मस्स य तहेव परिणामं ।
ण करेदि एदमादा जो जाणइ सो हवदि णाणी ॥७५।। kammassa va pariņāmam nokammussa yı taheva pariņāmañ ņa karedi edamādā jo jäņai so havadi ņāņi (75)
कर्मणश्च परिणामं नो कर्मणश्च तथैव परिणाम
न करोत्येनमात्मा यो जानाति स भवति ज्ञानी ॥७५॥ 75. The Self does not produce any modification in Karmic matter nor is the non-Karmic matter. He who realises his is the real knower.
COMMENTARY Cause or kāraṇa is mainly of two kinds: upadāna kāraņa substantive cause, and nimitta kārana external causal agency. Thus in the making of a pot, clay is the upādāna kāraṇa and the potter is the nīmitta kāraṇa. In the same manner modification in karma and modifications in non-karma have both, as their upādāna kāraṇa, causal substance, the material particles. These modifications are built by material particles like the pot which is made of clay. This gātha therefore emphasises the fact that the various modifications of the Karmic and non-Karmic matter, cannot be explained as the result of the causal agency, of Ātmā, which by its cetana nature cannot be the upādāna kāraņa of the acetana material modifications.
Next the author points out that though the Atmā perceives matter, it does not become identical with the object.
णवि परिणमदि ण गिर्हदि उप्पज्जदि ण परदव्वपज्जाए ।
णाणी जाणतो वि हु पोग्गलकम्म अणेयविहं ।।७६॥ navi pariņamadi na ginhadi uppajjadi na paradavvapajjãe ņānī jāņanto vi hu poggalakammai aņeyaviham (76)
नापि परिणमति न गृह्णात्युत्पद्यते न परद्रव्यपर्याये । ज्ञानी जानन्नपि खलु पुद्गलकर्मानेकविधम् ॥७६॥

Page #197

68
SAMAYASARA
76. Material karmas are of various kinds. While in the process of knowing these, the knower neither manifests in, nor identifies with, nor causes the appearance of inodifications of alien substance.
COMMENTARY The Karmic modifications which are of various kinds are really the result of the manifestations of Karmic matter. Atma or Self because of its cetana nature cannot in any way be responsible for the Karmic modifications. These cannot be described as the result of manifestations of the Self. Nor can they be identified with Self; nor their appearances be taken to be the result of this causal agency of the Atmā. In short, the Self cannot be the causal agent or kartā of the various karmas. Thus the author emphasises that the relation between the knower and the object known is quite analogous to the relation between the light and the object illuminated. That is, the knower in the process of knowing the object does not transform himself into the nature of the object known. This refutes the idealistic theory of knowledge which maintains that the process of knowing creates the object known.
णवि परिणमदि ण गिलदि उप्पज्जदि ण परदव्वपज्जाए।
णाणी जाणतो वि हु सगपरिणामं अणेयविहं ॥७७॥ navi pariņamadi na ginhadi uppaj jadi na paradavvapujjaye ņāņi jānamto vi hu sagapariņāmam aneyaviham (77)
नापि परिणमति न गृह्णात्युत्पद्यते न परद्रव्यपर्याये ।
ज्ञानी नानन्नपि खलु स्वकपरिणाममनेकविधम् ।।७७॥ 77. Modifications in the Self (as the result of Karmic intluence) are of various kinds. While in the process of knowing these the knower neither manifests in, nor identifies with, nor causes the appearance of modifications of alien substance.
COMMENTARY The changes appearing in the consciousness of the empirical Self though different from the Karmic materials, are really produced by the Karmic influences, though indirectly. Hence the Pure Self cannot consider these psychical modes to be the direct manifestations of his own nature. They must be traced to alien influence and hence cannot be identified with the nature of the Pure Self, though he is aware of them as objects of knowledge.

Page #198

CHAPTER II
णवि परिणमदि ण गिर्हदि उप्पनदि ण परदव्व पन्जाए।
णाणी जाणंतो वि हु पोग्गलकम्मफलमणंतं ।।७८॥ navi pariņamadi na giặhadi uppajjadi ạa paradavva pajjāe ņāņi jāņamto vi hu poggalakammaphalamaņamtam (78)
नापि परिणमति न गृह्णात्युत्पद्यते न परद्रव्यपर्याये ।।
ज्ञानी जानन्नपि खलु पुद्गलकर्मफलमनन्तम् ॥७८॥ 78. The (pleasant and the unpleasant) fruits of Karmic materials are really infinite. While in the process of knowing these, the knower neither manifests in, nor is identified with, nor causes the appearance of these modifications of alien substance.
COMMENTARY Pleassant and unpleasant experiences of the empirical Self are really the fruits of Karmic influence which is material in nature. Thus realising the true origin of the fruits of Karma, the Pure Self cannot call these his own. Nor can he identify himself with these. Here also it is emphasised that the knower is in no way causally related to the objects known.
Thus after rejecting the doctrine from the real standpoint that the Ātmā or the Self is the causal agent in relation to modification of alien things as well as of the various impure psychic states, the author goes to establish a similar relation with reference to the matter that it also cannot stand as causal agent in relation to modification in the cetana entity, Self.
णवि परिणमदि गिर्हदि उप्पज्जदि ण परदव्वपब्जाए।
पोग्गलदव्वं पि तहा परिणमदि सएहि भावेहि ॥७९॥ navi barinamadi na ginhadi uppajjadi na paradavvapajjāe poggaladavvam pi tahā pariņamadi saehim bhāvehiņ (79)
नापि परिणमति न गृह्णात्युत्पद्यते न परद्रव्यपर्याये ।
पुद्गलद्रव्यमपि तथा परिणमति स्वकैर्भावैः ॥७९॥ 79. In the same way, matter also manifests in characteristic material modifications. In reality it neither manifests in, nor is identical with, nor causes the appearance of modifications in (jiva) which substance is of alien nature.
COMMENTARY Just as the Self cannot be related to physical modifications as the upūdāna kārana or substantial cause, so also matter cannot

Page #199

SAMAYASĀRA be related to psychical changes as their upādāna kāraṇa. Neither jīva is the Kartā of Karmas, nor matter is the Kartā of changes in the jīva. Thus there can be no identity between Self and matter, cetana dravya and acetana dravya.
Next it is pointed out that though Self and matter cannot be related to each other as material cause, still both may be related to each other as instrumental cause.
जीवपरिणामहे, कम्मत्तं पोग्गला परिणमंति ।
पोग्गलकम्मणिमित्तं तहेव जीवो वि परिणमदि ॥५०॥ jīvapariņāmaheduṁ kammattam poggalā pariņamati poggalakammaņimittam taheva jīvo vi parinamadi (80)
जीवपरिणामहेतुं कर्मत्वं पुद्गलाः परिणमन्ति ।
पुद्गलकर्मनिमित्तं तथैव जीवोऽपि परिणमति ॥८०॥ 80. As conditioned by the modifications of jiva, the material particles get modified into karmas. Similarly, conditioned by the Karmic materials, jīva also undergoes modifications.
णवि कुव्वदि कम्मगुणे जीवो कम्मं तहेव जीवगुणे ।
अण्णोण्णणिमित्तेण दु परिणाम जाण दोण्हं पि ॥१॥ navi kuvvadi kammagune jīvo kammam taheva jīvagune annonnanimitteņa du pariņāmam jāņa donham pi (81)
नापि करोति कर्मगुणान् जीवः कर्म तथैव जीवगुणान् ।
अन्योन्यनिमित्तेन तु परिणामं नानीहि द्वयोरपि ।।८१॥ 81. jīva does not produce changes in the qualities of karma nor does karma similarly in the qualities of jiva. The modifications of those two, know ye, are the result of one conditioning the other as nimitta kāraṇa or instrumental cause.
एदेण कारणेण दु कत्ता आदा सएण भावेण ।
पोग्गलकम्मकदाणं ण दु कत्ता सव्वभावाणं ॥८२।। edeņa kārņeņa du kattā ādā saena bhāveņa poggalakammakadānam na du kattā savvabhāvanain (82)
एतेन कारणेन तु कर्ता आत्मा स्वकेन भावेन ।
पुद्गलकर्मकृतानां न तु कर्ता सर्वभावानाम् ॥८२॥ 82. For this very reason the Self is the substantial cause of his own modifications (both pure and impure); but is not the substantial cause of any of the modifications of Karmic matter.

Page #200

CHAPTER III
COMMENTARY As the modifications of jīva operate as the instrumental cause, material particles get modified as Karmic molecules. Similarly when the material particles operate as instrumental cause, jiva undergoes modifications. Thus the modifications of jīva and the modifications of matter indirectly condition each other. The relation between the two groups cannot be interpreted as a sort of causal identity that holds good between an immanent ca use and its corresponding effect. Hence the relation between the two groups of modifications is not one of Kartā and Karma, agent and action, for instrumental cause is quite different from substantive cause. Just as clay is the cause of a pot and cannot be the cause of a cloth, so jīva is the causal agent of all his modifications and matter is the causal agent of all its modifications.
Next it is pointed out that from the real point of view the Self is the Kartā (agent) producing its own modifications and bhoktā (enjoyer) of its own states.
णिच्छयणयस्स एवं आदा अप्पाणमेव हि करेदि ।
वेदयदि पुणो तं चेव जाण अत्ता दु अत्ताणं ॥८३।। ņicchayaņayassa evaņādā appūņameva hi karedi vedayadi puno tai ceva jāna attā du attānam (83)
निश्चयनयस्यैवमात्मात्मानमेव हि करोति ।
वेदयते पुनस्तं चैव जानीहि आत्मा त्वात्मानम् ॥८३॥ 83. Thus from the real point of view the Self produces only his own Self. Again, know ye, that the Self enjoys his own Self.
COMMENTARY
When wind blows over the surface of water in sea, it will produce waves on its surface, waves constituted by the rise and fall of water on the surface. These waves on the surface of water, though caused by the blow of wind are really modifications of the water surface and certainly are not of the air which produces it. Air is only the nimitta kāraņa of the waves, while water is the upādāna kārana. Hence it is the ocean surface that undergoes modifications in the form of waves though indirectly determined by the blow of wind. Similarly Karmic matter may

Page #201

72
SAMAYASĀRA operate as the instrumental cause and produce modifications in the Self. These modifications, though indirectly conditioned by Karmic materials, are really the result of the manifestation of the Self either pure or empirical. The empirical Self as an embodied entity in the world of saṁsāra may undergo modifications of experience, pleasant or unpleasant, accordingly as the Karmic conditions are good or bad. Since experience-changes are confined to the nature of consciousness, though indirectly determined by Karmic materials, they are really the result of the manifestations of the Self. In other words, the Self is the age nt who produces all these changes in his own nature. Even when the determining Karmic materials completely disappear leaving the Self free to realise his true glory and brilliance, it is the Self alone again that is the causal antecedent of the liberated Self. The consequential experience of pleasure-pain in the empirical state and his eternal bliss in the liberated state are also the manifestations of the Self. Thus it is the Self that makes his own nature whether empirical or pure, as an agent or Karta and it is again his own Self either empirical or pure that is enjoyed by the Self as bhoktā or enjoyer.
Next from the vyavahära point of view the Self is described as Kartā and Bhoktā.
ववहारस्स दु आदा पोग्गलकम्मं करेदि अणेयविहं ।
तं चेव य वेदयदे पोग्गलकम्म अणेयविहं ॥५४॥ vavahārassa du ādā poggalakammam karedi aneyaviham tam ceva ya vedayade poggalakammam aneyaviham (84)
व्यवहारस्य त्वात्मा पुद्गलकर्म करोति अनेकविधम् ।
तच्चैव पुनर्वेदयते पुद्गलकर्मानेकविधम् ॥८४॥ 84. But from the vyavahāra point of view, the Self produces various types of Karmic modifications in matter. Similarly the various fruits of Karmic materials, the Self enjoys.
COMMENTARY Though the pot is really made of clay, in ordinary parlance it is made by the potter and is used for the purpose of bringing water. Thus the potter figures as the agent in making the pot and enjoyer by making use of it for different purposes. Similarly from the vyavahāra point of view, the Self is the agent who

Page #202

CHAPTER III
produces the various modifications of Karmas out of the available material atoms. Having produced the Karmic modification in the matter, the hedonic consequences of these Karmic materials are enjoyed by the Self as Bhoktā. Thus the relationship to Karmic materials of Karta and Bhokta, the Agent and the Enjoyer, which was denied of the Self from the real point of view, is reasserted from the vyavahāra point of view.
Next the author refutes dvikriyāvāda, the doctrine that the same cause can produce two distinct effects.
जदि पोलकम्ममिणं कुव्वदि तं चेव वेदयदि आदा । दोरियावादित्तं पसजदि सो जिणावमदं ॥ ८५ ॥
jadi poggalakammamiņam kuvvadi tam ceva vedayadi ādā dokiriyāvādi ttam pasajadi so jiņāvamadaṁ (85) यदि पुदगलकर्मेदं करोति तच्चैव वेदयते आत्मा ।
द्विक्रियावादित्वं प्रसनति तत् स निनावमतम् ॥ ८५ ॥
85. If the Atma or Self produces these Karmic materials (operating as upādāna kartā or substantive cause) and enjoys the consequences thereof in the same manner, it will lead to the doctrine of a single cause producing two different effects, which will be in conflict with the Jaina faith.

73
COMMENTARY
If what is taken to be true from the vyavahara point of view, that the Atma is the agent and enjoyer of his own karmas, is also taken to be true from the absolute point of view, it will lead to a metaphysical error. Atma is a cetana dravya or thinking substance, karma-pudgala, karmic materials, are as acetana dravya,-- non-thinking substance. The Jaina faith is distinctly a dualistic one. Jiva and pudgala, thinking thing and non-thinking thing, are entirely distinct from each other, intransmutable one to the other and completely self-subsistent. If the Self, as an agent, is capable of producing modification not only in himself but also in Karmic materials, operating identically in the same manner as upādāna kartā, then this causal agent must be credited with a potency to produce entirely two different effects and this doctrine of causation is what is called dvikriyāvāda-the doctrine which is rejected by the Jaina philosophy. According to Jaina metaphysics, two distinct and conflicting effects cannot be 10

Page #203

74
SAMAYASĀRA
produced by identically the same cause nor, conversely, can the identically same effect be produced by two entirely distinct causes. The attempts to derive both cetana and acetana entities from the same cause would result in making the original cause in itself to be either ceta na or acetana. If it is identified with the acetana effect, the cetana Self will cease to be. If it is identified with the cetana entity, then matter acetana will cease to be. In either case it would be a metaphysical error. The Vedānta doctrine which tries to derive both the Self and the external objects from the same source of cetana dravya, Ātmā or Brahma, must end in māyāvāda, which condemns objective reality as unreal and illusory.
Conversely the attempt to derive the Self from the operation of the acetana matter as the Cārvākas do, must enthrone the physical world in the sovereignty of reality and dismiss the Atmā, cetana dravya, as fictitious and unreal. Neither of the conclusions is acceptable to the Jainas.
The same doctrine of dvikriyāvāda is again condemned with reasons.
जह्मा दु अत्तभावं पोग्गलभावं च दोवि कुव्वंति ।
तेण दु मिच्छादिट्ठी दोकिरियावादिणो होति ॥८६॥ jamhä du attabhāvam poggalabhāvam ca dovi kuvvamti teņa du micchadithi dokiriyāvādiņo hoạti. (86)
यस्मात्त्वात्मभावं पुद्गलभावं च द्वावपि कुर्वन्ति ।
तेन तु मिथ्यादृष्टयो द्विक्रियावादिनो भवन्ति ॥८६॥ 86. Because they make the modifications of Self as well as modifications of matter to be effects of the same identical Ātmā or the Self (operating as upādāna cause) the believers in that doctrine of causation (which derives the conflicting effects from the same source), are said to be of erroneous faith.
Next the author describes the two-fold nature of Karma, 1. Dravya-karma of which material Karmic particles form the upädäna cause. 2. Bhāva karma of which Self is the upādāna cause.
मिच्छत्तं पुण दुविहं जीवमजीवं तहेव अण्णाणं ।
अविरदि जोगो मोहो कोहादीया इमे भावा ॥८७॥ micchattam puņa duviham jīvamajīvam taheva aņņāņam aviradi jogo moho kohādīyā ime bhāvā (87)

Page #204

CHAPTER III
fazará gafafari anal Sofataðarısıti | अविरतिर्योगो मोहः क्रोधाद्या इमे भावाः ॥ ८७॥

87. Erroneous faith is of two kinds. One pertaining to jiva or Soul and the other pertaining to ajiva or non-soul. Similarly the following modes are also of two kinds. Nescience, non-discipline, yoga (of thought, word and deed) delusion, anger, etc.
75
COMMENTARY
The doctrine of Karma according to Jaina philosophy implies two different aspects. The various modifications of Karmic materials cloud the nature of the soul by getting entangled with it. Consequently upon this Karmic entanglement, the soul gets vitiated and thus manifests itself in various impure psychic modes corresponding to the Karmic materials. The Karmic materials are called dravya Karmas and the consequent psychic changes, bhāva Karmas. Since the Karmas are constituted by material particles, they are ajiva and acetana, non-living and non-thinking. Since the bhava Karmas are modifications in the consciousness of the Self, they pertain to jiva and cetana, and hence living and thinking. This distinction between dravya and bhava is considered very important and it is applied to the various forms of experiences narrated in this gāthā. Thus mithyatva, which means erroneous belief, not merely implies the psy chic activity which results in erroneous thought but also the physical Karmic conditions of a particular type capable of producing erroneous belief in consciousness. This two-fold nature is present in other modes also. Thus we have dravya ajñāna and bhāva ajñāna, the former referring to the Karmic materials of a particular kind capable of interfering with the process of right cognition, and the latter the consequential effect produced in the consciousness. This distinction of dravya Karma and bhava Karma is to be applied similarly in the other cases also. This two-fold nature of Karma should not be confounded with the doctrine of dvikriyavada which has been rejected though there is an apparent similarity betwee the two. Karma in the forms of dravya Karma and bhāva Karma, the material and psychical respectively, may be erroneously assumed to be two different effects of the same causal substance, Karma. But in reality there

Page #205

76
SAMAYASARA
is no such common substance called Karma capable of producing the two kinds of Karmic effect. As a matter of fact dravya Karma has matter as its upādāna cause, and bhāva Karma has the Self as the upadana cause. Hence the two Karmas have two different causes. Hence this doctrine of Karma is distinct from the dvikriyāvāda.
In relation to the duality of Karma the author explains next what is related to jiva and what is related to ajiva.
पोग्गलकम्मं मिच्छं जोगो अविरदि अण्णाणमज्जीवं । उवओगो अण्णाणं अविरदि मिच्छं च जीवो दु ॥ ८८ ॥ poggalakammam miccham jogo aviradi aṇṇāṇamajjīvaṁ uvaogo anṇāņam aviradi miccham ca jīvo du (88) पुद्गलकर्म मिथ्यात्वं योगोऽविरतिरज्ञानमनीवः । उपयोगोऽज्ञानमविरति मिथ्यात्वं च जीवस्तु ॥८८॥
88. Being of the nature of Karmic matter, erroneous faith, yoga (of thought, word and deed), non-discipline, and nescience, pertain to ajiva-non-soul. Being of the nature of Self (upayoga) nescience, non-discipline, erroneous faith, pertain to soul.
COMMENTARY
Because of this two-fold aspect of the Karmas, each must be ⚫ called by different names, jiva-mithyatoa when the bhava aspect is emphasised, and the ajiva-mithyatua when the dragya aspect is emphasised. Similarly such different names are to be applied to the rest of the modes from the different aspects.

उवओोगस्स अणाई परिणामा तिण्णि मोहजुत्तस्स ।
मिच्छत्तं अण्णाणं अविरदि भावो य णादव्वो ॥ ८९ ॥
uvaogassa anai parināmā tinni mohajuttassa micchattam anṇānam aviradi bhavo ya nadavvo (89)
उपयोगस्यानादयः परिणामास्त्रयो मोहयुक्तस्य ।
मिथ्यात्वमज्ञानमविरतिभावश्च ज्ञातव्यः ॥ ८९ ॥
89. The Self of the nature of upayoga (pure thought and perception) associated with delusion from beginningless eternity undergoes three different kinds of (corrupt) modifications. Let it be understood that these three are wrong faith, wrong knowledge, and wrong conduct.

Page #206

CHAPTER III
COMMENTARY The Self by itself is perfectly pure and flawless like a clear crystal. But this clear crystal will put on the colour of the object which is attached to its surface. Its surface will appear blue or green or yellow accordingly as a betal leaf, a plantain leaf, or a golden leaf is tacked on to it. The clear crystal appears coloured
different ways because of the associated objects. Similarly the Self in itself pure and clear puts on the characteristic of the associated objects in this case, mohanīya karma. The Karmic association is throughout the beginningless infinity of time. On account of this association, the nature of the Self is corrupted and this corrupt nature appears in three forms, wrong faith, wrong knowledge, and wrong conduct. This must go on so long as the association of the alien matter persists; when the tie to the alien characteristics is broken, when the corrupt modifications disappear, the Self will regain its flawless nature and shine in its pristine purity and glory.
एदेसु य उवओगो तिविहो सुद्धो णिरंजणो भावो।
जं सो करेदि भावं उवओगो तस्स सो कत्ता ॥१०॥ edesu ya uvaogo tiviho suddho ņiramjano bhāvo jam so karedi bhāvas uvao go tassa so kalta (90)
एतेषु चोपयोगस्त्रिविधः शुद्धो निरञ्जनो भावः ।
यं स करोति भावमुपयोगस्तस्य स कर्ता ॥९०॥ 90. "The Self of the nature of upayoga, in himself, pure and flawless, when influenced by these three different forms of Karmic materials, operating as nimitta cause, undergoes correspondingly three different impure modifications for which the Self in impure form figures as upādana (or substantive cause).
COMMENTARY The Self as influenced by foreign Karmic materials has corresponding psychic modifications, for which he maintains the relationship of agent or Kartā. The relationship of Kartā and Karma, thus holds good between the empirical Self and the impure experience associated with it. Thus once again the author emphasises that the three-fold corrupt modifications, though started by the operation of Karmic materials as nimitta kāraņa, are still due to the empirical Self as upādāna kāraṇa.

Page #207

78
SAMAYASĀRÁ जं कुदि भावमादा कत्ता सो होदि तस्स भावस्स ।
कम्मत्तं परिणमदे तम्हि सयं पोग्गलं दव्वं ॥४१॥ jam kunadi bhāvamādā kattā so hodi tassa bhāvassa kammattam pariņumade tamhi sayam poggalam davvam (91)
यं करोति भावमात्मा कर्ता स भवति तस्य भावस्य ।
कर्मत्वं परिणमते तस्मिन् स्वयं पुद्गलं द्रव्यम् ॥९१॥ 91. Whatever impure modifications the Self engenders (by relinquishing his own pure nature) to those modifications he becomes the Kartā or the agent. These impure psychic modifications operating as instrumental cause, matter assumes of its own accord the corresponding Karmic modifications.
COMMENTARY Thus it is emphasised that Atmā or Self is only an instrumental cause, nimitta Kārana and not substantive cause, upādāna Kāraṇa, of the various material Karmas
परमप्पाणं कुन्वदि अप्पाणं पिय परं करंतो सो ।
अण्णाणमओ जीवो कम्माणं कारगो होदि ।।१२।। paramappāņam kuvvadi appāņañ piya paraṁ karantoso Annāņamao jīvo kammāņam kārago hodi (92)
परमात्मानं कुर्वन्नात्मानमपि च परं कुर्वन् सः ।
अज्ञानमयो जीवः कर्मणां कारको भवति ॥९२॥ 92. That ignorant Self which makes non-self, Self, and the Self non-self, becomes Kartā or causal agent of those various Karmas.
COMMENTARY The Self ignorant of his true nature is incapable of differentiating himself from the external objects. He readily assumes the qualities of the external objects and equally transfers his own attributes to the external objects. On account of this transposition of attributes or adhyāsa, the Self puts on the qualities which really belong to matter. For example the temperature variation of the environment of being hot and cold is transferred to himself by an ordinary man who will say I am hot or I am cold. Similarly the feelings of affection and hatred are attributes relating to Karmic matter and yet the ignorant ego will feel identical with these attributes and say, “I desire," "I

Page #208

79
hate," "I am angry, etc." Thus vitiated by ignorance the Self figures as the Kartā or the agent in relation to the various alien characteristics.
CHAPTER III
परमप्पाणमकुव्वी अप्पाणं पिय परं अकुव्वतो ।
सो णाणमओ जीवो कम्माणमकारगो होदि ॥९३॥ paramappanamakuvvī appāņam piya param akuvvanto so ṇāņamao jivo kammāṇamakārago hodi (93) परमात्मानमकुर्वन्नात्मानमपि च परमकुर्वन् ।
स ज्ञानमयो जीवः कर्मणामकारको भवति ॥९३॥
93. That knowing Self which does not make non-self, Self and the Self, non-self, does not become the Kartā or causal agent of those various Karmas.
COMMENTARY
This gatha emphasises the importance of discriminative knowledge. Realisation of the true characteristics of the Self as different from those of non-self, results from the disappearance of ajñāna. That is identical with samyak jñāna or Right knowledge, and this samyak jñāna or Right knowledge leads to mokṣa or liberation of the Self. In short ajñāna, is said to be the cause of bondage, and samyak jñāna, the cause of mokşa.
fafat gain erqfaqui adfa atatż i कत्ता तस्सुभगस्स होदि सो अतभावस्स ॥ ६४॥ tiviho esuvaogo appaviyappam karedi kodhoham kattā tassuvaogassa hodi so attabhāvassa (94)
त्रिविध एष उपयोग आत्मविकल्पं करोति क्रोधोऽहं । कर्त्ता तस्योपयोगस्य भवति स आत्मभावस्य ॥ ९४ ॥
94. Thus the Self whose nature is upayoga, manifests (as conditioned by corresponding Karmic pratyayas) in three different impure forms (of wrong faith, wrong knowledge, and wrong conduct) produces false identity (of Self with impure emotions) such as 'I am angry'. He becomes the upādāna kartā or the causal agency for those impure experiences of that empirical ego.

COMMENTARY
This statement is equally applicable to the other grosser emotions as pride, delusion, etc,

Page #209

80
SAMAYASARA
fafaat gyam qfqqcq atfa gratât | कत्ता तस्सुवओगस्स होदि सो अत्तभावस्स ॥ ६५ ॥ tiviho esuvaogo appaviyappam karedi dhammādi katta tassuvaogassa hodi so attabhāvassa (95) त्रिविध एष उपयोग आत्मविकल्पं करोति धर्मादिकं । कर्त्ता तस्योपयोगस्य भवति स आत्मभावस्य ॥ ९५ ॥
95. Thus the Self whose nature is upayoga, manifests (as conditioned by corresponding Karmic pratyayas) in three different impure froms (of wrong faith, wrong knowledge, and wrong conduct) produces false identity (of Self with external objects) such as 'I am dharmästikāyk (principle of motion)" He becomes the upadana karta or the causal agency for those impure experiences of that empirical ego.
COMMENTARY
The Self, on account of ignorance, imagines himself to be identical with alien characteristics which may be of two kinds, 1. internal relating to empirical consciousness, 2. external relating to the objective world. The Self, forgetting his pure nature may identify himself with either of these groups. The previous gāthā describes the false identity of the Self with the inner impure and other psychic states relating to the empirical consciousness. This gatha refers to the relation of the Self to the external world of things and persons. The external world according to Jaina metaphysics consists of other jivas, pudgala, dharma, adharma, ākāsa, and kāla. Jiva and pudgala, Soul and Matter, being the chief actors in the drama, their various alliances have been already dealt with in their different aspects. Hence the author uses the word dharmadi, dharma, etc., merely to indicate the objective world as distinguished from the subject or the ego. A glance at the Upanisadic literature will provide a sufficiently large number of illustrations of identifying the Self erroneously with the external objects and persons. There the Atma and the Brahma are used synonymously and this Atma or Brahma is identified with ākāśa or space, kāla or time. Sometimes it may be identified with the Sun and the Moon and the rest of the bhutas such as Earth, Air, Fire and Water. Such false identifications of Atma with non-Atma was prevalent and in

Page #210

CHAPTER III abundance in the Upanișadic period. Evidently the author is thinking of such metaphysical doctrines when he speaks of the Self identifying with dharmādi. Sankara who appears in the field several. centuries later adopts exactly a similar attitude and condemns such identification as examples of adhyāsa* or erroneous transposition of attributes.
One other point we have to note here which is of epistemological interest is the relation of the Knower to the object of knowledge. According to Jaina theory, though the object known is related to the Knower, still it is entirely independent and self-subsistent. Its nature can by no means be interfered with. The idealistic systems both in India and Europe maintain that the object of knowledge is not only known by the agent, but is also constructed by the knowing agent in the act of knowing. Thus the object of knowledge is practically derived from the creative activity of the knowing agent. The knowing Self or ego is thus credited with the capacity of producing the external world out of itself in the process of knowing. Such an idealistic monism is incompatible with Jaina metaphysics. Probably the author was thinking of this erroneous metaphysical doctrine when he condemned the false Identity of the Self with the external objects.
एवं पराणि दव्वाणि अप्पयं कुणदि मंदबुद्धीओ।
अप्पाणं अवि य परं करेदि अण्णाणभावेण ॥९६॥ evam parāņi davvāni appayam kunadi mamdabuddhio appaņam avi ya paraṁ karedi annāṇabhāveņa (96)
एवं पराणि द्रव्याणि आत्मानं करोति मन्दबुद्धिस्तु ।।
आत्मानमपि च परं करोति अज्ञानभावेन ॥९६॥ 96. Thus a person of dull intellect (bahirātman) takes alien things to be Self and through sheer ignorance takes the Self also to be alien things.
*The tern Adhyāsa is first used by Amộtacandra, the Comentator of Samaysara. This term is not found in the 'upanişads but is adopted by · Sankara in his Bhāşya.
प्रिज्ञानान्मृगतृष्णिकां जलधिया धावंति पातु मृगा अज्ञानात्तमसि द्रवंति भुजगाध्यासेन रज्जो जनाः।
11

Page #211

SAMAYASARA
COMMENTARY
The Self out of ignorance, not realising its own pure nature, may identify itself either with the impure emotions and ideas of inner consciousness or with the external objects of knowledge. In both these cases the ignorant Self figures as the agent. It may either imagine that anger, love, fear, etc., are its own attributes or that the external things such as dharma, etc. are of its own nature. The commentators explain both these erroneous beliefs through illustrations. A possessed person identifies himself with the spirit possessing him and behaves exactly as if that spirit is acting. He is able to carry out certain extraordinary deeds such as carrying a heavy stone or a heavy log of timber through the influence of the spirit and yet he thinks that he performs all these deeds. Anger, fear, affection, etc. are all emotions due to alien influence and yet an ignorant person takes these to be his own just as a possessed individual imagines himself to be the agent of the extraordinary feats of strength exhibited by him. Secondly a person concentrating his attention upon an object of thought very intensely may end in identifying himself with that object. On account of the intensity of concentration on the object, he may forget to notice the difference between the Self attending to and the object attended to. He may cry in illusory joy, 'I am that object' 'I am Mahāmahișa; the great and powerful animal (Buffalo) 'I am Garuda, the king of Birds; I am Kāmadeva, the god of Love; I am Agni, the fire (evidently taken from Vedic mantras).' This false identification of the Knower and the object known as the result of intense concentration is given as an illustration for the ignorant identification of the Self with the external categories such as space, time, dharma, adharma, etc. Both these notions of identity are condemned as erroneous, since they are alien to the pure nature of the Self.
एदेण दु सो कत्ता आदा णिच्छयविहि परिकहिदो।
एवं खलु जो जाणदि सो मुंचदि सव्वकत्तित्तं ॥१७॥ edeņa du so kattā ādā Ņicchayavidūhim parikahido evam khalu jo jāņadi so mumcadi savvakattittań (97)

Page #212

89
CHAPTER II एतेन तु स कर्त्तात्मा निश्चयविद्भिः परिकथितः ।
एवं खलु यो जानाति सः मुञ्चति सर्वकर्तृत्वम् ॥९७॥ 97. The Self on account of ignorance, figures as the agent of the various karmas. Thus it is declared by the knowers of reality. Whoever realises this truth gives up all causal agency (relating to alien things).
COMMENTARY
This gātha emphasises that it is ignorance which is the cause of making the Self kartā, an agent causing all alien characteristics and, conversely, it is knowledge that leads to complete severance of the Self from alien activities and attributes.
Thus from the real point of view after denying that the Self is the kartā of alien states, the author next asserts that it can be so from the vyavahāra point of view.
ववहारेण दु आदा करेदि घडपडरहादिवब्वाणि ।
करणाणि य कम्माणि य गोकम्माणीह विविहाणि ॥९८॥ vavahāreņa du ādā karedi ghadapadarahādidavvāņi karanāni ya kammāni ya nokamnantha vivihāni (98)
व्यवहारेण त्वात्मा करोति घटपटरथादिद्रव्याणि ।
करणानि च कर्माणि च नोकर्माणीह विविधानि ॥९८॥ 98. From the vyavahāra point of view, the Self constructs external objects such as a pot, a cloth, and a chariot.' In the same manner he builds within himself the various types of senseorgans, karmic materials and (body-building) non-karmic materials.
COMMENTARY
The Self in reality neither constructs any external objects nor produces internal modifications. The belief that he does so is associated with the ordinary man who thinks so from the vyavahāra point of view.
'जदि सो परदव्वाणि य करिन णियमेण तम्मओ होज्न । जम्हा ण तम्मओ तेण सो ण तेंसि हवदि कत्ता ||९

Page #213

84
ŠAMAYASÁRA jadi so paradavvāņi ya karijja niyameņa tammao hojja jamhā ņa tammao tena so na tesiñ havadi kattā (99)
यदि स परद्रव्याणि च कुर्यान्नियमेन तन्मयो भवेत् ।
यस्मान्न तन्मयस्तेन स न तेषां भवति कर्ता ॥९९॥ 99. If the Self were in reality the producer (as upādāna karta or substantive cause) of those alien substances, then he must be of the same nature; as it is not so, he cannot be their author.
COMMENTARY Jiva and pudgala, Self and matter are two distinct substances, so different in nature that one cannot be derived from the ot as a result of manifestations. If the karmic matter could be obtained as a result of the manifestations of jīva, then there must be complete identity between the evolving entity and the evolved product. Since it is not so in this case, the relation of causal manifestations cannot be predicated between jīva and pudgala. Thus it is denied that the Self can be the upādāna kartā or substantive cause of material things.
In the next gāthā it is pointed out that he cannot be even the immediate instrumental cause of material things.
जीवो ण करेदि घडं णेव पडं णेव सेसगे दवे ।
जोगुवओगा उप्पादगा य सो तेसि हवदि कत्ता ॥१००।। jīvo ņa karedi ghadam neva padam ņeva sesage davve joguvaogā uppādagā ya so tesim havadi kattä (100)
जीवो न करोति घटं नैव पटं नैव शेषकानि द्रव्याणि ।
योगोपयोगावुत्पादकों च तयोर्भवति कर्ता ॥१०॥ 100. The Self (even as an instrumental cause or nimitta kartā) does not directly make a pot, nor cloth, nor other things; they are produced by yoga and upayoga (operating as nimitta kartā or instrumental cause) of which he is the cause.
COMMENTARY The term yoga is used to denote bodily activity and upàyoga mental activity. In a former gātha the Self was described as the maker of a pot, cloth, etc. from the vyavahāra point of view. Even this position is rejected here. The Self has no direct

Page #214

CHAPTER III
85
reation to the pot or the cloth. The potter or the weaver or the carpenter must use his hands for making a pot, a cloth, or a chariot and must make use of his mind for constructing designs before executing them. Thus the external objects are the direct result of the bodily and mental activity of the maker. Hence what makes the pot or the cloth is not the spiritual entity, the Self. The Self is directly related to the bodily and mental activities, yoga and upayoga, which in their turn are able to make external objects operating as nimitta kartā, instrumental cause.
hus it is pointed out that the Self cannot even be the nimitta kartā of external objects except through the instrumentality of his own body and mind.
जे पोग्गलदव्वाणं परिणामा होति णाणआवरणा । ण करेदि पाणि आदा जो जाणदि सो हदि णाणी ॥१०१॥ je poggaladavräņam pariņāmā homti ņāņa āvaraņā ņa karedi tāņi ādā jo jāņadi so havadi nāni (101) ये पुद्गलद्रव्याणां परिणामा भवन्ति ज्ञानावरणानि ।
न करोति तान्यात्मा यो जानाति स भवति ज्ञानी ॥१०१॥
101. Those material modifications which become jñānāvaraņa, knowledge-obscuring karma, the Self does not make. He who knows this is the Knower.
COMMENTARY Jñānāvaraņa, the knowledge-obscuring karma, is here taken as a type of karma. What is true of this karma, must be taken as true in the case of the remaining karmas also. What is asserted here is that the knowledge-obscuring karma, jñānāvarana karma, is but modification of the material particles which are suitable to build up the structure of karma. Such particles of matter are called karma-prayogya-pudgala-paramānus—the primary atoms fit to make the karmic particles. Thus the various karmas are but the modifications of matter of which the Self, the Knower, Cannot in any way be the substantive cause. For example milk may get transformed into curd, butter etc. The person who supervises the dairy operations is only the spectator of the various modifications of milk. Similarly, the Self is only

Page #215

86
SAMAYASÁRA
a spectator of the various processes by which the material particles get transformed into karmic particles. One who knows these material changes and the nature of the pure Self, who is only a spectator of these changes is the real Jñāni, the Knower par excellence.
जं भावं सुहमसुहं करेदि आदा स तस्स खलु कत्ता । तं तस्स होदि कम्मं सो तस्स दु वेदगो अप्पा ॥१०२॥ jam bhāvaṁ suhamasuhan karedi ādā sa tassa khalu kattā tam tassa hodi kammam so tassa du vedago appa (102) यं भावं शुभमशुभं करोत्यात्मा स तस्य खलु कर्ता ।
तत्तस्य भवति कर्म स तस्य तु वेदक जात्मा ॥१०२॥
102. Of whatever psychic disposition, good or bad, the Self is produced he is certainly the (substantive) cause. That disposition becomes his karma or action and the Self enjoys the fruits thereof.
COMMENTARY
Psychic disposition or bhāva is of three kinds. śubha bhāva, aśubha bhāva, and suddha bhāva, good disposition, bad disposition, and pure desposition beyond good and evil. The first two are the characteristics of the empirical Self which is subject to karmic bondage, and the third refers to the Self in his pristine purity. Subha bhāva is associated with virtuous conduct or punya, and aśubha bhāva is associated with evil or papa. The former may lead to happiness and the latter to misery. The third being beyond good and evil, transcends the worldly pleasure or pain and implies eternal bliss, characteristic of the transcendental Self. The psychic disposition both good and evil are modifications in the empirical Self, according to its ethical nature. Whether the Self be good or bad, it can only manifest in corresponding psychic dispositions and have nothing to do with karmic material modifications.
The author next explains the reasons why the Self cannot be the causal agent producing modifications in alien things.
जो जझि गुणो दव्वे सो अण्णम्हि दुण संकमदि दवे । सो भण्णमसंकंतो कह तं परिणामए दव्वं ॥१३॥

Page #216

87
CHAPTER III jo jamhi guno davve so anņamhi du na saṁkamadi davve so annamasainkamto kaha tam pariņamae davvam (103) यो यस्मिन् गुणो द्रव्ये सोऽन्यस्मिस्तु न संक्रामति द्रव्ये । सोऽन्यदसंकान्तः कथं तत्परिणामयति द्रव्यम् ॥१०३॥
103. Whatever be the essential quality of a particular substance it cannot be transported to another substance of a different nature. Thus being non-transportable, how can the quality of one substance manifest as the quality of another substance ?
COMMENTARY Jaina metaphysics recognises various dravyas or substances each with its own proper guņas or qualities. Thus jīva, the Self has its peculiar quality of cetana, and pudgala or matter its own quality acetana. The former is conscious and the latter is nonconscious. Similarly with the other dravyas. Since the quality of a substance is the result of the manifestations of the intrinsic nature of that substance neither the quality nor the substance can be separated from each other. Since the dravya and its guna are so inseparably united the guna of one dravya cannot be transferred to another dravya. Thus the gunas are nontransferrable, and the dravyas are non-transmutable. Thus the cetana dravya, the Self, cannot manifest as acetana dravya or matter. Conversely matter cannot manifest as Self.
दव्वगुणस्स य आदा ण कुणदि पोग्गलमयम्हि कम्मम्हि । तं उभयमकुव्वंतो तम्हि कहं तस्स सो कत्ता ॥१०४॥ davvagunassa ya āda na kuņadi poggalamayamhi kammamhi tam ubhayamakuvvañto tamhi kaham tassa so kattā (104) द्रव्यगुणस्य च आत्मा न करोति पुद्गलमयानि कर्माणि ।
तदुभयमकुर्वस्तस्मिन् कथं तस्य स कर्ता ॥१०४॥
104. The Self does not influence the substance or the attributes of karma which are of material nature. Thus being incapable of influencing these two (aspects) of karmas, how can he be their upādana kartā (substantive causal agent).
COMMENTARY The clay out of which a pot is made has its distinct quality. The potter in making the pot, makes use of this substance with

Page #217

SAMAYASARA
making the pot, he cannot be said to manifest He is not the karta in that sense, though he makes the pot. He being a conscious spiritual entity, can in no way become acetana material pot. Similary the Self, being a cetana entity cannot manifest into karmic forms of material nature. He is not the karta nor the causal agent producing those karmas. This indirectly refutes the metaphysical doctrine which derives the whole of the physical universe, as a manifestation of Paramātmā or Brahma, who is by nature a pure cetana dravya.
88
its own quality. In in the form of pot.
Hafız èyè daca a afeazy afzo14 1
जीवेण कदं कम्मं भण्णदि उवयारमत्तेण ॥ १०५ ॥
jivamhi hedubhūde bamdhassa ya passidūņa pariņāmaṁ jivena kadam kammam bhannadi uvayaramatteņa (105)

जीवे हेतुभूते बन्धस्य च दृष्ट्वा परिणामम् ।
वेन कृतं कर्म भण्यते उपचारमात्रेण ॥ १०५ ॥
105. When it is perceived that while the Self remains as the ground, the modification of karmic bondage appears (as consequence), it is figuratively said that the karmas are produced by the Self.
COMMENTARY
The presence of the Self is merely a nimitta condition which produces in the karmic materials the various modifications of karma such as jñānāvaraniya, darśanavaniya, etc. Noticing this relation, the popular mind describes by a figure of speech that the Self is the karta or the agent of those karmic modifications. The commentators give an illustration. The presence of the sun in a particular position with reference to clouds may result in the formation of rainbow. This rainbow is associated with the clouds, though its appearance is consequent upon the sun remaining in a particular position. Similarly the presence of the Self results in modification of several karmas out of karmic materials present therein. In both the cases the causal agency
is only figuratively true.

Page #218

CHAPTER III
89
The author emphasises the same point by citing a popular illustration,
जोधेहि कदे जुद्धे राएण कदं ति जप्पदे लोगो।
तह ववहारेण कदं णाणावरणादि जीवेण ॥१०६॥ jodehim kade juddhe rāeņa kadam ti jappade logo taha vavahāreņa kadam ņāņāvaraņādi jiveņa (106)
योधैः कृते युद्ध राज्ञा कृतमिति जल्पते लोकः ।
तथा व्यवहारेण कृतं ज्ञानावरणादि जीवेन ॥१०६॥ 106. When a war is waged by warriors, ordinary people say that the king is engaged in war, from the practical point of view Similarly jñānāvaranīya, etc., is said to be produced by the jīva or Self.
COMMENTARY Karmas like jñānāvaranīya are the result of the operations of karmic materials. The Self or ātmā is not directly responsible for these operations and yet he is spoken of as the causal agent producing these karmas. This statement is purely from the practical standpoint, and hence it should not be taken to be true from the absolute point of view. The practical point of view is explained by a simile which is obvious.
उप्पादेदि करेदि य बंधदि परिणामएदि गिण्हदि य ।
आदा पोग्गल दव्वं ववहारणयस्स वत्तव्वं ॥१०७॥ uppadedi karedi ya bandhadi pariņāmaedi ginhadi ya ādā poggaladavvam vavahāraṇayassa vattavvam (107)
उत्पादयति करोति च बध्नाति परिणमयति गृह्णाति च ।
आत्मा पुद्गलद्रव्यं व्यवहारनयस्य वक्तव्यम् ॥१०७॥ 107. It is stated from the practical point of view that the Self produces, shapes, binds, causes to modify, and assimilates (karmic) matter.
COMMENTARY
Utpadayati implies the different formations of the different types of karmic matter out of the material particles suitable to such formations.
12

Page #219

SAMAYASĀRA
Karoti implies the shaping of these types in different intensity:
Badhnāti implies determining the duration of bondage and their capacity to produce pleasure-pain experience.
Pariņāmayti implies modifications in their nature on account of which they may appear and produce effects or get withered after having produced the results.
Gịhņāti implies the process of attraction through which the karmic materials are assimilated so as to fill the whole of the Self. The Self himself being pure is not responsible for any of these operations and yet he is credited with these activities only from the practical point of view.
जह राया ववहारा दोसगुणुप्पादगो त्ति आलविदो ।
तह जीवो ववहारा दव्वगुणुप्पादगो भणिदो ॥१०८॥ jaha rāyā vavahārā dosagunuppādago tti alavido taha jīvo vavahārā dauvaguņuppadago bhaạido (108)
यथा राना व्यवहाराद्दोषगुणोत्पादक इत्यालपितः ।
तथा जीवो व्यवहाराद् द्रव्यगुणोत्पादको भणितः ॥१०८॥ 108. As a king is said to be, from the practical point of view, the producer of vice or virtue (in his subjects), so also from the practical point of view, the Self is said to be the producer of karmic material and their properties.
COMMENTARY Punya or pāpa, virtue or vice, are considered to be different material modifications of karmic matter. Though they correspond to the normal characteristics of the individual still they cannot be considered to be produced by the Self, since the Self being a cetana entity connot produce acetana karmic material forms. If he is spoken of as a causal agent it is only metaphorically true.
सामण्णपच्चया खलु चउरो भण्णंति बंधकत्तारो।
मिच्छत्तं अविरमणं कसायजोगा य बोद्धव्वा ॥१०॥ samannapaccaya khalu cauro bhannamti bamdhakattāro micchattaṁ aviramaņaṁ kasāyajogā ya boddhavvā (109)
सामान्यप्रत्ययाः खलु चत्वारो भण्यन्ते बन्धकर्तारः । मिथ्यात्वमविरमणं कषाययोगौ च बोद्धव्याः ॥१०६॥

Page #220

CHAPTER III
91
__109. The general karmic conditions, pratyayas are primarily four in number. They are said to be the immediate agents bringing about karmic bondage. These must be understood to be wrong belief, non-discipline, gross emotions, and yoga or psycho-physical structure, conditioning the activity of thought, word, and deed.
तेसि पुणोवि य इमो भणिदो भेदो दु तेरसवियप्पो। मिच्छादिट्ठी आदी जाव सजोगिस्स चरमंतं ॥११०॥ tesim punovi ya imo bhaạido bhedo du terasaviyappo micchāditthi adi java sajogissa caramamtam (110) तेषां पुनरपि चायं भणितो भेदस्तु त्रयोदशविकल्पः । मिथ्यादृष्ट्यादिर्यावत्सयोगिनश्चरमान्तः ॥११०॥
110. Of these pratyayas, thirteen further subdivisions of secondary conditions (based upon äsravas) are mentioned, which are the various gunasthānas (stages of spiritual development) beginning from mithyādīšți or wrong believer, and ending with sayogi kevali (the perfect being still with yoga or psycho-physical structure) conditioning the activity of thought, word and deed.
एदे अचेदणा खलु पोग्गलकम्मुदयसंभवा जम्हा । ते जदि करंति कम्मं णवि तेसि वेदगो आदा ॥१११॥ ede acedaņā khalu poggalakammudayasambhavā jamhā te jadi karamti kammam navi tesim vedago ada (111) एते अचेतनाः खलु पुद्गलकर्मोदयसंभवा यस्मात् ।
ते यदि कुर्वन्ति कर्म नापि तेषां वेदक आत्मा ॥१११॥
111. These stages (brought about by uttara pratyayas or subsidiary conditions) are really acetana, non-conscious, because they are brought about by the manifestation of material karmas; if really they are the immediate causal conditions producing the karmas, then the Self cannot enjoy their fruits.
गुणसण्णिदा दु एदे कम्मं कुव्वंति पच्चया जम्हा । तम्हा जीवोऽकत्ता गुणा य कुव्वंति कम्माणि ॥११२॥ gumasaņņidā du ede kamman kuvvasti paccayā jamhā tamha jtvoakatta guna ya kuvvamti kammani (112) गुणसंज्ञितास्तु एते कर्म कुर्वन्ति प्रत्यया यस्मात् । तस्माज्नीवोऽकर्ता गुणाश्च कुर्वन्ति कर्माणि ॥११२॥

Page #221

SAMAYASĀRA 112. Because these conditions called gunasthānas produce karmas, therefore the Self is not their author. Only the conditions called guṇasthānas produce the karmas.
COMMENTARY
The conditions which bring about bondage are of two kinds: mūlapratyaya or primary conditions, and uttarapratyaya or secondary conditions. The former is of four sorts and the latter of thirteen as enumerated above. The pratyayas or conditions are material in nature, and hence acetana, non-conscious. They are mainly responsible for the various karmic modifications. Hence they constitute the kartā of the various karmas, and not the Self. Thus the Self, being in no way the causal agent of the karmas, cannot be spoken of as the bhoktā or the enjoyer of the fruits thereof. Thus these pratyayas are said to be the immediate cause of the karmic modifications. Though the pure Self is not in any way responsible for these karmic modifications, the impure Self in samsāra may be said to be the remote causal agent of these karmas. Thus from the absolute point of view, the pure Self is neither kartā nor bhoktā, neither the actor nor the enjoyer, whereas the impure empirical Self is both karta and bhoktā, doer and the enjoyer. Thus the Sārnkhya conception of puruşa, that he is only the enjoyer and not the doer of karmas, is rejected here. He who enjoys the karmas must also be its agent. If he is not the one, he cannot be the other. In his pure nature, the Self has neither aspects but in his impure form he has both the aspects.
Next the author states that jīva and pratyayas, the Self and karmic conditions are not absolutely identical.
. जह जीवस्स अणण्णुवओगो कोहो वि तह जदि अणण्णो ।
जीवस्साजीवस्स य एवमणण्णत्तमावण्णं ॥११३॥ jaha jivassa anannuvaogo koho vi taha jadi ananạo jīvassājīvassa ya evamanaạnattamāvannam (113) यथा जीवस्यानन्य उपयोगः क्रोधोऽपि तथा यद्यनन्यः ।
जीवस्याजीवस्य चैवमनन्यत्वमापन्नम् ॥११३॥
113. If anger is non-different from the Self, just as upayoga, then it must result in the identity of the Self with the non-self.

Page #222

CHAPTER III
एवमिह जोदु जीवो सो चेव दु नियमदो तहा जीवो । अयमेयत्ते दोसो पच्चयणोकम्मकम्माणं ॥११४॥
evamiha jodu jivo so ceva du niyamado taha jivo ayameyatte do so paccayanokammāņaṁ (114) एवमिह यस्तु जीवः स चैव तु नियमतस्तथाजीवः । अयमेकत्वे दोषः प्रत्ययनो कर्मकर्मणाम् ॥ ११४॥
114. If the pratyayas or the karmic conditions, karmas (karmic modifications) and non-karmas (body building material particles) are identified with the Self (in an unqualified form) it will lead to the erroneous .conclusion that whatever is Self is in reality non-self.
अह पुण अण्णो कोहो अण्णुवओगप्पगो हवदि चेदा ।
जह कोहो तह पच्च कम्मं णोकम्ममवि अण्णं ॥ ११५ ॥
aha puna anno koho annuvaogappago havadi ceda jaha koho taha paccaya kammam nokammamavi annam (115) अथ पुनः अन्यः क्रोधोऽन्य उपयोगात्मको भवति चेतयिता ।
यथा क्रोधस्तथा प्रत्ययाः कर्म नोकर्माप्यन्यत् ॥ ११५ ॥
115.

93
And if (you agree that) anger is one thing and the conscious Self is entirely a different one, then like anger, the pratyayas (or conditions), karmas (karmic modifications), and non-karmas (body-building material particles) must also be admitted to be different (from the conscious Self).
COMMENTARY
The intrinsic attribute of the Self is upayoga, cognitive activity. This intrinsic quality is therefore inseparable from the ātmā or the Self. But this Self loses its nature when it is in association with the acetana matter in samsara. As a result of this combination, several psycho-physical modifications appear. Anger is one such modification. Since it is the result of association with matter, it is said to retain the attributes of its origin of being non-conscious. This non-conscious experience of the emotion of anger must be entirely distinct from the pure Self characterised by upayoga. Without noticing this fundamental difference, if anger or krodha is elevated to the privileged position of upayoga and is considered as an intrinsic attribute of

Page #223

94
SAMAYASÁRA
the Self, then the Self will be endowed with an acetana attribute and fundamental distinction between jīva and ajīva will vanish and with that jīva itself will disappear. In order to avoid such an inconvenient conclusion of denying the existence of the Self altogether if you hold that krodha or anger is entirely distinct from jīva, then you must consistently maintain a similar attitude with regard to the other material modifications such as pratyayas, karmas and non-karmas, since there is no difference in nature between these and krodha. If krodha and pratyaya are absolutely different from the Self then there could be no possibility of association of the Self with upādhis. Therefore the author emphasises here that the karmic upādhis and the impure psychic states generated thereby are only partially different from the Self (and not absolutely).
Next the author points out what absurdity would result from maintaining that pratyayas, etc. are absolutely different from jīva.
जीवे ण सयं बद्धं ण सयं परिणमदि कम्मभावेण । जदि पोग्गलदम्वमिणं अप्परिणामी तदा होदि ॥११६॥ jīve na sayam baddhań na sayaṁ pariņamadi kammabhāveņa jadi poggaladavvamiņas appariņāmi tada hodi (116) जीवे न स्वयं बद्धं न स्वयं परिणमते कर्मभावेन ।
यदि पुद्गलद्रव्यमिदमपरिणामि तदा भवति ॥११६॥
116. If matter, in the form of karmas, is not of its own accord bound with the Self, nor of itself evolves into modes of karma, then it becomes immutable,
कम्मइयवग्गणासु य अपरिणमंतीसु कम्मभावेण । संसारस्स अभावो पसज्जदे संखसमओ वा ॥११७॥ kammaiyavagganāsu ya apariņamamtīsu kammabhāveņa samsārassa abhāvo pasajjade saskhasamao va (117) कार्मणवर्गणासु चापरिणममानासु कर्मभावेन ।
संसारस्याभावः प्रसनति सांख्यसमयो वा ॥११७॥
117. If the primary karmic molecules do not transform themselves into various karmic modes (associated with jīva) then

Page #224

CHAPTER III
95
it will lead to the non-existence of saṁsāra as in the case of the Samkhya system.
जीवो परिणामयदे पोग्गलदव्वाणि कम्मभावेण ।
ते समयपरिणमंते कहं णु परिणामयदि चेदा ॥११८॥ jivo pariņāmayade poggaladavvāni kammabhāveņa te samayaparinamamte kaham nu parināmayadi ceda (118)
जीवः परिणामयति पुद्गलद्रव्याणि कर्मभावेन ।
तानि स्वयमपरिणममानानि कथं नु परिणामयति चेतयिता ॥११८॥ 118. If you maintain that it is the Self that transforms the primary karmic molecules into various karmic modes, then how is it possible for the Self who is a cetana entity to cause transformation in a thing which is by nature non-transformable.
अह सयमेव हि परिणमदि कम्मभावण पोग्गलं दव्वं ।
जीवो परिणामयदे कम्मं कम्मतमिदि मिच्छा ॥११६।। aha sayameva hi pariņamadi kammabhāvena poggalam davvam jivo parināmayade kammam kammaintamidi micchā (119)
अथ स्वयमेव हि परिणमते कर्मभावेन पुद्गलत्वद्रव्यम् ।
जीवः परिणामयति कर्म कर्मत्वमिति मिथ्या ॥११९॥ 119. Then it follows that matter of its own accord transforms itself into various modes of karmas. Hence it is false to maintain that jīva causes this transformation into karmic modes.
णियमा कम्मपरिणदं कम्मं चि य होदि पोग्गलं दव्वं ।
तह तं णाणावरणाइपरिणदं मुणतु तच्चेव ॥१२०॥ niyamā kammaparinadam kammam ci ya hodi poggalam davvam taha tam nāņāvaraņāipariņadam munatu tacceva (120)
नियमात् कर्मपरिणतं कर्म चैव भवति पुदगलं द्रव्यम् ।
तथा तज्ज्ञानावरणादिपरिणतं नानीत तच्चैव ।।१२०॥ 120. The primary karmic molecules which undergo transformation as various karmic modes are in reality material in nature. Know ye, then that the karmic modifications such as jñāņāvaraṇīya knowledge-obscuring karmas, etc, are also of similar nature.

Page #225

96
SAMAYASARA
COMMENTARY
Samsara or concrete life implies embodied nature of the Self. This embodied existence of the empirical Self is primarily due to the association with karmic matter. This association with karmic matter is present through the career of the empirical Self. This karmic material which is associated with the Self throughout its samsaric life is made up of minute material particles. These minute material particles must constitute various types of material aggregates or types of karma. These various types or modes of karma get inextricably bound with the nature of the Self and this intimate association of Self with matter is called karmic bondage. These two processes of forming karmic aggregates from primary karmic molecules, and these aggregates binding themselves with the Self, are entirely the result of the manifestation of karmic molecules. If this tendency of matter to manifest itself into karmic modes is denied then there will be no karmas. When there are no karmas there is no karmic bondage and when there is no karmic bondage, the Self must remain pure and unsullied as in the case of the puruşa in the Samkhya philosophy. If the Self remains perfectly pure in himself, there is no chance for his embodied existence and no scope for saṁsāra. This is absurd as it is contrary to Our experience. If in order to avoid this inconvenient conclusion, it is maintained that the Self by his own intrinsic potency, produces the transformation of karma types from primary material molecules and ties himself to these types of his own accord, then this leads to an equally impossible position. Matter itself being incapable of transformation cannot be forcibly made to undergo transformation by any alien influence. Hence it must be maintained that matter by nature is capable of transformation and it is this process of transformation which matter undergoes that results in the formation of various types of karmas such as jñānavaraṇīya.
Thus in order to refute the Samkhya point of view, the tendency to manifest is predicated of matter. Similarly the same attribute is said to be true of the Self in the following gāthās,

Page #226

CHAPTER III
97
ण सयं बद्धो कम्मे ण सयं परिणमदि कोहमादीहि । जदि एस तुझ जीवो अप्परिणामी तदा होदि ॥१२१॥ ņa sayam baddho kam me na sayam pariņamadi kohamādīhiń jadi esa tujjha jīvo appariņāmi tadā hodi (121) न स्वयं बद्धः कर्मणि न स्वयं परिणमते क्रोधादिभिः । यद्येषः तव जीवोऽपरिणामी तदा भवति ॥१२१॥
121. If according to your view the Self by himself is not bound by karmas and does not have emotional modifications such as anger, etc., then he must by nature remain non-manifesting.
The next gātha says what is wrong if the Self remains incapable of manifestation.
अपरिणमंतेहि सयं जीवे कोहादिएहि भावेहि । संसारस्स अभावो पसज्जदे संखसमओ वा ।।१२२॥ aparinamartchi sayam jive kohādiehi bhāvehim sariesārassa abhāvo pasajjade samkhasamao vā (122) अपरिणममाने हि स्वयं जीवे क्रोधादिभिः भावैः । संसारस्याभावः प्रसजति सांख्यसमयो वा ॥१२२॥
122. If the Self does not of his own accord undergo emotional modifications such as anger, then empirical life or samsāra vill cease to be. This would result in the Sāṁkhya view.
पोग्गलकम्म कोहो जीवं परिणामएदि कोहत्तं ।। तं सयमपरिणमंतं कहं णु परिणामयदि कोहो ॥१२३॥ poggalakammam koho jīvam pariņāmaedi kohattam Tain sayamapariņamamtam kaham nu pariņāmayadi koho (123) पुद्गलकर्म क्रोधो जीवं परिणामयति क्रोधत्वम् ।
तं स्वयमपरिणमन्तं कथं नु परिणामयति क्रोधः ॥१२३॥
123. If you maintain that it is karmic matter, by its own potency, that causes in the Self emotional modifications such as anger, then how is it possible for matter to produce any modification in the Self which is by nature incapable of manifestation.
अह सयमप्पा परिणमंदि कोहभावेण एस दे बुद्धी।
कोहो परिणामयदे जीवं कोहो तमिदि मिच्छा ॥१२४॥ 13

Page #227

98
SAMAYASĀRA
aha sayamappa pariņamadi kohabhāveņa esa de buddhi koho pariņāmayade jivan koho tamidi miccha (124) अथ स्वयमात्मा परिणमते क्रोधभावेन एषा तव बुद्धिः। क्रोधः परिणामयति नीवं क्रोधत्वमिति मिथ्या ॥१२४॥
124. If it is your belief that the Self, without any extraneous influence, undergoes emotional modifications such as anger, then Oh disciple! your statement, "karmic matter of anger produces in the Self the emotion of anger,” becomes false.
कोहुवजुत्तो कोहो माणुवजुत्तो य माणमेवादा । माउवजत्तो माया लोहुवजुत्तो हवदि लोहो ॥१२५॥ kohuvajutto koho māņuvajutto ya māṇamevādā māuvajutto māyā lohuvajutto havadi loho (125) क्रोधोपयुक्तः क्रोधो मानोपयुक्तश्च मान एवात्मा ।
मायोपयुक्तो माया लोभोपयुक्तो भवति लोभः ॥१२५॥
125. The Self in association with karmic material condition of anger, has the emotion of anger, of pride, has the emotion of pride; of deceipt, has the emotion of deceipt; of greed, has the emotion of greed.
COMMENTARY The argument employed in the case of matter that it is capable of modification is repeated in the case of jiva. If the Self is by himself incapable of karmic bondage and is incapable of emotional modification of anger, he must remain pure and unchanging like the Sāṁkhya puruşa. Hence there is no scope for saṁsāra. In order to avoid this conclusion, if matter is credited with potency to cause emotional modification in the Self, then this problem will remain unanswered. How can matter in any way produce changes in an alien entity, the Self, which is taken to be unchangeable in nature. Hence it must be accepted that the Self is capable of undergoing emotional modifications when influenced by karmic materials operating as nimitta condition.
जं कुणदि भावमादा कत्ता सो होदि तस्स भावस्स । णाणिस्स दुणाणमओ अण्णाणमओ अणाणिस्स ॥१२६॥ jas kuņadi bhāvamādā kattā so hodi tassa bhāvassa ņāņissa du ņāņamao aņņāṇamao aņāņissa (126)

Page #228

CHAPTER IT
99
यं करोति भावमात्मा कर्ता स भवति तस्य भावस्य ।
ज्ञानिनस्तु ज्ञानमयोऽज्ञानमयोऽज्ञानिनः ॥१२६॥
126. Into whatever mode the Self manifests himself, he is the upādāna karta substantial agent of that mode. If the manifesting agent is the Self with the right knowledge, then the corresponding mode will also be of the same nature, i. e. right knowledge. If the manifesting Self is of wrong knowledge, the corresponding mode in this case will be wrong knowledge.
COMMENTARY If the Self is incapable of manifestation, then it is not possible to speak of psychic modifications either pure or impure.
अण्णाणमओ भावो अणाणिणो कुणदि तेण कम्माणि । णाणमओ णाणिस्स दु ण कणदि तम्हा दु कम्माणि ॥१२७॥ anņāņamao bhāvo aņāņiņo kunadi tena kammāņi ņāṇamao nāņissa du na kunadi tamhā du kammāņi (127) 3951247 hratsaffaa: alfa axaffor i
ज्ञानमयो ज्ञानिनस्तु न करोति तस्मात्तु कर्माणि ॥१२७॥
127. The Self ignorant of his true nature, manifests in the form of wrong knowledge and through this wrong knowledge, he makes karmas. But the Self aware of his true nature has the manifestation of right knowledge and because of this right knowledge he does not make any karmas.
COMMENTARY Thus it is made evident that the Self, who is ignorant of his true nature, identifies himself with alien objects and characteristics. Because of this erroneous identification or adhyāsa, he develops various impure dispositions which finally end in karmic bondage. But the Self with right knowledge realises his nature to be entirely distinct from alien things and attributes and hence never has any impure psychic experience. Thus remaining pure in himself, karmas do not approach him and hence no karmic bondage for him. He remains pure and perfect untouched by karmas. In short, wrong knowledge makes the Self wander in samsāra whereas right knowledge leads to mokşa

Page #229

100
SAMAYASĀRA
190
णाणमया भावाओ णाणमओ चेव जायदे भावो । जम्हा तम्हा णाणिस्स सब्वे भावा दु णाणमया ॥१२८॥ ņānamayā bhāvāo ņāṇamao ceva jāyade bhāvo jamhā tamhā nānissa savve bhāvā du nānamayā (128), ज्ञानमयाद् भावाद् ज्ञानमयश्चैव जायते भावः । यस्मात्तस्माज्ज्ञानिनः सर्वे भावाः खलु ज्ञानमयाः ॥१२८॥
128. If right knowledge alone can produce the mode or disposition of right knowledge, then it follows that every manifestation of the Self knowing his true nature must be of the nature of right knowledge.
अण्णाण मया भावा अण्णाणो चेव जायदे भावो । जम्हा तम्हा सव्वे भावा अण्णाणमया अणाणिस्स ।।१२६।। annāņamayā bhāvā annāņo ceva jāyade bhövo. jamhā tamhā savve bhāvā aṇņāṇamaya anāņissa (129) अज्ञानमयाद भावादज्ञानमयश्चैव जायते भावः ।
यस्मात्तस्मात्सर्वे भावा अज्ञानमया अज्ञानिनः ॥१२९॥ .. .
129. If wrong knowledge alone can produce the mode or disposition of wrong knowledge, then it follows that every manifestation of the Self ignorant of his true nature, must be of the nature of wrong knowledge.
The same point is einphasised through an illustration. कणयमया भावादो जायते कुंडलादयो भावा ।
अयमययाभावादो जह जायंते दु कडयादि ॥१३०॥ kanayamayā bhāvādo jāyante kumdalādayo bhāzi ayamayayā bhāvado jaha jāyamte du kadarādi (130) कनकमयाद् भाषाज्जायन्ते कुण्डलादयो भावाः । अयोमयाभावाद्यथा जायन्ते तु कटंकादयः ।।१३०॥ अण्णाणमया भावा अणाणिणो बहु विहावि जायते । णाणिस्स दु णाणमया सव्वे भावा तहा होति ॥१३१॥ annāņamayā bhāvā aạnāņino bahuvihāvi jāyaile ņaņissa du ņānamayū savve bhāvä taha homii (151) अज्ञानमया भावा अज्ञानिनो बहुविधा आप जायन्ते । ज्ञानिनस्तु ज्ञानमयाः सर्व भावास्तथा भवन्ति ॥१३१॥

Page #230

CHAPTER III
101
130 and 131: From gold only golden ornaments like earrings etc., can be produced and from iron only iron chains etc.. can be produced. In the same manner, all modifications of the knowing Self, must be of the nature of right knowledge, whereas the various modifications of the Self ignorant of his true nature would be of the nature of wrong knowledge.
The various modifications of the impure Self are described next..
अण्णाणस्स स उदओ जा जीवाणं अतच उवलद्धी । मिच्छत्तस्स दु उदओ जं जीवस्स असदहाणत्तं ॥१३२॥ जो दु कलुसोवओगो जीवाणं सो कसाउदओ। उदओ असंजमस्सदु जं जीवाणं हवेइअविरमणं ॥१३३॥ annānassa sa udao jä jīvānam alaccauvaladdhi micchattassa du udao jam jīvassa asaddahānallam (132) jo du kalusovao go jīvānan so kasaudao udao asamjamassadu jam jivintuin havei aviramanam (133) अज्ञानस्य स उदयो या जीवानामतत्त्वोपलब्धिः । मिथ्यात्वस्य तूदयो यं जीवस्याश्रद्दधानत्वं ।। १३२॥ यस्तु कलुषोपयोगो जीवानां स कषायोदयः । असंयमस्य तु उदयो यज्जीवानां भवेदविरमणं ।। १३३॥ तं जाण जोगउदयं जो जीवाणं तु चिट्ठउच्छाहो । सोहणमसोहणं वा कायव्वो विरदि भावो वा ॥१३४॥ tam jāņa jogaudayam jo jīvāņām tu citthaucchāho sohana masohanai vā kāyavvo viradibhāvo vã (134) तं जानीहि योगोदयं यो जीवानां तु चेष्टोत्साहः । शोभनोऽशोभनो वा कर्त्तव्यो विरतिभावो वा ॥१३४॥ एदेसु हेदुभूदेसु कम्मइयवग्गणागयं जं तु । परिणमदे अट्ठविहं णाणावरणादिभावेहिं ॥१३५॥ cdesu hedubhūdesu kammaiyavaggaņāgayam jam tu parinomade atthavihai nāņāvaraņādibhāvehiṁ (135) एतेषु हेतुभूतेषु कार्मणवर्गणागतं यत्तु । परिणमतेऽष्टविधं ज्ञानावरणादिभावैः ॥१३५॥

Page #231

102
SAMAYASARA
तं खलु जीवणिबद्धं कम्मइयवग्गणागयं जइया ।
तइया दु होदि हेदू जीवो परिणामभावाणं ॥ १३६॥
tam khalu jivaṇibaddhaṁ kammaiyavaggaṇāgayaṁ jaiyā taiya du hodi hedu jīvo pariņāmabhāvāṇaṁ (136)
तत्खलु जीवनिबद्धं कार्मणवर्गणागतं यदा ।
तदा तु भवति हेतुर्जीवः परिणामभावानाम् ॥ १३६ ॥
132 to 136. Know ye, that if there is in the Self knowledge of things that are not real, it is due to the operation of nescience (karmic materials interfering with right knowledge); absence of belief in the reals is due to the operation of mithyatva karma; impure cognitive activity in the Self is due to the rise of kaşaya (soul-soiling karmas), non-discipline in the Self is due to the rise of conduct perverting karma; the tendency to act through thought, word, and deed is due to the rise of yoga (or the psycho-physical structure). Know ye, that everything that ought to be done is good and everything that ought to be discarded is bad. Thus conditioned by the primary karmic materials, are produced the eight types of karmic psychic dispositions such as jñānavaraṇīya (knowledge-obscuring). And thus when the eight types of karmic materials bound to the Self begin to operate, there arise in the Self corresponding psychic dispositions of which the Self is the causal agent.

COMMENTARY
Thus it is emphasised once again that the various psychic modifications in the Self are caused by nescience and that these impure modifications can be got rid of only by true knowledge.
Next it is said from the real point of view that the various manifestations of the Self are entirely different from those of material karmas.
जीवस्स दु कम्मेण य सह परिणामा हु होंति रागादी । एवं जीवो कम्मं च दोवि रागादिमावण्णा ॥ १३७॥
jivassa du kammeņa ya saha pariņāmā hu hoṁti rāgādī evam jivo kammam ca dovi rāgādimāvanṇā (137)

Page #232

CHAPTER III
103
जीवस्य तु कर्मणा च सह परिणामाः खलु भवन्ति रागादयः । एवं जीवः कर्म च द्वे अपि रागादित्वमापन्ने ॥१३७॥ एकस्स दु परिणामो जायदि जीवस्स रागमादीहिं ।
ता कम्मोदयहेदूहि विणा जीवस्स परिणामो ॥१३८॥ ekassa du pariņāmo jāyadi jivassa rāgamādihir tā kammodayhedūhi viņā jīvassa pariņāmo (138)
एकस्य तु परिणामो जायते जीवस्य रागादिभिः ।
तत्कर्मोदयहेतुभिविना जीवस्य परिणामः ॥१३८॥
137 and 138, If attachment and other emotions are really produced by the Self and the karmas co-operating together as ubadāna causal conditions, then both the Self and the karmic matter will be able to appear in the form of the psychic mode of attachment. If the Self manifesting by himself is capable of producing attachment and other psychic modifications, then it must follow that even the pure Self without the influence of karmic materials must be able to manifest into impure forms of psychic modes such as attachment.
COMMENTARY In the first case when both jīva and karma co-operate to produce the psychic mode of attachment, both operating as upādāna kārana, then according to the principle of the identity of cause and effect, even karmic matter which cooperates with jīva must be assumed to be psychical in nature, because the result produced, attachment, is psychical. Thus matter will become a cetana entity which is untrue. If in erder to get over this difficulty, the Self is assumed to produce the psychic modifications of an impure nature without any alien influence, then this tendency must be present even in the pure Self. That is. since the nature of the Self contains in a latent from the tendency to produce impure psychic modifications. there can be no such thing called pure Self. This means complete denial of the possibility of mokşa.
जइ जीवेण सह चिय पोग्गलदव्वस्स कम्मपरिणामो । एवं पोग्गलजीवा हु दोवि कम्मत्तमावण्णा ॥१३६॥ jai jiveņa sahaccıya paggaladavassa kammapariņāmo evai paggalajīvā hu dovi kammattamāvaņņā (139)

Page #233

-104
SAMAYASĀRA
यदि जीवेन सह चेव पुद्गलद्रव्यस्य कर्मपरिणामः । एवं पुद्गलजीवौ खलु द्वावपि कर्मत्वमापन्नौ ॥१३९।। एक्कस्स दु परिणामो पोग्गलदग्वस्स कम्मभावेण । ता जीवभावहेहि विणा कम्मस्स परिणामो ॥१४०॥ ekkassa du pariņāma poggaladavvassa kammabhāveņa tā jīvabhāva hedūhim viņā kammassa pariņāmo (140) एकस्य तु परिणामः पुद्गलद्रव्यस्य कर्मभावेन ।
तज्जीवभावहेतुभिर्विना कर्मणः परिणामः ॥१४०॥
139, and 140. If dravya karmic modes are really. produced by matter in co-operation with jīva, as upādāna condition, then matter and Self will both become dravya karmas (matter). If matter manifesting by itself is capable of producing karmic modes without the influence of self, then all matter as such must be able to manifest as karmic modes.
COMMENTARY Here in the first case jiva (one of the co-operating causes) will become acetana dravya, because the effect (dravio karma) is · acetana In the second case all matter as such must be capable of manifesting as karmic modes. Both the conclusions are im possible.
जीवे कम्मं बद्धं पुढे चेदि ववहारणयणिदं । सुद्धणयस्स दु जीवे अबद्धपुटुं हवइ कम्मं ॥१४१॥ jāve kammam baddhain puttrain cedi vavaharaṇayabhaạidam suddhanaya.ssa du jire araddha putikain hawai kamman (141) जीवे कर्म बद्धं स्पृष्टं चेति व्यवहारनयेन भणितं । शुद्धनयस्य तु जीवे अबद्धम्पृष्टं भवति कर्म ॥१४१॥
141." From the vyavahāra point of view, it is said that karmas bind and are in contact with the Self; but from the pure (absolute) point of view, karmas neither bind nor are in contact with the Self. Thus from the different points of view the Self is said to be either bound or free according as it is associated with upādhis or free from them,

Page #234

CHAPTER III
105
After stating that bondage and freedom are predicated of the Self according to different points of view the author next points out that samayasāra, or Ego-in-itself, is beyond the view points.
कम्मं बद्धमबद्धं जीवे एदं तु जाण णयपक्खं ।
पक्खातिक्कंतो पुण भण्णदि जो सो समयसारो ॥१४२॥ kammam baddhamabaddham jide edam tu jāņa nayapakkham pakkhā tikkaito puņa bhannadi jo so samazasāro (142)
कर्म बद्धमबद्धं जीवे एवं तु जानीहि नयपक्षम् ।
पक्षातिक्रान्तः पुनर्भण्यते यः स समयसारः ॥१४२॥
142. That the Self is bound with"karmas and that it is not bound with karmas are statements made from different points of view.
But the essence of the Self transcends these aspects. So it is said.
Next the author describes the nature of the transcendental
Self.
दोण्हवि णयाण भणिदं जाणइ गरि तु समयपडिबद्धो।
ण दु णयपक्खं गिण्हदि किचिवि णयपक्खपरिहीणो ॥१४३॥ doņhavi nayāņa bhanidam jāņai ņavarim tu samayapadibaddho na du nayapakkham giņhadi kimcivi nayapakkhaparihīno (143)
द्वयोरपि नययोर्भणितं जानाति केवलं तु समयप्रतिबद्धः । .
न तु नयपक्षं गृह्णाति किंचिदपि नयपक्षपरिहीन: ॥१४३॥ 143. It is the Self whose attention is inwardly directed on himself that really knows the two natures, pure and impure, which are described by the two points of view (real and practical). But the transcendental Self who is beyond these points of view does not apprehend them.
COMMENTARY Jaina metaphysics recognises three kinds of Self---bahirātmā, antarātmā, and paramātmā-- the outer Self, the inner Self, and the transcendental Self respectively. The first kind of Self on account of ignorance identifies himself with the body and other external objects; certainly an attitude which ought to be discarded; the second kind certainly recognises that his nature is quite different from material objects, including the body. This

Page #235

106
SAMAYASĀRA
discriminative knowledge leads to the further investigation of the nature of the Self. Research into the nature of any reality, according to Jaina philosophy, is undertaken from different nayās or points of view. Thus the study of the true nature of the Self is undertaken by the antarātman, the inner Self whose attention is concentrated upon his own nature. The nature of the Self so investigated appears either in bondage or free from bondage. Both these descriptions are from the relative points of view of antarātman whose sole aim is to discover the nature of the Self through srutajñāna or scriptural knowledge. In the third case these two relational aspects have no relevancy. Paramātma svarūpa refers to the Perfect Self, which state is the result of selfrealisation through tapas or yoga. Naturally therefore this absolute transcendental Self is quite beyond the relational aspects and represents the highest nature of reality which ought to be the goal of all.
सम्मइंसणणाणं एसो लहदि त्ति णवरि ववदेसं ।
सव्वणयपक्खरहिदो भणिदो जो सो समयसारो ॥१४४॥ sammaddamsaņaņāņam eso lahadi fti ņavari vavadesam savvaņayapakkharahido bhaạido jo so samayasāro (144)
सम्यग्दर्शनज्ञानमेष लभत इति केवलं व्यपदेशम् ।
सर्वनयपक्षरहितो भणितो यः स समयसारः ॥१४४॥ 144. That the Self is really characterised by Right Perception and Right knowledge is an assertion (made by those who adopt the different points of view) and what transcends all points of view is said to be samayasära.
COMMENTARY
The term samayasāra means the essential nature of the Self. This Absolute Ultimate Unity is transcendental in nature. Hence the various appellation based upon different points of view really have no relevancy in that state.
The two characters, jīva and ajīva, which appeared on the stage as Kartā and Karma, each realising its true nature exit from the stage.
Thus ends the Second Act,

Page #236

CHAPTER IV PUNYA AND PĀPA-VIRTUE AND VICE.
The single actor Karma enters the stage putting on the garb of two different characters, Punya and Papa, Virtue and Vice.
कम्ममसुहं कुसीलं सुहकम्मं चावि जाणह सुसीलं ।
कह तं होदि सुसीलं जं संसारं पवेसेदि ॥१४५।। kammamasuhan kusilam suhakammai cīvi jāņaha susilam kaha tam hodi susilam jam saṁsāram pavesedi (145)
कर्माशुभं कुशीलं शुभकर्म चापि जानोहि सुशीलं ।
कथं तद् भवति सुशीलं यत्संसारं प्रवेशयति ॥१४५॥ 145. Know ye, that the karma leading to wrong conduct is bad and that leading to right conduct is good. How can that be right conduct which pushes jiva into saṁsāra (cycle of births and deaths).
COMMENTARY
The distinction of karma into good and bad is based upon practical morality. What is good may lead one to the pleasures of svarga and what is evil may lead one to the miseries of Hell. Even the life of a deva in svarga, is only a life in saṁsāra. Svarga or naraka is merely a branch of saṁsāra, the cycle of births and deaths. The ultimate ideal set up transcends both good and evil and is beyond samsāra. Hence whatever leads to saṁsāra is undesirable from this ultimate point of view. Hence the interrogation, “How can that be right conduct which pushes jīva into saṁsāra ?” Next the same point is elucidated by an example.
सोवणियं पि णियलं बंधदि कालायसं च जह पुरिसं ।
बंधदि एवं जीवं सुहमसुहं वा कदं कम्मं ॥१४६।। sovanniyam pi niyalañ baîndhadi kālāyasam ca jaha purisam bamdhadi evam jīvan suhamasuham vā kadar kammam (146)
सौवर्णिकमषि निगलं बध्नाति कालायसं च यथा पुरुषम् । बध्नात्येवं जीवं शुभमशुभं वा कृतं कर्म ॥१४६॥

Page #237

108
SAMAYASARA
146. A shackle made of gold is as good as one made of iron for the purpose of chaining a man. Similarly karma whether good or bad equally binds the jiva.
COMMENTARY
The distinction between good karma and bad karma is meaningless since the effect in both is identically the same.
तम्हा दु कुसीलेहि य रायं मा काहि मा व संसग्गं । साहीणो हि विणासो कुसीलसंसग्गरायेण ॥ १४७॥
tahma du kusilehi ya rayam mā kāhi ma va samsaggam sāhāno hi vanāso kusīlasasaggarāyena (147)
तस्मात्तु कुशीलैः रागं मा कुरु मा वा संसर्गम् ।
स्वाधीनो हि विनाशः कुशीलसंसर्गरागेण ॥ १४७॥
147. Therefore do not have attachment for or association with undesirable karmas whether good or bad; by such attachment for or association with undesirable karmas the destruction will be inevitable.
COMMENTARY
Both the karmas are to be avoided as they lead to the same undesirable result.
The author emphasises the same point through an analogy. जह णाम कवि पुरिसो कुच्छियसीलं जणं वियाणित्ता | वजेदि तेण समयं संसग्गं रायकरणं च ॥ १४८ ॥ jaha nama kovi puriso kucchiyasilam jaṇam viyāṇittā vajjedi tena samayam sansaggam rāyakaranam ca (148) यथा नाम कश्चित्पुरुषः कुत्सितशीलं जनं विज्ञाय । वर्जयति तेन समकं संसर्ग रागकरणं च ॥ १४८ ॥ एमेव कम्मपयडी सीलसहावं च कुच्छिदं णादुं ।

वज्जति परिहरति य तं संसग्गं सहावरदा ॥ १४६ ॥
emeva kammapayadi silasahāvam ca kucchidam ṇādum
vajjaiti pariharainti ya tai sainsaggain sahāvarada (149)
एवमेव कर्मप्रकृतिशीलस्वभावं च कुत्सितं ज्ञात्वा ।
वर्जयन्ति परिहरन्ति च तत्संसर्ग स्वभावरताः ॥ १४९ ॥
148 and 149. As a person knowing certain people to be of

Page #238

CHAPTER IV
109
bad character gives up association with and attachment for them, even so, those desiring to realise the Pure Self and knowing the nature and character of karmic prakratīs to be evil, prevent the approach of karmic particles (samvara) and root out the already existing ones. (nirjarā).
COMMENTARY The Commentator, Amặtacandra, gives an additional illustration. A clever wild male elephant, sees a decoy-female elephant-with pleasant looks or otherwise approaching him with flattering gestures with the object of chaining him. Learning her evil purpose, he does not evince any affection towards her nor does he associate with her. In the same manner an enlightened Self, knowing that the approach of karmas, whether pleasant or unpleasant, is for the purpose of binding him, avoids them and gives up any association with them.
That the two karmas should be rejected is further emphasised on the authority of āgama or Scripture.
रत्तो बंधदि कम्मं मुंचदि जीवो विरागसंपण्णो। एसो जिणोवदेसो तम्हा कम्मेसु मा रन ॥१५०॥ ratto bamdhadi kammañ mumcadi jīvo virāgasampaņņo eso jiņovadeso tamhā kammesu mā rajja (150) रक्तो बध्नाति कर्म मुच्यते जीवो विरागसंपन्नः ।
एष जिनोपदेशः तस्मात् कर्मसु मा रज्यस्व ॥१५॥
150. The self with attachment gets bound by karmas but the one with detachment remains free from karmas. So has the Jina declared. Therefore do not evince attraction towards karmas,
COMMENTARY
Thus attachment and detachment are shown to be the causes of bondage and liberation respectively.
परमट्टो खलु समओ सुद्धो जो केवली मुणी णाणी। तम्हिट्टिदा सहावे मुणिणो पावंति णिव्वाणं ॥१५१॥ paramațýho khalu samao suddho jo kevali munī nāņi tahmițțhidā sahāve munino pāvanti nivvāņaṁ (151)

Page #239

110
SAMAYASĀRA परमार्थः खलु समयः शुद्धो यः केवली मुनि नी ।
तस्मिन् स्थिताः स्वभावे मुनयः प्राप्नुवन्ति निर्वाणम् ॥१५१॥
151. Verily, the supreme real, the Self, the Pure, the Omniscient, the Seer, and the Knower (all mean the paramātmā). Thus with the contemplation fixed on the Pure Self, the Rşis attain Nirvāņa.
COMMENTARY Paramātmā is described in the following terms for the corresponding reasons. He is said to be paramärtha because he is the highest reality; he is samaya as he is the Self manifesting in pure qualities and modes; he is suddha the pure, as he is free from karmas both material and psychical; he is kevali because his nature of omniscience is unaided by any extraneous means such as sense-perception; he is muni because of the intuitive perception of reality; and he is jñānī because he is of the nature of jñāna or knowledge. Though these are different names, they all refer to the same reality.
परमम्मिय अठिदो जो कुणदि तवं वदं च धारयदि । तं सव्वं बालतवं बालवदं विति सव्वल ॥१५२॥ paramaţthammiya athido jo kunadi tavas vadam ca dhārayadi tam savvam bālatavañ balavadam viņti savvahņu (152) परमार्थे चास्थितः करोति यः तपो व्रतं च धारयति ।
तत्सर्वे बालतपो बालव्रतं विंदन्ति सर्वज्ञाः ॥१५२॥
152. If one performs austerities (tapas) or observes vows (vratas) without fixed contemplation on the Supreme Self, the all-knowing call all that childish austerity (bālatapa) and childish vow (bālavrata).
COMMENTARY jñāna is the ultimate cause of mokṣa or Liberation. Whatever is done without the background of right knowledge will not achieve its ends. Imitation is a characteristic of the child. Whatever is done through imitation is certainly lacking in the inner background of knowledge. Hence

Page #240

CHAPTER IV
111
imitative behaviour in the child cannot have the same effect as in the case of an adult individual. Such an imitative behaviour may be an amusing play and cannot have any real significance. Similarly the performance of tapas and observance of vratas without the necessary background of correct knowledge will be merely imitative behaviour on the part of an ignorant person; hence would not produce the desired goal or ideal. In order to expose the futility of imitative behaviour without the background of correct knowledge, the author calls them balatapas and balavratas.
वदणियमाणि धता सीलाणि तहा तवं च कुव्वंता। 'परमट्टबाहिरा जेण तेणं ते होंति अण्णाणी ॥१५३॥ vadasiyamāņi dharamtā sīlāņi taha tavam ca kuvvastā paramatthabāhirā jeņa teņā te hosti annāni (153) व्रतनियमान् धारयन्तः शीलानि तथा तपश्च कुर्वाणाः ।
परमार्थबाह्या येन तेन ते भवन्त्यज्ञानिनः ॥१५३॥
153. Those who are outside the presence of paramārtha or Supreme Self even though they observe vows, restraints, and rules of conduct and practice austerities are devoid of right knowledge.
COMMENTARY True knowledge is the condition for mokṣa or Liberation. When that is absent, mere external activities such as strict observance of rules of conduct and performance of severe austerities will be of no avail. They by themselves cannot lead to Nirvāņa. Absence of true knowledge will certainly lead to karmic bondage.
परमट्टबाहिरा जे ते अण्णाणेण पुण्णमिच्छति । संसारगमणहे, विमोक्खहे, अयाणंता ॥१५४॥ paramaţthabāhirā je te aạnāņeņā puņņamicchanti samsaragamanahedum vimokkhahedum ayanamta (154) परमार्थबाह्या ये ते अज्ञानेन पुण्यमिच्छन्ति । संसारगमनहेतुं विमोक्षहेतुमजानन्तः ॥१५४॥
१ णिव्वाणं ने ण विदति

Page #241

112
SAMAYASĀRA 154. Those who are outside the presence of paramartha or Supreme Self, through their ignorance--not knowing that -virtue leads to saṁsāra, desire the same with the belief that it will lead to mokşa.
COMMENTARY Those who observe all the rules of conduct imagining that they are walking the path which leads to mokşa are entirely mistaken. Even good conduct leads to karmic bondage. An ignorant person who is not aware of this truth and who boastingly exclaims, “I have kept up all the commandments, what more shall I do to enter into kingdom of Good”, will soon be disillusioned.
Thus ends the Chapter on Punya, Next the author takes up the discussion of papa or Vice. He indirectly implies that Vice is the cause of saṁsāra by stating the opposite--mokșa and its cause,
जीवादीसदहणं सम्मत्त तेसिमधिगमो णाणं । रागादीपरिहरणं चरणं एसो दु मोक्खपहो ॥१५॥ jīvādīsaddahaņas sammattam tesimadhigamo ņāņam rāgädi pariharanai caraṇañ eso du mokkhapaho (155) जीवादिश्रद्धानं सम्यक्त्वं तेषामधिगमो ज्ञानम् ।
रागादिपरिहरणं चरणं एषः तु मोक्षपथः ॥१५५॥
155. Belief in the padārthas such as soul; etc., is right faith, and knowing their true nature is right knowledge; then rooting out attachment, etc., is right conduct. These together constitute the path to mokşa.
COMMENTARY These are the well-known three jewels or the ratnatraya which constitute the mokṣa mārga, according to Jainism. Ratnatraya or the three jewels are considered from two points of view, vyavahāra and niscaya. Vyavahāra ratnatraya gradually leads to mokșa, and niscaya ratnatraya directly leads to mokşa.
Of these two the Rși must choose the direct and the immediate path to mokşa, that is real or higher ratnatraya. But the other one which operates gradually in producing the frụit ought to be accepted by the ordinary mortals,

Page #242

मोतू णिच्छयट्ठ ववहारे ण विदुसा पवति ।
परमट्ठमस्सिदाणं दु जदीण कम्मक्खओ विहिओ ॥ १५६ ॥ mottunanicchayaṭṭham vavahare na vidusā pavaṭṭhamti paramatthamassidānam du jadina kammakkhao vihio (156) मुक्त्वा निश्चयार्थं व्यवहारे न विद्वांसः प्रवर्तन्ते ।
परमार्थमाश्रितानां तु यतीनां कर्मक्षयो विहितः ॥ १५६॥
CHAPTER IV
156. Since it is declared that destruction of karmas is possible only to those yatis who adopt the absolute point of view, the wise ones will not walk through (vyavahāramarga) the practical path leaving aside the (niscayamarga) absolute one.
15
COMMENTARY
When there are two courses of action open to a person, the superior and the inferior, the wise will always choose the superior one.
Next it is pointed out how this path to salvation is obstructed by the operation of evil karmic conditions such as mithyatva or wrong belief, etc.
वत्थस्स सेदभावो जह णासेदि मलविमेलणाच्छण्णो ।
मिच्छतमलोच्छण्णं तह सम्मत्तं खु णादव्वं ॥ १५७॥
vatthassa sedabhavo jaha nasedi malavimelaṇacchanno micchattamalocchannam taha sammattam khu nādavvam (157) वस्त्रस्य श्वेतभावो यथा नश्यति मलविमेलनाच्छन्नः ।
मिथ्यात्वमलावच्छन्नं तथा च सम्यक्त्वं खलु ज्ञातव्यम् ॥ १५७॥ वत्थस्स सेदभावो जह णासेदि मलविमेलणाच्छण्णो । अण्णाणमलोच्छण्णं तह गाणं होदि णादव्वं ॥ १५८ ।। vatthassa sedabhavo jaha nasedi malavimelaṇacchanno annānamalocchannain taha nānam hodi nādavvam (158) वस्त्रस्य श्वेतभावो यथा नश्यति मलविमेलनाच्छन्नः ।
113
अज्ञानमलावच्छन्नं तथा ज्ञानं भवति ज्ञातव्यम् ॥ १५८ ॥ वत्थस्स सेदभावो जह णासेदि मलविमेलणाच्छण्णो । तह दु कसायाच्छण्णं चारितं होदि णादव्वं ॥ १५६ ॥
२ मलविमेलासत्तो ।

Page #243

114
SAMAYASARA
vatthassa sedabhavo jaha nasedi malavimelaṇacchanno taha du kasayacchannam carittam hodi nadavvam वस्त्रस्य श्वेतभावो यथा नश्यति मलविमेलनाच्छन्नः ।
तथा तु कषायावच्छन्नं चारित्रं भवति ज्ञातव्यम् ॥ १५९ ॥
157, 158 and 159. As the whiteness of cloth is destroyed by its being covered with dirt, so let it be known that right faith is blurred by wrong belief. As the whiteness of cloth is destroyed by its being covered with dirt, so let it be known that right knowledge is, destroyed, when clouded by nescience. As the whiteness of cloth is destroyed by its being covered with dirt. so let it be known that right conduct becomes perverted when vitiated by soul-soiling passions.
COMMENTARY

(159)
Faith. knowledge and conduct, so long as they are true constitute the path to mokşa. But when they are perverted by the influence of corresponding karmic materials, they get deflected from the right path dragging the Self to saṁsära. Thus the pure manifestations of the Self get destroyed by the influence of karmas just as a white cloth gets soiled by impurities.
सो सव्वणादरिसी कम्मरयेण णिएण भोच्छण्णो । ६ संसारसमावण्णो ण विजाणदि सव्वदो सव्वं ॥ १६०॥
so savvaṇāṇadarisi kammarayeņa niena occhanno saṁsārasamāvaṇno na vijāṇadi savvado savvam (160) स सर्वज्ञानदर्शी कर्मर नसा निजेनावच्छन्नः ।
संसारसमापन्नो न विजानाति सर्वतः सर्वं ॥ १६०॥
160. The Self who is by nature all-knowing and allperceiving when soiled by his own karmas is dragged on towards samsara the cycle of births and deaths, and becomes incapable of knowing all things completely.
सम्मत्तपडिणिबद्धं मिच्छत्तं जिणवरेहि परिकहियं । तस्सोदयेण जीवो मिच्छादिट्टित्ति णादव्वो ॥१६१॥
sammattapaḍinibaddham micchattam jiņavarehi parikahiyam tassodayena jivo micchaditthitti, nadavvo (161)

Page #244

CHAPTER IV
115
सम्यक्त्वप्रतिनिबद्धं मिथ्यात्वं जिनवरैः परिकथितम् । तस्योदयेन जीवो मिथ्यादृष्टिरिति ज्ञातव्यः ॥१६१॥ णाणस्स पडिणिबद्धं अण्णाणं जिणवरेहि परिकहियं ।
तस्सोदयेण जीवो अण्णाणी होदि णादवो ॥१६२॥ irāṇassa padinibaddham aņņāņam jiņavarehi parikahiyam tassodayena jīvo aņņāņi hodi ņādavvo (162)
ज्ञानस्य प्रतिनिबद्धमज्ञानं जिनवरैः परिकथितम् । तस्योदयेन जीवोऽज्ञानी भवति ज्ञातव्यः ॥१६२॥ चारित्तपडिणिबद्ध कसायं जिणवरेहि परिकहियं ।
तस्सोदयेण जीवो अचरित्तो होदि णादव्वो ॥१६३॥ cārittapadinibaddham kasāyam jiņavarehi parikahiya tassodayeņa jīvo acharitto hodi ņādavvo (163)
चारित्रप्रतिनिबद्धं कषायो निनवरैः परिकथितः ।
तस्योदयेन जीवोऽचारित्रो भवति ज्ञातव्यः ॥१६३॥
161, 162, and 163. It is declared by Jina that mithyātva karma is adverse to Right Belief; when that begins to operate, the Self becomes a wrong believer; so let it be known. It is declared by Jina that nescience is adverse to Right Knowledge; when that begins to operate; the Self becomes ajñāni (one devoid of knowledge), so let it be known. It is declared by Jina that kaşāya (soul-soiling gross emotions) is adverse to Right Conduct; when this begins to operate, the Self becomes acāritra (devoid of Right Conduct); so let it be known.
COMMENTARY
Just as a colourless crystal puts on the colour of the associated object, so the pure Self undergoes various impure modifications as determined by the various karmas. Thus from all points of view, all karmas are to be destroyed. . Thus ends the chapter on pāpa pādārtha, the category of
Vice.
The karma which acted the role of two characters, punya and papa, Virtue and Vice, exits from the stage.

Page #245

CHAPTER V AŚRAVA OR INFLOW OF KARMA Then Asraava enters the stage.
मिच्छत्तं अविरमणं कसायजोगा य सणसण्णा दु।
बहुविहभेया जीवे तस्सेव अणण्णपरिणामा ॥१६४॥ micchattam aviramaņai kasāyajogā ya sannasannā du bahuvihabheyā jīve tasseva anannapariņāmā (164)
मिथ्यात्वमविरमणं कषाययोगी च संज्ञासंज्ञास्तु ।
बहुविधभेदा जीवे तस्यैवानन्यपरिणामाः ॥१६४॥ 164. Karmas in the empirical Self, such as wrong belief, non-discipline, soul-soiling gross emotion, and psycho-physical structure, with their various sub-species are mainly of two classes, material (acetana) and psychical (cetana), (dravya karma and bhāva karma). The psychical karmic modifications are inseparable from the Self.
णाणावरणादीयस्स ते दु कम्मस्स कारणं होति ।
तेसि पि होदि जीवो रागदोसादिभावकरो ॥१६५।। ņānāvaraņādīyass te dv kammassa kāraṇam homti tesim pi hodi jīvo rāgadosādibhāvakaro (165)
ज्ञानावरणाद्यस्य ते तु कर्मणः कारणं भवन्ति ।
तेषामपि भवति जीवः रागद्वेषादिभावकरः ।।१६५॥ 165. Those impure psychic modifications cause the material karmas such jñānāvaranīya (knowledge-obscuring), etc. To them (those psychic karmic modifications) the empirical Self with the characteristics of attachment and a version is the cause.
COMMENTARY The inflow of karma is of two kinds, material and psychical (dravyāsrava and bhāvāsrava) corresponding to the two kinds of karmas, material and psychical. These two mutually determine each other in the form of nimitta kārama, instrumental cause. The various psychic modifications of impure nature cause the inflow of material karmas towards the Self. This is dravyāsrava. When the material karmas, so flowing in, influence the Self they give rise to fresh emotional modifications which constitute the

Page #246

CHAPTER V
117
bhāvāsrava. To these psychic modifications of bhāvāsrava, the self is the upadana kāraṇa, substantial cause.
Next it is pointed out that in the case of the Right Believer, there is neither asrava, the inflow of karma, nor the consequential karmic bondage ( bandha).
दु आसवबंधो सम्मादिट्टिस्स आसवणिरोहो ।
संते पुव्वणिबद्धे जाणदि सो ते अबंधंतो ॥ १६६ ॥
ṇatthi du āsavabamdhi sammadiṭṭhissa asavaniroho samte puvvanibaddhe jānadi so te abamdhamto (166) नास्ति त्वास्रवो बन्धः सम्यग्दृष्टेरास्रवनिरोधः ।
सन्ति पूर्वनिबद्धानि जानाति स तान्यबध्नन् ॥ १६६ ॥
166. To the Right Believer, since he blocks the inflow of karmas, there is neither the incoming of karmas nor the consequential bondage thereby. Thus remaining free from new karmic bondage, he understands the previously bound karmas (to be different from the Self).
COMMENTARY
Thus it is pointed out that the right believer is capable of preventing the inflow of karmas.
Next it is pointed out that desire, aversion, and delusion constitute the main cause of asrava, the inflow of karmas.
भावो रागादिदो जीवेण कदो दु बंधगो होदि ।' रागादिविप्पक्को अबंधगो जागो णवरि ॥ १६७॥
bhavo rāgādi judo jivena kado du bamdhago hodi rāgādivippamukko abaidago jānago navari (167) भावो रागादियुतः जीवेन कृतस्तु बन्धको भवति ।
रागादिविप्रमुक्तोऽबन्धको ज्ञायकः केवलम् ॥ १६७॥
167. The psychic states associated with desire, etc., which are the modifications of jiva constitute the cause of bondage; but when completely free from desire, etc., the psychic state is of
१. भणिदो

Page #247

118
SAMAYASĀRA
the nature of pure knowledge which indeed is the cause of the destruction of karmas.
COMMENTARY
The emotional states such as attachment, aversions and delusion completely disfigure the nature of the Self and thus he becomes associated with nescience. In this impure state, the Self attracts karmic particles which get bound with the Self just as a magnet attracts iron needles to itself. When those emotional states are absent, the Self undisturbed in his nature does not attract karmic particles. Hence there is no chance of bondage in his cause. Thus knowledge secures freedom from bondage and the absence of it inevitably brings about bondage.
पक्के फलम्मि पडिदे जह ण फलं बज्झदे पुणो विटे । जीवस्स कम्मभावे पडिदे ण पुणोदयमुवेइ ॥१६८॥ pakke phalammi padide jaha na phalam bajjhade puno vinte jīvassa kammabhāve padide na punodayamuvei (168) पक्वे फले पतिते यथा न फलं बध्यते पुनर्वृन्तैः ।
जीवस्य कर्मभावे पतिते न पुनरदयमुपैति ॥१६८॥
168. As a ripe fruit fallen (from a tree) cannot be attached again to the stalk, so when the psychic karmic modifications in the Self drop off, they can no more bind the Self again nor operate.
COMMENTARY Thus it is emphasised that to the Self, with right knowledge, there is no bhāvāsrava (inflow of psychic karmas).
Next it is stated that to the knowing Self there is no dravyäsrava or material karmic inflow either.
पुढवीपिडसमाणा पुत्वणिबद्धा दु पच्चया तस्स । कम्मसरीरेण दु ते बद्धा सव्वेवि णाणिस्स ॥१६६।। pudhavipimdasamāņā puvvaạibaddhā du paccayā tassa kammasarīreņa du te baddhā savvevi ņāņissa (169) पृथ्वीपिण्डसमानाः पूर्वनिबद्धास्तु प्रत्ययास्तस्य ।
कर्मशरीरेण तु ते बद्धाः सर्वेऽपि ज्ञानिनः ॥१६९॥ 169. In the Self with right knowledge, the old karmas

Page #248

CHAPTER V
119
remain incorporated only with the karmic body, like a clod of earth without any effect on the Self.
COMMENTARY The previous karmic bondage was caused by nescience, absence of correct knowledge in the Self. Presence of nescience produces impure psychic states which facilitate the in flow of karmic materials. Thus in this case there are both the bhāvāsrava and dravyāstava. But when nescience disappears the Self regains his true nature of pure knowledge, and the impure psychic states have no chance to occur; when these do not occur there is no chance for fresh karmtc materials to flow in. Thus the Self is left with only the previous karmic materials which got in when favourable psychic states were present. Hence they remain only part and parcel of the kārmāņa śarīra, absolutely incapable of producing any corresponding impure psychic state. Thus in the case of the knowing Self, the Self with pure knowledge, both the äsravas, psychic and material, are absent.
चउविह अणेयभेयं बंधते णाणदंसणगुणेहिं । समये समये जम्हा तेण अबंधुत्ति णाणी दु॥१७०॥ cauviha aņeyabheyam vandhamte ņāņdamsaņaguņehin samaye samaye jahma teņa avamdhutti ņāņi du (170) चतुर्विधा अनेकभेदं बध्नन्ति ज्ञानदर्शनगुणाभ्याम् । समये समये यस्मात् तेनाबन्ध इति ज्ञानी तु ॥१७०॥
170. The four primary karmic conditions, with their multifarious subdivisions bind the soul every moment as determined by suitable impure qualities of knowledge and perception. Hence the Self with right knowledg is not bound by them.
जम्हा दु जहण्णादो णाणगुणादो पुणोवि परिणमदि । अण्णत्त णाणगुणो तेण दु सो बंधगो भणिदो ॥१७१॥ jamhā du jahaņņādo ņāņaguņādo punovi parinamadi annattas ņāņaguņo teņa du so bamdago bhanido (171) यस्मात्तु जघन्यात् ज्ञानगुणात् पुनरपि परिणमते। अन्यत्वं ज्ञानगुणः तेन तु स बन्धको भणितः ॥१७१॥

Page #249

120
SAMAYASĪRA
171. When the Self's cognitive quality is at its lowest stage it is liable to alternative alien modifications whether good or bad. Therefore in either case the Self is called the binder of karmas.
COMMENTARY Knowledge is the essential quality of the Self. So long as this quality is strong and intense, the Self is unassailable by external influences, but when this quality is at its weakest point, the Self becomes easily influenced by alien conditions. In that case the Self will get modified from its own intrinsic nature according to the nature of the influence, good or bad. In either case the result will be bondage, though it is emphasised that both śubhabhāva and aśubha-bhāva respectively lead to punya and baba which both lead to asrava and bandha. But suddha-bhāva alone avoids äsrava and bandha.
दसणणाणचरित्तं जं परिणमदे जहण्णभावेण ।
णाणी तेण दु बज्झदि पोग्गलकम्मेण विविहेण ॥१७२॥ damsaņaņānacarittar jam pariņamade jahannbhāvena nāņī teņa du bajjhadi poggala kammeņa viviheņa (172)
दर्शनज्ञानचारित्रं यत्परिणमते जघन्यभावेन ।
ज्ञानी तेन तु बध्यते पुद्गलकर्मणा विविधेन ॥१७२॥ 172. When the manifestation of Right Belief, Right Knowledge, and Right Conduct is at its lowest, the Self, the Knower, is bound by various types of (good) karmic materials.
COMMENTARY The Self here is in passession of ratnatraya the three jewels. Since the three jewels are in a very low degree of efficiency, bondage is predicated of the Self and yet the karmas that will bind him are only the punya karmas, karmic materials of the good type capable of producing happiness.
सव्वे पुव्वणिबद्धा दु पच्चया संति सम्मादिट्ठिस्स ।
उवभोगप्पाओगं बंधते कम्मभावेण ॥१७३॥ . - savve puvvaņibaddha du paccaya samti sammăditthissa uvaogappāogain bandhamte kammabhāveņa (173)
सर्व पूर्वनिबद्धास्तु प्रत्ययाः सन्ति सम्यग्दृष्टेः । उपयोगप्रायोग्यं बध्नन्ति कर्मभावेन ॥१७३।।

Page #250

CHAPTER V
121 संतिवि निरुवभोना बाला इत्थी जहेव पुरुसस्स । बंधदि ते उवभोज्ने तरुणी इत्थी जह णरस्स ॥१७४॥ samtivi ņiruvabhojja bāla itthi jaheva purusassa bamdhadi te uvabhojje taruni itthi jaha narassa (174) सन्त्यषि निरुपभोग्यानि बाला स्त्री यथैव पुरुषस्य ।
बध्नाति तानि उपभोग्यानि तरुणी स्त्री यथा नरस्य ॥१७॥
173 and 174. Just as to a person, his child-wife is unfit for enjoyment, but when having become mature, she is fit for enjoyment and attracts his attention, so also in the case of a right believer: all the previously bound karmic conditions, though present, begin to operate only when they become mature and then they produce corresponding psychic states through which they bind the Self. .
होदूण णिरुवभोज्जा तह बंधदि जह हवंति उवभोला । सत्तविहा भूदा णाणावरणादिभावेहिं ॥१७५॥ hodūņa Ņīruvabhojja taha bamdhadi jaha havasti uvabhojja sattatthaviha bhuda nānāvaranādibhāvehim (175) भूत्वा निरुपभोग्यानि तथा बध्नाति यथा भवन्त्युपभोग्यानि ।
सप्ताष्टविधानि भूतानि ज्ञानावरणादिभावैः ॥१७५॥
175. In the case of the right believer, the previously bound karmas such as jñānāvaranīya, remain ineffective so long as they are latent, but when they become efficient and operative, through the instrumentality of psychic states such as attachment, they bind the Self in seven ways, (exclusive of age-karma) or in eight ways.
एदेण कारणेण दु सम्मादिट्ठी अबंधगो भणिदो । आसवभावाभावे ण पच्चया बंधगा भणिदा ॥१७६॥ edeņa kāraņeņa du sammāditthi abamdhago bhanido āsavabhāvābhāve na paccayā baidhagā bhanidā (176) एतेन कारणेन तु सम्यग्दृष्टिरबन्धको भणितः ।
आस्रवभावाभावे न प्रत्यया बन्धका भणिताः ॥१७६॥
176. In the case of the right believer the karmic inflow of the opposite psychic state is absent. (When this is absent) the remaining karmic conditions, (since they are incapable of
16

Page #251

122
SAMAYASARA
producing bondage leading to saīsāra) are declared to be nonbinders. On account of these reasons, the right believer is said to be non-binder.
COMMENTARY As a general principle it is maintained that the material karmic condition, even though present about the Self, are incapable of binding him, unless there is facilitating opportunity, which opportunity is provided by the appearnce of psychic states such as attachment. Thus it is the psychic state that is the sine quo non of karmic bondage. In the case of the right believer this necessary condition is absent; when this is absent even the previously bound karmas, become ineffective. When these karmic conditions become ineffective and when there is no chane of fresh inflow of karmic particles, the Self may very well be declared to be without bondage. (In the case of vītarāga samyakdęsți) since he is absolutely free from karmic states of attachment, etc., he is necessarily called unbound but in the case of saräga-samyakdựstī, since the impure psychic conditions have not been completely rooted out, the name is still applicable in a figurative sense.
रागो दोसो मोहो य आसवा णत्थि सम्मदिहिस्स।
तम्हा आसवभावेण विणा हेदू ण पच्चया होति ।।१७७।। rāgo doso moho ya āsavā ņatthi sammaditthissa tamha āsavabhāveņa viņa hedū na paccayā homti (177)
रागो द्वेषो मोहश्च आस्रवा न सन्ति सम्यग्दृष्टेः ।
तस्मादास्रवभावेन विना हेतवो न प्रत्यया भवन्ति ॥१७७॥ 177. In the case of the right believer of the higher or (vītarāga) type there is no inflow of psychic states relating to desire, aversion, and delusion. Hence apart from the psychic karmic inflow, the material karmic conditions cannot produce bondage.
हेदू चदुवियप्पो अट्ठवियप्पस्स कारणं होदि ।
तेसि पि य रागादी तेसिमभावे ण बज्झति ॥१७८॥ hedū caduviyappo ațțhviyappassa kāraṇam hodi tesim pi ya rāgadi tesimabhāve na bajjhamti (178)

Page #252

CHAPTER V
हेतुश्चतुर्विकल्पः अष्टविकल्पस्य कारणं भवति ।
तेषामपि च रागादयस्तेषामभावे न बध्यन्ते ॥ १७८ ॥
178. The four primary karmic conditions are said to be the cause of eight karmas such as jñānāvaraṇīya. To these karmas conditions the psychic states such as desire, etc. form the cause. When these psychic states are absent, the karmic material conditions cannot bind the Self,
जह पुरिसेणाहारो गहिदो परिणमदि सो अणेयविहं । मंसवसारुहिरादीभावे उदरग्गिसंजुत्तो ॥ १७६ ॥
jaha purisenähāro gahido pariņamadi so aneyaviham mainsavasāruhirādī bhāve udaraggisamjutto (179)
यथा पुरुषेणाहारो गृहीतः परिणमदि सोऽनेकविधम् । मांसवसारुधिरादीन् भावान्, उदराग्निसंयुक्तः ॥ १७९॥ तह पाणिस्स दु पुग्वं जे बद्धा पच्चया बहुवियप्पं । भंते कम्मं ते णयपरिहीणा दु ते जीवा ॥ १८० ॥
taha ṇāņissa du puvvam je baddhā paccaya bahuviyappam vajjhamte kammam te nayaparihiņa du te jive (180)
तथा ज्ञानिनस्तु पूर्वं ये बद्धाः प्रत्यया बहुविकल्पम् । ति कर्म ते न परिहीनास्तु ते जीवाः ॥ १८० ॥

123
179 and 180. Just as food eaten by a person in association with gastric heat (digestive and assimilative function) is transformed into various kinds such as flesh, fat, blood, etc., so also in the case of the Self, the previously bound karmic condition (though of uniform material type in the beginning) get transformed into various karmic modifications at the time of bondage. This is true in the case of Self devoid of the pure point of view.
COMMENTARY
Thus it is pointed out that the giving up of the pure point of view or suddhanaya causes asrava or karmic inflow, whereas the adoption of it causes nir-asrava, the cessation of the inflow.
Thus ends the chapter on äsrava.
Thus asrava quits the stage.

Page #253

CHAPTER VI SAMVARA-BLOCKING THE INFLOW
Now Samvara enters the stage. While describing the nature of samvara padārth, the author first praises its ultimate condition, discriminative knowledge.
उवओगे उवओगो कोहादिसु णत्थि कोवि उवओगो।
कोहो कोहे चेव हि उवओगे णत्थि खलु कोहो ॥१८१॥ uvaoge uvaogo kohādisu natthi kovi uvaogo koho ko he ceva hi uvaoge ṇatthi khalu koho (181)
उपयोगे उपयोगः क्रोधादिषु नास्ति कोऽप्युपयोगः ।
क्रोधः क्रोधे चैव हि उपयोगे नास्ति खल क्रोधः ॥१८१॥ 181. The pure cognitive attributes of perception and knowledge rest upon upayoga or the intrinsic nature of the pure Self. The impure emotions such as anger have no relation whatsoever with upayoga. Anger subsists on anger itself. Certainly there is no anger in the pure cognitive attributes of perception and knowledge.
COMMENTARY What is predicated of anger must be teken to be equally true in the case of other emotions such as pride, etc.
Next the author deals with other facts which are also distinct from upayoga or the nature of the pure Self.
अट्टवियप्पे कम्मे णोकम्मे चावि णत्थि उवओगो।
उवओगम्हि य कम्मं णोकम्मं चावि णो अत्थि ॥१८२॥ atthaviyappe kamme nokamme cāvi natthi uvaogo uvao gamhi ya kammas nokammaṁ cāvi no atthi (182)
अष्टविकल्पे कर्मणि नोकर्मणि चापि नास्त्युपयोगः ।
उपयोगे च कर्म नोकर्म चापि नो अस्ति ॥१८२॥ 182. There is no upayoga either in the eight type of karmas or in the nokarma material particles (which go to build up the various kinds of bodies). Conversely there are neither karmas nor nokarmas in upayoga.

Page #254

CHAPTER VI
125 एदं तु अविवरीदं गाणं जइया दु होदि जीवस्स ।
तइया ण किंचि कुव्वदि भाव उवओगसुद्धप्पा ॥१८३॥ edam tu avivarīdam ņāņam jaiyā du hodi jīvassa taiyā ņa kimci kuvvadi bhāvam uvao gasuddhappā (183)
एतत्त्वविपरीतं ज्ञानं यदा तु भवति जीवस्य ।
तदा न किंचित्करोति भावमुपयोगशुद्धात्मा ॥१८३।। 183. When this discriminative knowledge, free from error, arises in the Self, then the nature of the Self, manifests in the form of pure upayoga and he does not cause any kind of impure psychie states.
COMMENTARY
Two things which are spatially distinct and which have no relation to a common cause cannot maintain the relation of substance and substratum. Substance and substratum will be applicable to a particular manifestation and the intrinsic nature which so manifests. Thus knowing activity is related to knowledge in the form of substratum, an entity and its manifestation. An entity and its manifestation are inseparably united with each other and there is intrinsic identity between the two. So viewed, the pure cognitive activity or upayoga, since it is based on the intrinsic nature of the Self, is inalienably identical with it. Various impure emotional states have no such intrinsic relation to the nature of the Self, because they are accidental states of the Self and as such can disappear without in any way affecting the nature of the Self. Essential attributes are based upon the real nature of a thing whereas the accidental attributes are not so based. It is this truth that is emphasised in the above gāthās. Cognitive attributes of perception and knowledge technically called upayoga are the essential attributes of the Self, where as anger, pride, etc., are only accidental attributes. That is why it is said that upayoga is in the self and conversely Self is in upayoga and negatively, anger, etc., are not in the Self nor is the Self in anger, etc. So also karmas and no karmas being accidental adjuncts to the Self have no basis in the nature of the Self. This recognition of the Self to be distinct from the various accidental attributes, psychical and physical, enables

Page #255

126
SAMAYASARA it to shut out the impure psychical states of desire, aversion. and delusion. When these are shut out there in no inflow of karmas and that is just samvara.
Next it is explained how the Self, even though associated with impure karmas, is through discriminative knowledge, able to recognise his pure nature.
जहकणयमग्गितवियं पि कणयभावं ण तं परिच्चयदि ।
तह कम्मोदयतविदो ण जहदि णाणी दु णाणित्तं ॥१८४॥ jaha kanayamaggitaviyaṁ pi kaņayabhāvain na tain pariccayadi taha kammodeya tavido na jahadi nāni du rānittam (184)
यथा कनकमग्नितप्तमपि कनकभावं न तं परित्यजति ।
तथा कर्मोदयतप्तो न जहाति ज्ञानि तु ज्ञानित्वम् ॥१८४॥ 184. Just as gold, however much it is heated, never loses its intrinsic nature, so also the right knowing Self, however much it is burnt by the associated karmas, does not lose his intrinsic nature of pure knowledge.
एवं जाणदि णाणी अण्णाणी मुण दि रागमेवादं ।
अण्णाणतमोच्छण्णो आदसहावं अयाणंतो ॥१८५।। evam jāņadi ņāņi annāņi munadi rāgamevādam annānatamocchanno adasahāvam ayanamlo (185)
एवं जानाति ज्ञानी अज्ञानी मनुते रागमेवात्मानम् ।
अज्ञानतमोऽवच्छन्न आत्मस्वभावमनानन् ॥१८५॥ 185. Thus the Self with discriminative knowledge knows his true nature. But one lacking in this knowledgs, blinded by his own nescience unable to perceive his true nature, thinks that the nature of the Self is identical with the impure psychic states such as attachment.
Next it is pointed out how this apprehension of the pure nature is itself samvara.
सुद्धं तु वियाणंतो सुद्धं चेवप्पयं लहदि जीवो।
जाणतो दु असुद्धं असुद्धमेवप्पयं लहदि ॥१८६॥ suddhañ tu viyāņaṁto suddhaṁ cevappayam lahadi jivo janamto du asuddham asuddhamevap payam lahadi (186)

Page #256

127
CHAPTER VI शुद्धं तु विनानन् शुद्धमेवात्मानं लभते जीवः ।
जानस्त्वशुद्धमशुद्धमेवात्मानं लभते ॥१८६॥ 186. The Self with the discriminative knowledge, by contemplating upon the pure Self, becomes himself pure. But the Self which contemplates upon the impure nature of the Self becomes himself impure.
COMMENTARY
Thus it is pointed out that the nature of the contemplating Self is determined by the nature of the contemplated ideal. Hence apprehension of the pure nature of the Self means samvara.
Next the method of apprehending in the pure Self is described.
अप्पाणं अप्पणो रुभिदूण दोसु पुण्णपावजोगेसु । दसणणाणम्हिट्टिदो इच्छाविरदो य अण्ण म्हि ॥१८७॥ appāņam appano rumbhidūņa dosu punnapāvajogesu damsanānamhitthido icchāvirado ya annamhi (187)
आत्मानमात्मना रुन्ध्वा द्वयोः पुण्यपापयोगयोः ।। दर्शनज्ञाने स्थितः इच्छाविरतश्चान्यस्मिन् ॥१८७॥ जो सव्वसंगमुक्को झायदि अप्पाणमप्पणो अप्पा ।
णवि कम्मं णोकम्मं चेदा चितेदि एयत्तं ॥१८८॥ jo savvasamgamukko jhayadi appanamappaņo appa nāvi kammam nokammam ceda cimtedi eyattam (188)
यः सर्वसङ्गमुक्तो ध्यायत्यात्मानमात्मनात्मा । नापि कर्म नोकर्म चेतयिता चिन्तयत्येकत्वम् ॥१८८॥ अप्पाणं झायंतो दंसणणाणमओ अणण्णमओ।
लहदि अचिरेण अप्पाणमेव सो कम्मणिम्मुक्कं॥१८६॥ appāaņam jhāyamto damsanarāṇamao anannamao lahadi acirena appānameva so kammanimmukkam (189)
आत्मानं ध्यायन् दर्शनज्ञानमयोऽनन्यमयः ।
लभतेऽचिरेणात्मानमेव स कर्मनिर्मुक्तम् ॥१८९॥ 187,188, and 189. Who so restrains, through his own effort, the Self that is immersed in the activity, whether good

Page #257

128
SAMAYASARA
or bad, of yoga (thought, word, and deed), rests on pure perception and knowledge, has no desire whatsoever for alien objects and is free from all attachments, that Self contemplates on his own unity. Such a Self never thinks that karmas are of the nature of the Self, nor the nokarmas. Such a right knowing Self, of the nature of perception and knowledge entirely different from alian nature, contemplates upon his pure Self and very soon becomes identical with that Pure Self who is free from all karmas.
COMMENTARY
Thus it is pointed out that discriminative knowledge will ultimately lead to the attainment of the pure Self by destroying all the impure karmic shackles.
तेसिं हेदू भणिदा अज्झवसाणाणि सव्वदरसीहि ।
मिच्छत्तं अण्णाणं अविरदिभावो य जोगो य ॥१६॥ tesim hedu bhanida afjhavsāṇāni savvadarasīhim micchattam annāņam aviradibhāvo ya jogo ya (190)
तेषां हेतवो भणिता अध्यवसानानि सर्वदर्शिभिः । । मिथ्यात्वमज्ञानमविरतभावश्च योगश्च ॥१९०॥ हेअभावे णियमा जायदि णाणिस्स आसवणिरोहो।
आसवभावेण विणा जायदि कम्मस्स वि गिरोहो ॥१९१॥ hedu abhāve niyamā jāyadi nānissa äsavaniroho āsava bhāveņa viņā jāyadi kammassa vi niroho (191)
हेत्वभावे नियमाज्जायते ज्ञानिनः आस्रवनिरोधः । आस्रवभावेन विना जायते कर्मणोऽपि निरोधः ॥१९१॥ कम्मस्साभावेण य णोकम्माणं पि जायदि णिरोहो ।
णोकम्मणिरोहेण य संसारणिरोहणं होइ ॥१६२॥ kammassābhāveņa ya nokammāņam pi jāyadi ņiroho nokammanirohena ya samsāranirohanam hoi (192)
कर्मणोऽभावेन च नोकर्मणामपि जायते निरोधः । नोकर्मनिरोधेन च संसारनिरोधनं भवति ॥१९२॥

Page #258

CHAPTER VI
129
190, 191 and 192. It is declared by the Ommiscient that the psychic states corresponding to wrong belief, wrong knowledge, non-discipline, and psycho-physical activity are the causes of karma such as jñānāvaraṇīya. On account of the psychic states relating to pure perception, etc., the karmic conditions are absent. This absence of conditions in one who has discriminative knowledge causes the blocking up of psychic inflow (bhāvāsrava). If the psychic inflow is blocked up, the blocking of the karmic inflow (dravyāsrava) necessarily follows. When there is no inflow of material karmas, the inflow of nokarmic materials is also stopped. When there is no inflow of nokarmic body-building materials the process of body-building will completely disappear which means the cessation of samsāra.
COMMENTARY
So long as the root cause, identification of the Self with karmas persists, psychic activity to wrong belief, wrong knowledge, wrong conduct, and yoga persists. These form the cause of the bhāvāsrava relating to desire, averson, and dulusion. Bhāvāsrava forms the cause of dravyāsrava or material karmas Material karamas in their turn form the cause of body-building nokarmas. Nokarma is the cause of samsāra. This is the causal sequence. But when discriminative knowledge appears, the Self recognises its own pure cetana nature. This knowledge leads to the absence of psychic activity relating to wrong belief, wrong knowledge etc. Absence of such psychic activities leads to the disappearance of bhāvā srava. When that is absent karma naturally disappears. Disappearance of karmas means cessation of samsāra. This is the order of samvara.
Thus ends the Chapter on samvara
Thus Samvara quits the stage.

Page #259

CHAPTER VII NIRJARĀ-SHEDDING OF KARMAS
Then Nirjarā appears on the stage. उवभोगमिदियहि य दवाणमचेदणाणमिदराणं ।
जं कुणदि सम्मदिट्ठी तं सव्वं णिज्जरणिमित्तं ॥१६३॥ uvabhogamiņdiyehi ya davvāṇamacedaņāņamidarāņam jam kunadi sammadițțhi tam savvam nijjaraņimittam (193)
उपभोगमिन्द्रियैः द्रव्याणामचेतनानामितरेषाम् ।
यत्करोति सम्यग्दृष्टि तत्सर्व निर्जरानिमित्तम् ॥१९३।। 193. Whatever affective experiences the right believer (with a neutral attitude) has in relation to sense-perceived objects, conscious and nonconscious, they only lead to the shedding of karmas or nirjarā.
COMMENTARY Ordinarily the enjoyment of sense-perceived objects whether animate or inanimate is said to be the cause of karmic bondage. But in the case of a right believer, this is supposed to lead to the very opposite result of nirjarā or wearing down of karmas. What is the meaning of this paradox ? Enjoyment of sense-perceived objects in the case of the right believer is quite different from the experience present in the wrong believer. The latter, because of the lack of discriminative knowledge identifies himself with the external objects and indulges in the enjoyment of those objects carried away by the full force of desire, aversion and delusion. In this case the enjoyment brings about asrava which leads to fresh bondage of karmas. But in the case of the right believer who is equipped with discriminative knowledge and who is thus able to adopt a detached view of things external, these conditions of karmic bondage are altogether absent. No doubt he has relations with useful and enjoyable objects of the external world such as his wife, children, wealth and property. Toward these he adopts a neutral attitude. Because of this neutral attitude, he is unaffected either by their

Page #260

CHAPTER VII
increase or decrease. Hence there is no chance for the incoming of new karmas. The experiences he has therefore all relate to the previous karmas which are present in him already. When they begin to operate they produce corresponding psychic in the right believer who, in spite of his neutral, attitude, must necessarily experience the fruits of his previous karmas. Thus the previously acquired karmas after producing their inevitable result exhaust themselves and cease to be. This is nirjara or wearing down of karmas.
After describing the wearing down of material karmas the author next describes the consequential bhavanirjara, the corresponding psychic result.
दवे उवभुतेणियमा जायदि सुहं च दुक्खं वा । á gezaagfzooj àzfa ag foo¿ nfa 11?EXU
davve uvabhujjamte niyamā jāyadi suhaṁ ca dukkhaṁ vā tam suhadukkhamudiņņam vedadi aha ṇijjaraṁ jādi (194) द्रव्ये उपभुज्यमाने नियमाज्जायते सुखं च दुःखं वा ।
तं सुखदुःखमुदीर्णं वेदयते अथ निर्जरां याति ॥ १९४॥
131
194.
Useful and enjoyable objects of the perceptual world when they are enjoyed by the right believer, inevitably produce pleasure or pain as determined by good or bad karma. Since these pleasant or painful feelings are indifferently experienced by the right believer, they wear themselves down and this is nirjarā.
Next the power of knowledge is extolled. og fanyayoiar famigfar u #zuga¿fa | पोग्गलकम्मस्सुदयं तह भुंजदि णेव वज्झदे णाणी ॥ १९५ ॥
jaha visamuvabhujjaṁtā vijjāpurisā ṇa maraṇamuvayamti poggalakammassudayam taha bhuṁjadi ņeva vajjhade ṇāṇī (195) a21 faqgqys5171: faa1g591 a #zorgquifa |
पुद्गलकर्मण उदयं तथा भुङ्क्ते नैव बध्यते ज्ञानी ॥ १९५॥
195. Just as a person who is an expert in anti-poison lore, even though he takes poison, does not meet with death, even so when the karmic materials become mature and produce their inevitable results of pain and pleasure, the knowing Self with a neutral attitude experiences these but remains unbound.

Page #261

- 132
SAMAYASĀRA
COMMENTARY The very conditions which lead the unenlightened towards bondage are counteracted by the power of knowledge become defunct and disappear, in the case of the enlightened one.
जह मनं पिवमाणो अरदिभावण मदि ण पुरिसो।
दव्वुवभोगे अरदो णाणी वि ण बज्झदि तहेव ॥१९६॥ jaha majjam pivamāņo aradibhāveņa majjadi ņa puriso davvuvabhoge arado nāņī vi na bajjhadi taheva (196)
यथा मद्यं पिबन् अरतिभावेन माद्यति न पुरुषः ।
द्रव्योपभोगे अरतो ज्ञान्यपि न बध्यते तथैव ॥१९६॥
196. Just as a person who takes wine (as medicine) without any special longing for it, does not get intoxicated, so also the enlightened Self, while he enjoys external objects without any special longing towards them, does not get bound.
COMMENTARY Thus is explained the extraordinary potency of the attitude of non-attachment in keeping the enlightened Self free from karmic bondage, even while he enjoys the objects of the external world.
सेवंतो वि ण सेवइ असेवमाणो वि सेवगो कोवि । पगरणचेट्ठा कस्सवि णय पायरणोत्ति सो होदि ॥१९७॥ sevamto vi ņa sevai asevamāṇo vi sevago kovi pagaraṇacetthā kassavi ņaya pāyaraņotti so hodi (197) सेवमानोऽपि न सेवते, असेवमानोऽपि सेवकः कश्चित् ।
प्रकरणचेष्टा कस्यापि न च प्राकरण इति स भवति ॥१९७॥
197. While one actually enjoys, does not really enjoy; whereas another while not enjoying does really enjoy. Just as one who plays a part does not really become that character.
COMMENTARY An actor on a stage may represent a particular character in a drama which may be either tragic or comic. The actor may very successfully play his part without actually suffering any emotional experience corresponding to the part. But a man in the audience who is merely a spectator may experience all the emotions because he identifies himself mentally with the

Page #262

CHAPTER VII
133
character. In the former case such emotional experience is absent in spite of perfect dramatic action because the actor maintains complete isolation mentally from the dramatic situation. Isolation is the cause of the absence of emotion even while external action is present. Whereas in the latter even though there is no action, there is emotional experience corresponding to the situation because of the mental identification with the situation. Exactly similar is the case with a person who enjoys the objects of the external world. The determining factor here also is the mental attitude and not action. A person may make use of external objects as a matter of duty without having corresponding emotional fervour. Here action is present and not the corresponding emotion. But in the case of another person who is incapable of having the attitude of mental isolation and who has a hankering after external objects, may have all the characteristic emotions even though he does not actually enjoy them either because of lack of opportunity or of external restraint. Thus it is true that one who enjoys may not really enjoy, whereas another who does not enjoy may really enjoy according to the mental attitude of each.
उदयविवागो विविहो कम्माणं वण्णिदो जिणवरेहिं।
ण दु ते मज्झ सहावा जाणगभावो दु अहमेक्को ॥१९८॥ udayavivāgo viviho kammāņas vanşido jiņavarehim ņa du te majjha sahāvā jāņagabhāvo du ahamekko (198)
उदयविपाको विविधः कर्मणां वर्णितो जिनवरैः ।
न तु ते मम स्वभावाः ज्ञायकभावस्त्वहमेकः ॥१९८॥ 198. It has been declared by the great Jinas that the rise and fruition of karmas are of various kinds. But they are not (related to) my pure nature. I am certainly the (non-varying) one, the Knower by nature.
पोग्गलकम्मं रागो तस्स विवागोदओ हवदि एसो।
ण दु एस मज्झभावो जाणगभावो हु अहमेक्को ॥१९९॥ poggalakammam rāgo tassa vivāgodao havadi eso na du esa majjha bhāvo jāņagabhāvo hu ahamekko (199)
पुद्गलकम रागस्तस्य विपाकोदया भवति एषः । नत्वेष मम भावः ज्ञायकभावः खल्वहमेकः ॥१९९॥

Page #263

SAMAYASARA
199. Desire is karmic matter (previously bound). When this manifests after maturity there is the emotion of desire. This psychic state is not of my nature. Certainly, I am the unruffled one, the Knower.
134
COMMENTARY
This statement about desire must be taken to be true in the case of other emotions such as aversion, delusion, anger, pride deceit, greed, etc.
एवं सम्माइट्ठी अप्पाणं मुणदि जाणगसहावं ।
उदयं कम्मविवागं च मुअदि तच्चं वियाणंतो ॥ २००॥
evam sammaiṭthi appanam munadi jāṇagasahāvam udayam kammavivāgai ca muadi taccam viyānaito ( 200 ) एवं सम्यग्दृष्टिः आत्मानं जानाति ज्ञायकस्वभावम् ।
उदयं कर्मविपाकं च मुञ्चति तत्त्वं विजानन् ॥ २००॥
200. Thus the right believer having a clear knowledge of reality apprehends his own Self to be of the nature as the knower and rejects emotional states because they are the result of the manifestation of karmic matter.
COMMENTARY
A clear understanding of the nature of reality thus enables one to accept what ought to be accepted and to reject what ought to be rejected.
परमाणुमित्तियं पि हु रागादीणं तु विज्जदे जस्स ।
वि सो जाणदि अप्पाणयं तु सव्वागमधरोवि ॥ २०१ ॥ paramanumittiyam pi hu rāgādiņam tu vijjade jassa navi so jānadi appānayam tu savvāgamadharo vi (201) परमाणुमात्रमपि खलु रागादीनां तु विद्यते यस्य ।
नापि स जानात्यात्मानं तु सर्वागमधरोऽपि ॥ २०१ ॥
201. Verily one in whom attachment. etc., even to the extent of an atom, is present, cannot know the Self even if one be a master of all scriptures.
अप्पाणमयाणतो अणप्पयं चेव सो भयाणतो ।

कह होदि सम्मदिट्ठी जीवाजीवे अयातो ॥ २०२ ॥ appānamayānamto anappayam ceva so ayānamto kaha hodi sammadittha jrvājive ayāyarito (202)

Page #264

CHAPTER VII
135
आत्मानमजानन् अनात्मानं चापि सोऽजानन् ।
कथं भवति सम्यग्दृष्टिर्जीवाजीवावनानन् ॥२०२॥ 202. He who does not know the real Self cannot know the non-Self. Thus being devoid of the knowledge of jiva and ajiva, Soul and non-soul, how can he be one of right faith ?
आदम्हि दव्वभावे 'अथिरे मोत्तूण गिण्ह तव णियदं । थिरमेकमिमं भावं उवलब्भंतं सहावेण ॥२०३॥ ādamhi davvabhāve athire mottūņa ginħa tava niyadań thiramekamimam bhavam uvalabbhamtam sahāvena (203)
आत्मनि द्रव्यभावान्यस्थिराणि मुक्त्वा गृहाण तव नियतम् । स्थिरमेकमिमं भावं उपलभ्यमानं स्वभावेन ॥२०३॥
203. Giving up the impermanent physical and psychical states in the Self (which are due to dravya karmas and bhāva karmas respectively) makes one grasp this state resulting from the realisation of the true nature of the Self which is eternal, unchanging, and indivisible unity.
COMMENTARY In the experience of the empirical ego, there are several psycho-physical states, brought about by the erroneous apprehension of the reals. These states are indeterminate, varying. momentary and erroneous in nature. Hence these do not represent the true nature of the Self. Therefore they must be discarded. But that psychical state resting upon the nature of the transcendental ego is characterised by qualities contrary to the above. This is determinate, permanent, one and free from error. Hence this is the ideal to be sought after.
आभिणिसुदोहिमणकेवलं च तं होदि एक्कमेव पदं । सो एसो परमट्ठो जं लहि, णिवुदि जादि ॥२०४॥ ābhiņi sudohimanakevalam ca tain hodi ekkameva padam so eso paramattho jam lahidum nivvudim jadi (204) आभिनिबोधिकश्रुतावधिमनःपर्ययकेवलं च तद्भवत्येकमेव पदम् । स एष परमार्थः यं लब्ध्वा निवृतिं याति ॥२०४॥
204. Knowledge through sense-perception, knowledge from scriptures, knowledge from clairvoyance, knowledge from
१. अपदे मोक्कूण

Page #265

136
SAMAYASARA
telepathy, and supreme knowledge of reality-all these refer to one and the same state. That is the absolute. Realisation of that absolute is mokṣa.
COMMENTARY Ātmā, the Self is the absolute. That itself is jnāna or knowledge. The Self is one prime category. Hence knowledge is therefore the same as that absolute. Hence it is the means of Nirvāņa or mokşa. Various kinds of knowledge, such as mati-jñāna, śruta jñāna, etc. do not in any way differentiate this unitary state of knowledge. These various kinds of knowledge refer only to this unitary state of knowledge. When the sun is hidden by clouds its light is not seen and when the clouds gradually disperse, the sunlight gradually reappears in varying degrees till it regairis its full luminosity when all the clouds completely disappear. So also the Self in the form of knowledge, remains hidden shrouded by the layer of karmas. When the karma cloud gradually gets dispersed, then the Self-knowledge begins to shine in varying brilliancy. This variation in knowledge which is due to the variation in the density of the karmic cloud does not in any way imply any differentiation in the nature of the underlying Self. That remains the same one, non-varying and permanent. That remains without any differentiation. It is identical with supreme knowledge. When that knowledge is obtained, it is Self-realisation. Then nescience gets destroyed, then the Self is obtained; all that pertains to non-Self disappears; no more desire, hatred, or delusion; no more inflow of fresh karmas; no more karmic bondage; the previously bound karmas automatically wear out; thus when all karmas completely disappear, that state itself is mokşa. Hence it follows that the absolute is equal to the Self which is equal to pure knowledge, and attaining this ought to be the aim of life since that is the door-way to mokşa.
णाणगुणेण विहीणा एदं तु पदं बहूवि ण लहंते । तं गिण्ह सुपदमेदं जदि इच्छसि कम्मपरिमोक्खं ॥२०५।। ņāņagunena vihīņā edam tu padam bahūvi na lahamte tam ginha supadamedam jadi icchasi kammaparimokkham (205)

Page #266

CHAPTER VII
137 ज्ञानगुणैर्विहीना एतत्तु पदं बहवोऽपि न लभन्ते ।
तद्गृहाणसु पदमिदं यदीच्छसि कर्मपरिमोक्षम् ॥२०५ 205. Those who are devoid of this attribute of knowledge even though their efforts be several, do not attain this state. If you desire complete liberation from bondage, you must contemplate upon this pure state of knowledge.
COMMENTARY What is contemplated is the ideal. One who contemplates is the person who desires the ideal. By constant contemplation of the ideal, a person aiming at the goal comes nearer and nearer to it till he finds himself identified with that very ideal. This psychic effort of aiming at the ideal through the act of contemplation is here pointed out as the necessary means of realising the true nature of the Self. Further it is implied that the nature of the ideal contemplated upon is of great importance. The popular view that one who contemplates with devotion upon an ideal whose nature may be anything is really contemplating upon the supreme paramātmā is incompatible with the Jaina Siddhānta.
एदम्हि रदो णिच्चं संतुट्ठो होहि णिच्चमेदम्हि ।
एदेण होहि तित्तो तो होहदि तुह उत्तमं सोक्खं ॥२०६॥ edamhi rado niccam saṁtuţtho hohi ņiccamedamhi edeņa hohi titto to hohadi tuha uttamañ sokkham, (206)
एतस्मिन् रतो नित्यं संतुष्टो भव नित्यमेतस्मिन् ।
एतेन भव तृप्तः तर्हि भविष्यति तवोत्तमं सौख्यम् ॥२०६॥ 206. Oh! Good Soul, (Turning away from the sense pleasures and fixing your attention always on the pure nature of the Self), always be in love with it and hence be happy and satisfied, for surely that will lead you to the future everlasting supreme bliss of mokşa.
को णाम भणिज्ज बुहो परदव्वं मममिदं हवदि दव्वं ।
अप्पाणमप्पणो परिग्गहं तु णियदं वियाणंतो ॥२०७॥ ko ņāma bhaņijja būho paradavvaṁ mamamidam havadi davvam appāņamappaņo pariggaham tu niyadaṁ viyāṇamto (207)
18

Page #267

138
SAMAYASĀRA
को नाम भणेद् बुद्धः परद्रव्यं ममेदं भवति द्रव्यम् ।
आत्मानमात्मनः परिग्रहं तु नियतं विनानन् ।।२०७॥ 207. How can the wise man who realises that the Self alone is the property of the Self, really maintain these alien objects, such as his body, as genuinely his own property ?
COMMENTARY Even an ignoramus cannot make the mistake of identifying his self with the external objects. Thus it is quite obvious that a wise man can never make such a mistake. He will always be able to discern the difference between his Self and non-Self.
मज्झं परिग्गहो जइ तदो अहमजीवदं तु गच्छेज्ज ।
णादेव अहं जम्हा तम्हा ण परिग्गहो मज्झ ।।२०८॥ majjham pariggaho jai tado ahamajīvadom tu gacchejja ņādeva aham jamha tamhā ņa pariggaho majjha (208)
मम परिग्रहो यदि ततोऽहमजीवतां तु गच्छेयं ।
ज्ञातैवाहं यस्मात्तस्मान्न परिग्रहो मम ॥२०८॥ 208. External things owned by me, if they are absolutely of my nature, then I must become non-living (like them). Because I am a Knowing Self, therefore the objects possessed by me are not of my nature.
छिज्जदु वा भिज्जदु वा णिज्जदु वा अहव जादु विप्पलयं ।
जम्हा तम्हा गच्छदु तहावि ण परिग्गहो मज्झ ॥२०६।। chijjadu vā bhijjadu vă nijjadu vā ahava jādu vippalayam jamhā tamhā gacchadu tahāvi na pariggaho majjha (209)
छिद्यतां वा भिद्यतां वा नीयतां वा अथवा यातु विप्रलयम् ।
यस्मातस्माद् गच्छतु तथापि न परिग्रहो मम ॥२०९॥ 209. It may be cut, it may be split, it may be dragged or it may be destroyed, whatever manner of deformity it undergoes even then it (the body or any other external object) does not cancern me as it is not really mine.
COMMENTARY The various ways of maiming the body or other external

Page #268

CHAPTER VII
139
objects and the consequent suffering will not affect the Self which has realised its true nature to be distinct from that of the alien objects.
अपरिग्गहो अणिच्छो भणिदो णाणी य णिच्छदे धम्मं । अपरिग्गहो दु धम्मस्स जाणगो तेण सो होदि ॥ २९० ॥
apariggaho aniccho bhanido nani ya nicchade dhammam apariggaho du dhammassa jānago tena so hodi (210) अपरिग्रहो ऽनिच्छो भणितो ज्ञानी च नेच्छति धर्मम् ।
अपरिग्रहस्तु धर्मस्य ज्ञायकस्तेन स भवति ॥ २१०॥
For
210. Non-possession is said to be non-attachment, that reason the knower does not desire even merit. Thus being free from attachment towards merit, he thereby becomes merely the Knower (of merit).
COMMENTARY
Dharma or virtuous conduct is the same as what punya is. Punya also is considered to be a form of karma in spite of the fact that it is able to produce pleasurable results. Hence it must also be avoided by one who is bent upon realising the Pure Self. The Pure Self is of the form of suddho payoga. This is its real nature, whereas punya or Dharma is said to be the subha-upayoga. Since the latter is different from the real nature of the Self, it ought to be discarded by the knower, even though it is ordinarily a desirable course of conduct.
अपरिग्गहो अणिच्छो भणिदो णाणी य णिच्छदि भधम्मं । अपरिग्गहो अधम्मस्स जाणगो तेण सो होदि ॥ २११ ॥
apariggaho aniccho bhanido nani ya nicchadi adhamam apariggaho adhammassa jāṇago tena so hodi (211) अपरिग्रहोऽनिच्छो भणितो ज्ञानी तु नेच्छति अधर्मं । अपरिग्रह धर्मस्य ज्ञायकस्तेन स भवति ॥ २११ ॥
For
211. Non- possession is said to be non-attachment. that reason the knower does not desire de-merit. Thus being free from attachment towards demerit, he thereby becomes merely the knower (of demerit).

Page #269

140
SAMAYASĀRA
COMMENTARY Possession and attachment are identical. Where there is no desire, there is no possession. Desire is the psychic state born of nescience. This psychic state of the nature of nescience, therefore cannot happen in tne knower. The knower must therefore have the psychic state of true knowledge. Hence he cannot have desire which is of the nature of nescience. Therefore he does not even desire that which is of the nature of nescience. Therefore he does not even desire merit or demerit, good or evil. Hence in the case of the knower there is no relation of possession of merit or demerit, dharma or adharma since real nature is beyond good and evil. What is asserted of adharma (demerit) is equally true of rāga (desire), dveșa(aversion) krodha (anger), etc.
अपरिग्गहो अणिच्छो भणिदो' णाणी य णिच्छदे असणं । अपरिग्गहो दु असणस्स जाणगो तेण सो होदि ॥२१२॥ apariggaho aniccho bhanido ņāņi ya ņicchade asaņam apariggaho du asanassa janago tena so hodi (212) अपरिग्रहोऽनिच्छो भणितो ज्ञानी च नेच्छत्यशनम् ।
अपरिग्रहस्त्वशनस्य ज्ञायकस्तेन स भवति ॥२१२॥
212. Non-possession is said to be non-attachment. For that reason the Knower does not desire food. Thus being free from attachment for food, he thereby becomes merely the Knower (of food).
अपरिग्गहो अणिच्छो भणिदो पाणं च णिच्छदे पाणि । अपरिग्गहो दु पाणस्स जाणगो तेण सो होदि ॥२१३॥ apariggaho aniccho bhaạido pānam ca nicchade pāņi apariggaho du pānassa janago tena so hodi (213) अपरिग्रहो अनिच्छो भणितः पानं च नेच्छति पानी ।
अपरिग्रहस्तु पानस्य ज्ञायकस्तेन स भवति ॥२१३॥
213. Non-possession is said to be non-attachment. For that reason the Knower does not desire drink. Thus being free from attachment for drink, he thereby becomes merely the knower (of drink).
१. भणिदो णाणी दुणिच्छदे असणं । २. भरिणदो गाणी दुणिच्छदे पाणं ।

Page #270

CHAPTER VII
- 141 एवमादु एदु विविहे सव्वे भावे य णिच्छदे णाणी । जाणगभावो णियदो णोरालंबो दु सव्वत्थ ।।२१४॥ evamādu edu vivihe savve bhāve ya ņicchade nāņi jāņagabhāvo niyado nīrālambo du savvattha (214)
एवमादिकांस्तु विविधान् सर्वान् भावान च नेच्छति ज्ञानी ।
ज्ञायकभावो नियतो निरालम्बस्तु सर्वत्र ॥२१४॥ 214. The Knower has no hankering after all these various psychic•states (such as desire and appetite for external objects). Since he is really of the nature of the Knower he remains everywhere independent (of alien influences).
उप्पण्णोदयभोगे विओगबुद्धीय तस्स सो णिच्चं । कंखामणागदस्स य उदयस्स ण कुव्वदे णाणी ॥२१५।। uppanno dayabhoge viogabuddhiya tassa so niccain kainkhamanāgadassa ya udayassa na kuvvade nāni (215) उत्पन्नोदयभोगो वियोगबुद्ध्या तस्य स नित्यम् । काङ्क्षामनागतस्य च उदयस्य न करोति ज्ञानी ॥२१५॥
215. Thus the Knower having always an attitude of renunciation towards the enjoyable environmental objects arising from the operation of karmas, he exhibits neither a desire for the present changes nor a longing for the future ones.
जो वेददि वेदिनदि समए समए विणस्सदे उहयं । तं जाणगो दु णाणी उभयमवि ण कंखइ कयावि ॥२१६॥ jo vedadi vedijjadi samae samae uiņassade uhayan tam jāņago du nāņi ubhayamavi na kamkhai kayāvi (216) यो वेदयते वेद्यते समये समये विनश्यत्युभयं ।
तद् ज्ञायकस्तु ज्ञानी, उभयमपि न कांक्षति कदापि ॥२१६॥
216. Psychic activities corresponding to what feels and what is felt, both get destroyed every moment. One who knows this is the Knower. Never does he long for these.
COMMENTARY
The series of conscious states consist of rapidly moving sensation, perception and idea. These elements form parts of the cognitive aspect of consciousness. Besides this cognitive

Page #271

142
SAMAYASĀRA
aspect of series of consciousness, there is also the hedonic aspect associated with each item of the series. A sensation or a perception besides giving information about an external object, may also produce pleasurable or painful feeling. This pleasurepain aspect is present in association with each item of the series. This again has two aspects. subjective and objective, the former indicated by the direction of attention, the latter indicated by the perception and idea attended to. These are technically called vedaka and vedya bhāvas. If the pleasure-pain aspect is negative, it produces an automatic reaction whether in man or in animals to turn away from the painful perception and idea. But if the hedonic aspect is positive and pleasurable it produces a contrary reaction in the individual. The individual strives to get at it and possess it because it is pleasurable. This behaviour which man has in common with lower animals, as the manifestation of the instinct of self-preservation, is not present in the case of an enlightened individual. He recognises the momentariness of these series rapidly passing in front of the real Self whose nature is entirely distinct from the characteristics of the passing series of conscious states. Resting upon this permanent reality, he is able to realise that even the pleasurable elements of consciousness are entirely ephemeral and fleeting in nature and hence incapable of producing any real satisfaction. Further he realises that there is no fundamental difference between the pleasurable and painful hedonic aspects of consciousness, since both are due to karmic upādhic conditions entirely alien to the nature of the Self. Hence his behaviour is different. He does not run after the pleasurable elements of consciousness, nor does he desire to possess them. The ordinary behaviour of avioding the painful and pursuing the pleasurable is transformed in his case to an attitude of neutrality in which he remains merely a spectator of the panorama without in any way being affected by the hedonic elements even when they are pleasurable.
बंधुवभोगणिमित्तं अज्झवसाणोदएसु णाणिस्स । संसारदेहविसएसु णेव उप्पज्जदे रागो ॥२१७॥ baïdhuvabhoganimittam ajjhavasāno daesu ņāņissa saṁsāradehavisaesu neva uppajjade rāgo (217)

Page #272

CHAPTER VII
बंधोपभोगनिमित्तेषु अध्यवसानोदयेषु ज्ञानिनः । संसारदे हविषयेषु नैवोत्पद्यते रागः ॥ २१७ ॥
217. The psychic states conditioned by samsāra lead to bondage while the psychic states conditioned by the body lead to enjoyment. Hence in the true knower, no desire for these is produced.
COMMENTARY
Psychic states are of two kinds, one pertaining to samsara that is the empirical world of things and persons, and the other pertaining to one's own body. The former results in bondage since it is conditioned by the emotions like desire, aversion and delusion. The latter leads to enjoyment either pleasurable or painful. The knowing Self is therefore without any attachment to any of these.
णाणी रागप्पजहो सव्वदव्वेसु कम्ममज्भगदो ।
णो लिप्पदि कम्मरएण दु कद्दममज्झे जहा कणयं ॥२१८॥
ṇānī rāgappajaho savvadavvesu kammamajjhagado
no lippadi kammaraena du kaddamamajjhe jaha kanayam (218)
ज्ञानी रागप्रायः सर्वद्रव्येषु कर्ममध्यगतः ।
नो लिप्यते कर्मरजसा तु कर्दममध्ये यथा कनकम् ॥२१८॥ अण्णाणी पुण रत्तो सव्वसदव्वेसु कम्ममज्भगदो ।
लिप्पदि कम्मरएण दु कद्दममज्झे जहा लोहं ॥ २१६ ॥
annāņi puna ratto savvadavvesu kammamajjhgado lippadi kammaraena du kaddamamajjhe jaha loham (219)

143
अज्ञानी पुनः रक्तः सर्वद्रव्येषु कर्ममध्यगतः ।
लिप्यते कर्मरजसा तु कर्दममध्ये यथा लोहम् ॥ २१९॥
218. and 219. Just as gold in the midst of mire remains uncontaminated because of its non-adhesive property, so also the enlightened one, because of his complete non-attachment to the environment remains unaffected even when immersed in a cloud of karmas; whereas the unenlightened one because of his attachment to external objects gets affected when in the midst of karmas just as a piece of iron gets contaminated when dipped in mire because of its adhesive property.

Page #273

144
SAMAYASARA
भुज्जतस्स विविवि सच्चित्ताचित्तमिस्सिए दव्वे | संखस्स सेदभावो ण वि सक्कदि किण्हगो काउं ॥ २२० ॥

bhumjjamtassa vi vivihe saccittacittamissie davve sankhassa sedabhāvo na vi sakkadi kinhago kāum (220)
भुञ्जानस्यापि विविधानि सचित्ताचित्तमिश्रितानि द्रव्याणि । शंखस्य श्वेतभावो नापि शक्यते कृष्णकः कर्तुम् ॥ २२० ॥
तह पाणिस्स दु विविहे सच्चित्ताचित्तमिस्सिए दव्वे | भुज्जतस्स वि गाणं ण सक्कमण्णाणदं णेदुं ॥ २२१॥ taha nanissa du vivihe saccittacittamissie davve bhujjantassa vi nanam na sakkammnānadan neduiz (221) तथा ज्ञानिनोऽपि विविधानि सचित्ताचित्तमिश्रितानि द्रव्याणि । भुञ्जानस्यापि ज्ञानं न शक्यमज्ञानतां नेतुम् ॥२११॥
220 and 221. The conch-fish may eat and assimilate various things, animate, inanimate, and mixed, and yet the white colour of its shell cannot be changed into black by the things assimilated. In the same way the enlightened Knower may enjoy various objects, animate, inanmiate, and mixed, and yet his nature of knowledge cannot be converted into nescience by the things so enjoyed.
जइया स एव संखो सेदसहावं तयं पजहिदूण |
गच्छेज् किण्हभावं तइया सुक्कऩणं पजहे ॥ २२२॥ jaiya sa eva samkho sedasahāvam tayam pajahidūņa gacchej.ja kinhabāvai taiyā sukkattanain pajahe (222) यदा स एव शंखः श्वेतस्वभावं प्रहाय ।
गच्छेत् कृष्णभावं तदा शुक्लत्वं प्रजह्यात् ॥ २२२॥ तह णाणी विहु जइया णाणसवावं तयं पजहिदूण | अण्णाणेण परिणदो तइया अण्णाणदं गच्छे ॥२२३॥ taha nani vihu jaiyā nāṇasahāvam tayam pajahidūņa annānena parinado taiyā annānadam gacche (223) तथा ज्ञान्यपि खलु यदा ज्ञानस्वभावं तकं प्रहाय ।
अज्ञानेन परिणतस्तदा अज्ञानतां गच्छेत् ॥ २२३॥
222 and 223. The very same conch-fish (irrespective of the fact whether it eats other things or not) may intrinsically

Page #274

CHAPTER VII
145
undergo a change of colour, when the white-shell will be changed into black one. Similarly the enlightened Knower (who remained uninfluenced by the things enjoyed) may undergo deterioration in himself by which he may lose his nature of knowledge and assume one of nescience.
COMMENTARY
Thus it is clear that whether the Self retains its true form as the knower or deteriorates into its opposite is entirely determined by itself.
Next the author explains through an illustration taken from ordinary life the difference between the operation of the karma in the case of the wrong believer and that in the case of the right believer.
पुरिसो जह कोवि इहं वित्तिणिमित्तं तु सेवए रायं । तो सोवि देदि राया विविहे भोगे सुहुप्पाए ॥२२४॥ puriso jaha kovi ihan vittiņimittam tu sevae rāyam to sovi dedi rāyā vivihe bhoge suhuppãe (224) पुरुषो यथा कोपीह वृत्तिनिमित्तं तु सेवते राजानम् । तत्सोऽपि ददाति राना विविधान् भोगान् सुखोत्पादकान् ॥२२४॥ एमेव जीवपुरिसो कम्मरायं सेवए सुहणिमित्तं । तो सोवि देइ कम्मो विविहे भोए सुहुप्पाए ॥२२५॥ emeva jīvapuriso kammarāyam sevae suhaạimittam to sovi dei kammo vivihe bhoe suhuppãe (225) एवमेव जीवपुरुषः कर्मरजः सेवते सुखनिमित्तम् ।। तत्तदपि ददाति कर्मराजा विविधान् सुखोत्पादकान् भोगान् ॥२२॥ जह पुण सो चिय पुरिसो वित्तिणिमित्तं ण सेवए रायं । तो सो ण देइ राया विविहे भोए सुहुप्पाए ॥२२६॥ jaha puna so ciya puriso vittiņimittañ pa sevaè rāyam to so na dei rāyā vivihe bhoe suhuppãe (226) यथा पुनः स एव पुरुषो वृत्तिनिमित्तं न सेवते राजानम् । तत्सोऽपि न ददाति राजा विविधान् भोगान् सुखोत्पादकान् ॥२२६॥
19

Page #275

146
SAMAYASĀRA
एवमेव सम्मदिट्री विसयत्तं सेवए ण कम्मरयं । तो सो ण देइ कम्मं विविहे भोए सुहप्पाए ॥२२७॥ evameva sammaditthī visayattam sevaye na kammarayam to so na dei kammam vivihe bhoe suhuppāe (227) एवमेव सम्यग्दृष्टिः विषयार्थ सेवते न कर्मरजः ।
तत्तन्न ददाति कर्म विविधान् भोगान् सुखोत्पादकान् ॥२२७॥
224 to 227. Just as whenever a person in this world, with the object of gaining his livelihood, serves his king and the king gives him by way of remuneration various pleasure-producing objects, so also the Self, in the form of an unenlightened personality with the object of securing pleasures, devotes himself in the service of karmas and the karma-raja accordingly offers him pleasure-producing things. Whenever that very person does not serve the king for his livelihood, the king does not give him various pleasure-producing object by way of remuneration. Similarly the right-believer, for the sake of sense-pleasures does not devote himself to the service of karmas and, consequently, the karma does not yield various objects as a source of enjoyment.
COMMENTARY Thus it is clear that in the case of the right-believer the karma is incapable of producing any effect.
While proceeding to describe the nature of right belief and its constituent elements, the author first states in general niśśanka or doubtlessness.
सम्मादिट्ठी जीवा णिस्संका होति णिब्भया तेण । सतभयविप्पमुक्का जम्हा तम्हा दु णिस्संका ॥२२८॥ sammāditthi jīvā nissamkā homti nibbhayā tena sattabhayavippamukka jamha tamhā du nissaṁkā (328) सम्यग्दृष्टयो जीवा निश्शङ्काः भवन्ति निर्भयास्तेन ।
सप्तभयविप्रमुक्ता यस्मात्तस्मात्तु निश्शङ्काः ॥२२८॥
228. Souls with right belief are free from doubt and therefore they are free from fear. Because they are free from seven kinds of fear, they are free from doubt.
COMMENTARY The seven fears are (1) fear relating to this life, (2) fear

Page #276

CHAPTER VII
147
relating to future life, (3) fear of being without protection, (4) fear of the disclosure of what is kept in secret (5) fear of pain, ( 6 ) fear of accident and ( 7 ) fear of death.
The author further explains the characteristics of nissanka or doubtlessness (one of the constituents of right belief). जो चत्तारि वि पाए छिददि ते 'कम्ममोहबाधकरे । सो सिंको चेदा सम्मादिट्ठी मुणेयव्वो ॥ २२६ ॥
jo cattari vi pãe chimdadi te kammamohabadhakare so nissamko cedā sammādittha muneyavvo (229) यश्चतुरोऽपि पादान् छिनत्ति तान् कर्ममोहबाधकरान् । स निश्शङ्कश्चेतयिता सम्यग्दृष्टिर्मन्तव्यः ॥२२९॥
229, He who cuts the four feet ( wrong- belief, discipline, soul-soiling groos emotions, and psycho-physical activity) of what produces karma, delusion, and suffering is the non-doubting right beliver.
COMMENTARY
Hence the Self which is non-doubting is free from bondage resulting from doubt. He has only to shed the karmas previously acquired.
non
Next the quality of nişkankṣa or desirelessness is described. जो दु ण करेदि कखं कम्मफलेसु तहयी सव्वधम्मेसु ।
सो णिक्कखो चेदा सम्मादिट्ठी मुणेयव्वो ।। २३० ॥
jo du na karedi kamkham kammaphalesu tahayi savvadhammesu so nikkarikho cedā sammāditthi muneyavvo (230)
यस्तु न करोति काङक्षां कर्मफलेषु तथा च सर्वधर्मेषु ।
स निष्काङक्षश्चेतयिता सम्यग्दृष्टिर्मन्तव्यः ॥ २३०॥
230. He who evinces no desire for pleasures resulting from karmas or for all qualities of things must be understood to be a desire-free right believer.

COMMENTARY
The Self which is free from desire is ipso facto free from
१. कम्भवंधमोहकरे

Page #277

148
desire produced by bondage. He has only to do nirjară, the shedding of the karmas previously acquired.
Next the characteristic of nirvicikitsā is mentioned.
SAMAYASARA
जो ण करेदि जुगुंछं चेदा सव्वेसिमेव धम्माणं ।
सो खलु निव्विदिगो सम्मादिट्ठी मुणेयव्वो ॥२३१॥
jo na karedi jugumchaṁ cedā savvesimeva dhammāṇaṁ so khalu nivvidigimcho sammadiṭṭhi muneyavvo (231)
यो न करोति जुगुप्सां चेतयिता सर्वेषामेव धर्माणाम् ।
स खलु निर्विचिकित्सः सम्यग्दृष्टिर्मन्तव्यः ॥२३१॥
231.
He who does not exhibit any abhorrence or disgust towards all the (obnoxious) qualities of things, is said to be the right believer without any abhorrence.

The characteristics in one's own body or in the environment which produce disgust or abhorrence in an ordinary man are without any influence in the case of the right believer who is aware of the nature of the things in themselves. This attitude of absolute indifference even in the midst of disgusting things is what is known as the quality of nirvicikitsa. This attitude of indifference does not produce any feeling of disgust or abhorrence. His attention is not diverted to the unpleasant situation in the environment. His attention is therefore fixed on the true nature of the Self. Hence there is no karmic bondage resulting from the emotions of disgust or abhorrence. He has only to achieve nirjara or the shedding of the past karmas.
१.
Next the author describes the quality of non-delusion (amūḍadṛṣṭitvam)
जो हव असम्मूढो चेदा सद्दिट्ठी सव्व भावेसु । सो खलु मूढदिट्ठी सम्मादिट्ठी मुणेयव्वो ॥ २३२॥
COMMENTARY
jo havai asammudo cedā saddiṭṭhī savva bhāvesu so khalu amuḍadiṭṭhī sammādiṭṭhī muneyavvo (232)
चेव भावेश सामग्गे

Page #278

CHAPTER VII
149
यो भवति असंमूढं चेतयिता सददृष्टि सर्वभावेषु ।
स खलु अमूढदृष्टि : सम्यग्दृष्टिमन्तव्यः ॥२३२॥ 232. He who is completely devoid of delusian as to the nature of things is certainly understood to be the non-deluded right-believer.
COMMENTARY
In this case also freedom from delu sion as to the nature of things prevents the appearance of karmas arising from delusion. Hence the right believer has only nirjarā to achieve.
Next the author describes upagūhana or the charitable concealment of defects in others.
जो सिद्धभत्तिजुत्तो उवगृहणगो दु सव्वधम्माणं । __ सो उवगृहणकारी सम्मादिट्ठी मुणेयव्वो ॥२३३॥ jo siddhabhattijutto uvagūhanago du sarvadhammāņań so uvagūhaņakārī sammāditthī muneyavvo (233)
यः सिद्धभक्तियुक्तः उपगृहनकस्तु सर्वधर्माणम् ।
स उपगृहनकारी सम्यग्दृष्टिमन्तव्यः ॥२३३॥ 233. He who is filled with devotion to Siddha and who forbears in every way all kinds of defects in others is considered to be the right-believer endowed with the quality of forbearance.
COMMENTARY
The important word in this gātha is upagūhana which means the attitude of forbearance and charity through which the
ts of helpless persons such as children and invalids are overlooked and concealed. This is the usual meaning given by the various Jaina writers for that word upagūhana. That is also the definition given by Samantabhadra in his Ratnakarandka Srāvakācāra (I.I 5) where he explains the constituent element of upagūhana. Prabhāchandra's commentary on the same verse maintains the same point of view. "Children because of ignorance, and, invalids because of their incapacity, may go wrong in their course of conduct prescribed for them by the religion. When they commit mistakes in that way these defects

Page #279

150
SAMAYASARA
must not be made much of, but must be over-looked and concealed, and that is upagūhana.”
One of the commentators on Samayagāra, Amritacandra, evidently had before him the word upabrîhana and not upagahana. The word upabrîhana means growing or increasing. With this reading evidently he explains the term as one who increases the powers of the Self, or ātma-sakti and that a right-believer is called one who has the soul-power in fullness. Hence in his case there is no karmic bandha produced by lack of soul-power or the weakness of Self. This same word upabrîhana is included by both Pūjyapāda and Akalanka when they enumerate the eight constituent elements or astāngas of right belief. In commenting upon the Sutra 24 of Chapter VI of Tattvārthasūtra, “Uttamaksa mādi-bhāvamaya-ātmano dharma-pari-vriddhi-kāraṇam upabệmhaņam”, increasing the true characteristics of the Self through the attitude of supreme forbearance, etc., means upabrîhanam or increase in soul-power. Jayasena, the other commentator on Samayasāra, evidently tries to combine the meaning of both the words upabrîhana and upagūhana. “Mithyātva-rāgādi- vibhava-dharmānām - upa-gūhaka - pracchādaka-vināśakāh.” Thus he takes the word upagūhana to mean vināśa or destruction and what must be destroyed are the impure psychic states produced by wrong belief, attachment to sense-pleasures, etc. It is extremely difficult on our part to explain how this constituent element upabỊmhaņa was supplanted by the element upa-gūhana, from increasing to fullness the soul-power to charitably forbearing the defects in others. Akalanka's Rājavārtika gives us a clue to understanding this transformation. The increasing of the soul-power is effected by means of uttamakşamā, supreme forbearance, etc. One who practises uttam kşamā, etc., not only increases his own soul's potency to fulness, but also by the same process developes the supreme quality of love and forbearance towards others. Persons who go astray either through ignorance or incapacity are forgiven by those great personalities who realise themselves in fulness and thereby evince love and forbearance towards others. They are able to discern the element of goodness in things evil.

Page #280

CHAPTER VII
151
They may condemn evil but they sympathise with and forgive the evil-doer. This attitude is beautifully illustrated in Christ's words addressed to the woman taken in the act of adultery, “Neither de I condemn thee. Go and sin no more.” Thus upagūhana is in short the result of upab?mhana, the fulness of power manifesting itself in forgiving and forbearance towards the weak.
In this case there is no karmic bondage, resulting from non-forbearance; nirjarā, or shedding of past karmas alone remains to be effected.
In the next gāthā the author gives a description of sthitikarana, non-wavering firmness in faith.
उम्मग्गं गच्छंतं सगमपि मग्गे ठवेदि जो चेदा । सो ठिदिकरण जुत्तो सम्मादिट्ठी मुणेयव्वो ॥२३४॥ ummagggi gacchamtam sagamapi magge ţhavedi jo ceda so thidikaraņa jutto sammādiţthi muneyavvo (234) उन्मार्गे गच्छन्तं स्वकमपि मार्गे यः स्थापयति यश्चेदयिता।
स स्थितिकरणयुक्तः सम्यग्दृष्टिमन्तव्यः ॥२३४॥
234. He who, instead of going astray, establishes himself firmly in the path of emancipation must be considered to be the right-believer who is endowed with steadfastness.
COMMENTARY In this case also since the right believer is firmly established in the path leading to mokșa, there is no wavering in him. Hence there is no bondage due to the lack of firmness. Hence there is only nirjarā to be effected here also.
Next the author describes the constituent element vātsalya, the attitude of love and devotion.
जो कुणदि वच्छलत्तं तिण्हे साधूण मोक्खमग्गम्मि । सो वच्छलभावजुदो सम्मादिट्ठी मुणेयव्वो ॥२३५॥ jo kunadi vacchalattas tinhe sādhūna mokkhamaggammi so vacchalabhāvajudo sammādiţthi mumeyavvo (235) यः करोति वत्सलत्वं त्रयाणां साधूनां मोक्षमार्गे । सः वात्सल्यभावयुक्तः सम्यग्दृष्टिमन्तव्यः ॥२३५॥

Page #281

152
SAMAYASĀRA
235. Whoever develops love and devotion to the three jewels which constitute the right path to mokşa, that person is considered to be the right believer endowed with love and devotion to the true path.
COMMENTARY
Love and devotion sustain him in the right path. Hence there is no lack of devotion and love and hence there is no karmic bondage, consequent thereupon. There is only nirjarā to be achieved.
Next is described the eighth constituent element of prabhāvanā or proclaiming the truth (of pravacana or Divine Word).
विन्नारहमारूढो मणोरहपहेसु भमइ जो चेदा । सो जिणणाणपहावी सम्मादिट्टी मुणेयव्वो ॥२३६॥ vijjārahamārūdo manorahapahesu bhamai jo cedā so jiņaņāņapahāvī sammādiţthì muneyavvo (236) विद्यारथमारूढः मनोरथपथेषु भ्रमति यश्चेतयिता।
स जिनज्ञानप्रभावी सम्यग्दृष्टिमन्तव्यः ॥२३६॥
236. The Self, which mounted on the Chariot of knowledge roams about as it pleases (shedding the light of wisdom), is to be considered a right-believer who is engaged in propounding the Jaina faith. .
COMMENTARY
This emphasises the social aspect of religious faith. A person who is equipped with knowledge of reality and who is therefore engaged in self-realisation should not be satisfied with his own personal acquisition of the sublime wisdom. He must place the benefit of his achievement at the disposal of the other members of the society. There is no such thing as isolated personal salvation. He is bound to share the wisdom with others and he must take with him as many as are willing to walk the path with him. This necessarily implies that the enlightened person should not be confined to any particular place. He must go about from place to place carrying the torch of light and wisdom thus spreading the true knowledge and true faith in all

Page #282

CHATER VIII
153
parts of the country. This roaming about from place to place, spreading hope, wisdom and charity for the benefit of the whole society is what is called dharma probhāvanā, one of the essential characteristics of the right believer. This characteristic was present at its maximum in the life of every Tirthankara. The Lord after attaining kevala-jñāna or Omniscience, spends the remaining portion of his life-time in going about from place to place and preaching the dharma for the benefit of mankind.
Thus the right-believer endowed with the above eight characteristics is free from new karmic bondage but has only to achieve nirjarā or the shedding of the past karmas.
Thus ends the chapter on Nirjarā.
Nirjară quits the stage like a character cured of its infatuous nature and filled with śānta-rasa or peace.
CHAPTER VIII
BANDHA OR BONDAGE OF KARMAS.
Then Bandha enters the stage.
जह णाम कोवि पुरिसो णेहभत्तो दु रेणुबहलम्मि । ठाणम्मि ठाइदूण य करेइ सत्थेहिं वायामं ॥२३७॥ jaha ņāma kovi puriso ņehabhatto du reņubahulammi thāṇammi thāidūņa ya karei satthehim vāyāmaí (237) . यथा नाम कोऽपि पुरुषः स्नेहाभ्यक्तस्तु रेणुबहुले । स्थाने स्थित्वा च करोति शस्त्रैर्व्यायामम् ॥२३७॥ छिददि भिददि य तहा तालीतलकयलिवंसपिडीओ। सचित्ताचित्ताणं करेइ दव्वाणमुवघायं ॥२३८॥ chimdadi bhimdadi ya taha tālītalakayalivaṁsapiņdio sacittācittāņain karei davvānamuvaghāyam (238) छिनत्ति भिनत्ति च तथा तालीतलकदलीवंशपिण्डीः । सचित्ताचित्तानां करोति द्रव्याणामुपघातम् ॥२३८॥ उवघायं कुव्वंतस्स तस्स णाणाविहेहि करणेहि । णिच्छयदो चितिन्नदु कि पच्चयगो दु रयबंधो ॥२३६॥
20

Page #283

154
SAMAYASĀRA
uvaghāyan kuvvamtassa tassa nānāvihehin karanehim ņicchayado cistijjadu kim paccayago du rayabamdho (239) उपघातं कुर्वतस्तस्य नानाविधैः करणैः। निश्चयतश्चिन्त्यतां तु किं प्रत्ययकस्तु रनोवधः ॥२३९॥ जो सो दु णेहभावो तम्हि गरे तेण तस्स रयबंधो । णिच्छयदो विण्णेयं ण कायचेट्टाहिं सेसाहिं ॥२४०॥ jo so du ņehabhāvo tamhi nare teņa tassa rayabamdho nicchayado vinneyam na kāyacetthahin sesahim (240) यः स तु स्नेहभावस्तस्मिन्नरे तेन तस्य रजोबन्धः । निश्चयतो विज्ञेयं न कायचेष्टाभिः शेषाभिः ॥२४॥ एवं मिच्छादिट्ठी वÉतो बहुविहासु चेट्ठासु । रायाई उवओगे कुव्वंतो लिप्पइ रयेण ॥२४१॥ evaṁ micchadițțhi vatļamto bahuvihāsu cetthāsu rāyāi uvaoge kuvvaṁto lippai rayeņa (241) एवं मिथ्यादृष्टिवर्तमानो बहुविधासु चेष्टासु ।
रागादीनुपयोगे कुर्वाणो लिप्यते रजसा ॥२४१॥
237 to 241: For instance, a man smeared with oil standing in a place full of dust, performs exercises with a sword, cuts or breaks trees such as palm, tamala, plantain, bamboo, and asoka and thus causes destruction to objects, animate and inanimate. In the case of this person who is engaged in the destructive activity by assuming various bodily postures, what is the real condition causing dust deposit on his person ? Certainly it is the oil smeared on his body that must be considered to be the real cause of the dust-deposit and certainly not his various bodily activities. In the same way a wrong believor even while he is engaged in various activities, only if he performs those activities with feeling of attachment then certainly he gets covered with karmic dust.
COMMENTARY
Here is a person, smeared with oil all over the body, standing in a place which is naturally full of dust. He is engaged in sword exercise. He assumes various postures of his body in

Page #284

CHAPTER VIII
155
his rapid movement engaged in the destruction of objects animate and inanimate. Certainly his body is covered with dust. What is the real cause of the dust deposit on him? Certainly it is not the ground which is naturlly full of dust. If that were so, another person without oil-smear on the body standing in the same place must also have the dust-deposit on his body. Is it the sword exercise ? Certainly not. For, another person without the oily body performing the same exercise must get the dust deposit. Is it the destruction of objects animate and inanimate ? This cannot be. For a person similarly engaged without the oily body must also get dust-deposit. In all these cases it is clear that the dust-deposit does not occur when the oily surface is not present and the dust-deposit occurs only when the oily surface is present. This one common factor in the antecedent circumstances must be taken to be the real cause of the dust-deposit. In the same way a wrong believer, who, having the feeling of attachment in himself and remaining in the world which is naturally full of karmic particles is engaged in various activities of thought, word and deed, directed to the destruction of animate and inanimate objects, gets covered with karmic dust. What is the real cause of this karmic bondage ? Certainly it is not the world which is filled with karmic particles. If that were the cause, then even the Siddhas, the Perfect Souls, because of their existence in the same world must also be subjected to karmic bondage. Can it be the action involving thought, word and deed ? Such activity is present even in the case of the Omniscient Arhat and in Him there must occur the karmic bondage. Then is it due to destruction of objects animate and inanimate? Certainly not. For such a destruction may happen even in the case of careful activities which go under the name of five samitīs. Here also the only common factor is the antecedent circumstances; the feeling of attachment, must be taken to be the causal condition of the karmic bondage. Thus it is established through a practical illustration that the feeling of attachment towards objects in the environment is the real cause of karmic bondage. .
जह पुण सो चेव जरो गेहे सव्वम्हि अवणिये संते । रेणुबहुलम्मि ठाणे करेइ सत्थेहि वायाम ॥२४२॥

Page #285

156
SAMAYASARA

jaha puna so ceva naro nehe savvamhi avaniye samte renubahulammi thāne karei satthehi vāyāmam (242) यथा पुनः स चैव नरः स्नेहे सर्वस्मिन्नपनीते सति । रेणुबहुले स्थाने करोति शस्त्रैर्व्यायामम् ॥ २४२॥ छिदिभिददि य तहा तालीतलकयलिवंसपिडीओ । सच्चित्ताचित्ताणं करेइ दव्वाणमुवघायं ॥ २४३॥ chimdadi bhimdadi ya tahā tālītalakayalivamsapimdio saccittācittānam karei davvānamuraghāyain (243) छिनत्ति भिनत्ति च तथा तालीतलकदलीवंशपडीः । सचित्ताचित्तानां करोति द्रव्याणामुपघातम् ॥२४३॥
उवघायं कुव्वंतस्स तस्स णाणाविहेहि करणेहि । णिच्छयदो चितिन्नदु कि पच्चयगो ण रयबंधो ॥ २४४ ॥
uvaghayam kuvvamtassa tassa ṇāṇāvihehim karanehim nicchayado cimtijjadu kim paccayago na rayabaidho (244) उपघातं कुर्वतस्तस्य नानाविधैः करणैः ।
निश्चयतश्चिन्त्यतां खलु किं प्रत्ययको न रजोबन्धः ॥ २४४ ॥ जो सोदु भावो तम्हि णरे तेण तस्स रयबंधो । णिच्छयदो विण्णेयं ण कायचेट्ठाहि सेसाहि ॥ २४५॥ ja sodu nehabhavo tamhi nare tena tassa rayabaṁdho nicchayado vinneyam na kayaceṭṭhāhim sesähim यः स तु स्नेहभावस्तस्मिन्नरे तेन तस्य रजोबन्धः । निश्चयतो विज्ञेयं न कायचेष्टाभिः शेषाभिः ॥२४५॥ एवं सम्मादिट्ठी तो बहुविहेसु जोगेसु । अकरंतो उवओगे रागाई ण लिप्पइ रयेण ॥ २४६ ॥ evam sammadiṭṭhi vaṭṭamto bahavihesu jogesu akaramto uvaoge rāgāi na lippai rayena ( 246 ) एवं सम्यग्दृष्टिर्वर्तमानो बहुविधेषु योगेषु । अकुर्वन्नुपयोगे रागादीन् न लिप्यते रजसा ॥ २४६ ॥
242 to 246. On the other hand a person entirely free from oily smear on the body, standing in a place full of dust, performs exercises with a sword, cuts or breaks trees such as palm, tamala, plantain, bamboo and aśoka and thus causes destruction to
(245)

Page #286

CHAPTER VIII
157
objects, animate and inanimate. In the case of this person who is engaged in the destructive activity by assuming various bodily postures, what is the real explanation for the absence of dustdeposit on his person ? Certainly it is the absence of oily surface that must account for the absence of dust-deposit on his person and not his various bodily activities. In the same way a right believer even while he is engaged in various activities of thought, word, and deed merely because of the absence of feeling of attachment in them, is not bound by karmic particles.
COMMENTARY
In the above gāthās the causal relation between the feeling of attachment and karmic bondage is established by citing positive instances on the one hand by which the presence of the cause necessarily implies the presence of the effect and also by citing negative instances on the other hand where the absence of the cause implies the absence of the effect, thus adopting the principle which is known in Logic as the Joint Method of Agreement and Difference.
Next the author describes the thoughts characteristic of the nescient and the knowing Self.
जो मण्णदि हिंसामि य हिसिन्नामि य परेहि सत्तेहि । सो मूढो अण्णाणी णाणी एत्तो दु विवरीदो ॥२४७॥ jo mannadi himsāmi ya himsijjāmi ya parehim sattehim so mūdho anņāņi nāņī etto du vivarido (247) यो मन्यते हिनस्मि च हिंस्ये च परैः सत्वैः ।
स मूढोऽज्ञानी ज्ञान्यतस्तु विपरीतः ॥२४७॥
247. He who thinks, "I kill other beings or I am killed by other beings”, is a deluded one, devoid of knowledge. But one who thinks otherwise is the Knower.
COMMENTARY The above-mentioned thought arises from lack of true knowledge which is the characteristic of wrong belief. But such thoughts are absent in the case of one who knows the true

Page #287

158
SAMAYASĀRA
nature of things and hence he is a right believer. The same idea occurs in the Bhagavad Gitā. “He who thinks of him as slayer, he who deems him slain--these both are void of judgment; he doth not slay nor is he slain.” 11.19.
Next the author explains why such thoughts imply ajñāna or lack of true knowledge.
आउक्खयेण मरणं जीवाणं जिणवरेहि पण्णत्तं । आउं ण हरेसि तुमं कह ते मरणं कयं तेसि ॥२४८।। āukkhayeņa maraṇam jīvānam jiņavarehim pannattain āum ņa haresi tumam kaha te maraṇam kayam tesim (248) आयुःक्षयेण मरणं जीवानां जिनवरैः प्रज्ञप्तम् ।।
आयुर्न हरसि त्वं कथं त्वया मरणं कृतं तेषाम् ॥२४८॥
248. It is declared by the Jinas that the death of living beings is caused by the disappearance of their age-determining karma. (Since) thou doth not destroy their age-determining karma, how is their death caused by thee?
आउक्खयेण मरणं जीवाणं जिणवरेहि पण्णत्तं । आउं ण हरंति तुह कह ते मरणं कयं तेहिं ॥२४६।। āukkhayeņa maraṇam jīvānam jiņavarehim paņņattan āuń na haramti tuha kaha te maraṇam kayam tehim (249) आयुःक्षयेण मरणं जीवानां जिनवरैः प्रज्ञप्तम् ।
आयुन हरन्ति तव कथं ते मरणं कृतं तैः ॥२४६॥
249. It is declared by the Jinas that the death of living beings is caused by the disappearance of their age-determining karma. (Since) they do not destroy thine age-determining karma how can thy death be caused by them.
COMMENTARY
Death of living beings results only when their age-determin ing karmas wear out. This wearing out of one's own age karma will be caused by its running its full course of duration and not by any other means. When that causal condition is absent, the result cannot be produced by any other means. Hence no one can think of causing the death of another. Therefore the thought, "I kill or I am killed” is certainly the mark of ajñāna or absence of knowledge of things real.

Page #288

CHAPTER VIII
159
Next the author examines the statements expressing thoughts relating to life, from the same two aspects.
जो मण्णदि जीवेमि य जीविनामि य परोह सत्तेहि । सो मूढो अण्णाणी गाणी एत्तो दु विवरीदो ॥२५०।। jo mannadi jivemi ya jīvijjāmi ya parehim sattehim so madho annāni noni etto du vivarido (250) यो मन्यते जीवयामि च जीव्ये च परैः सत्त्वैः ।
स मूढोऽज्ञानी ज्ञान्यतस्तु विपरीतः ॥२५०॥
250. He who thinks, "I live (as caused by other beings) and I cause other beings to live" is a deluded one, devoid of knowledge. But one who thinks otherwise is the Knower.
Next the author points out how this thought is the result of ajñāna.
आऊदयेण जीवदि जीवो एवं भणंति सव्वण्ह । आउं च ण देसि तुमं कहं तए जीवियं कयं तेसि ॥२५१॥ āūdayeņa jīvadi jīvo evam bhanamti savvanhu aum ca na desi tumam kaham tae jiviyam kayam tesim (251) आयुरुदयेन जीवति जीव एवं भणन्ति सर्वज्ञाः ।
आयुश्च न ददासि त्वं कथं त्वया जीवितं कृतं तेषाम् ।।२५१॥
251. The Omniscient Ones declare that an organic being lives. because of the operation of (its) age-karma. (Since) thou giveth not age-karma (to living beings) how is their life caused by thee.
आऊदयेण जीवदि जीवो एवं भणंति सव्वण्हू । आउं च ण दित्ति तुहं कहं णु ते जीवियं कयं तेहि ॥२५२॥ āūdayeņa jīvadi jīvo evam bhamanti savvanhū aum ca na ditti tuham kaham nu te jzviyam kayam tehim (252) आयुरुदयेन जीवति जीव एवं भणन्ति सर्वज्ञाः ।
आयुश्च न ददाति तव कथं तु ते जीवितं कृतं तैः ॥२५२॥
252. The Omniscient Ones declare that an organic being lives because of the operation of (its) age-karma. (Since) they do not give thee thine age-karma, how can thy life be caused by them ?

Page #289

160
SAMAYASĀRA
COMMENTARY
The life of an organic being depends upon the operation of . its age-karma. So long as the age-karma persists to operate, the organic being continues to live. When that ceases to be, life also ceases to be. Sincc the age-karma is entirely self-determined in its operation, it cannot be given by anybody else. Therefore. by no means can one make another live. Hence the thought, “I am caused by others to live or I cause others to live,” is certainly due to ajñāna or absence of the knowledge of the reals.
Next it is pointed out that the thought of causing happiness or misery has the same significance.
जो अप्पणा दु मण्णदि दुहिदसुहिदे करेमि सत्तेति । सो मूढो अण्णाणी णाणो एतो दु विवरोदो ॥२५३॥ jo appaņā du mannadi duhidasuhide karemi satteti so mudho annāni nani etto du vivarido (253) य आत्मना तु मन्यते दुःखितसुखितान् करोमि सत्त्वानिति ।
स मूढोऽज्ञानी ज्ञान्यतस्तु विपरीतः ॥२५३॥
253. He who thinks, “I cause happiness or misery to other beings and I am made happy or miserable by others," is a deluded one, devoid of knowledge. The Knower thinks otherwise.
Next the author points out how this thought is the result of ajñāna.
कम्मोदयेण जीवा दुक्खिदसुहिदा हवंति जदि सम्वे । कम्मं च ण देसि तुमं दुक्खिदसुहिदा कहं कया ते ॥२५४॥ kammodayena jīvā dukkhidasuhida havaṁti jadi savve kammam ca na desi tumam dukkhidasuhida kaham kayā te (254) कर्मोदयेन जीवा दुःखितसुखिता भवन्ति यदि सर्वे ।
कर्म च न ददासि त्वं दुःखितसुखिताः कथं कृतास्ते ॥२५४॥
254. If all living beings become miserable or happy only when their karmas begin to operate and since thou dost not give them their karmas, how are they made miserable or happy by thee,

Page #290

161
CHAPTER VIII
161 कम्मोदयेण जीवा दुक्खिदसुहिदा हवंदि जदि सब्वे । कम्मं च ण दिति तुहं कदोसि कहं दुक्खिदो तेहिं ॥२५॥ kammodayena jīvā dukkhidasuhida havaṁdi jadi savve kammam ca na diti tuham kadosi kaham dukkhido tehim (255) कर्मोदयेन जीवा दुःखितसुखिता भवन्ति यदि सर्वे । कर्म च न ददति तव कृतोऽसि कथं दुःखितस्तैः ॥२५५॥
255. If all living beings become miserable or happy only when their karmas begin to operate and since they do not give thee thy karmas, how art thou made miserable by them.
कम्मोदयेण जीवा दुक्खिदसुहिदा हवंति जदि सव्वे । कम्मं च ण दिति तुहं कह तं सुहिदो कदो तेहिं ॥२५६॥ kammodayena jīvā dukkhidasuhida havaṁti jadi savve kamman ca na diti tuham kaha tam suhido kado tehim (256) कर्मोदयेन जीवा दुःखितसुखिता भवन्ति यदि सर्वे । कर्म च न ददति तव कथं त्वं सुखितः कृतस्तैः ॥२५६।।
256. If all living beings become miserable or happy only when their karmas begin to operate and since they do not give thee thy karmas, how art thou made happy by them.
COMMENTARY Whether a living being is happy or miserable, is entirely determined by the operation of its karmas. If the causal condition is absent, the resultant experience will also cease to be. One's karma cannot be got as a gift from another. It is acquired Lonly by one's own conduct in life. Hence one cannot make another happy or miserable. Hence the thought, “I make others happy or miserable or I am made happy or miserable by others” is certainly the mark of ajñāna. Thus through these gāthās the author emphasises that death and life, misery and happiness are all the result of the operation of one's own karma.
जो मरदि जो य दुहिदो जायदि कम्मोदयेण सो सम्वो। तम्हा दु मारिदोदे दुहाविदो चेदि णहु मिच्छा ॥२५७॥ jo maradi jo ya duhido jāyadi kammodayeņa so savvo tamha du māridode duhavido cedirahu micchā (2.57)

Page #291

162
SAMAYASĀRA
यो म्रियते यश्च दुःखितो जायते कर्मोदयेन स सर्वः ।
तस्मात्तु मारितस्ते दुःखितश्चेति न खलु मिथ्या ॥२५७॥
257. One dies or one becomes miserable while alive; all these happen as a result of the operation of one's own karmas. Therefore, "He is killed by me and he is made miserable by me" ---is not this view of yours entirely false?
जो ण मरदि ण य दुहिदो सोवि य कम्मोदयण चेव खलु । तम्हा ण मारिदो ण दुहाविदो चेदि णहु मिच्छा ।।२५८।। jo na maradi na ya duhido sovi ya kammodayeņa ceva khalu tamhā ņa mārido na duhāvido cedi nahu micchā (258) यो न म्रियते न च दुःखितो सोऽपि च कर्मोदयेन चेव खलु ।
तस्मान्न मारितो न दुःखितश्चेति न खलु मिथ्या ॥२५८।।
258. One does not die or one does not become miserable while alive, this also is certainly the result of the operation of one's own karmas. Therefore, "He is not killed by me and he is not made miserable by me”-is not this view of yours entirely false?
Next the author points out that this erroneous belief is the cause of bondage.
एसा दु जा मदी दे दुःखिदसुहिदे करेमि सत्तेति । एसा दे मूढमई सुहासुहं बंधये कम्मं ॥२५६।। esā du jā madî de dukkhidasuhide karemi satteti esa de mudhamai suhāsuham bandhaye kammam (259) एषा तु या मतिस्ते दुःखितसुखितान् करोमि सत्वानिति । एषा ते मूढमतिः शुभाशुभं बध्नाति कर्म ॥२५९॥
259, This false notion of thine, “I make other beings miserable or happy” is illusory. This leads to the bondage of karmas good or bad.
दुक्खिदसुहिदे सत्ते करेमि जं एवमझवसिदं दे । तं पावबंधगं वा पुण्णस्स व बंधगं होदि ॥२६०॥ dukkhidasuhide satte karemi jam evamajjhavasidam te tam pavabamdhagam va punnassa va bamdhagam hodi (260)
bod

Page #292

CHAPTER VIII
दुःखितसुखितान् सत्त्वान् करोमि यदेवमध्यवसितं ते ।
तत्पापबन्धकं वा पुण्यस्य वा बन्धकं भवति ॥ २६०॥
260. "I make other beings miserable or happy". This thought of thine cause karmic bondage of the nature of vice or virtue.
मामि जीवामि य सत्ते जं एवमज्भवसिदं ते ।
तं पावबंधगं वा पुण्णस्स व बंधगं होदि ॥ २६१ ।।
māremi jīvāvemi ya satte jam evamajjhavasidam te tam pāvabamdhagain vā punassa va bandhagam hodi (261) मारयामि जीवयामि च सत्त्वान् यदेवमध्यवसितं ते ।
तत्पापबन्धकं वा पुण्यस्य वा बन्धकं भवति ॥ २६१॥
261. "I kill other beings or I make them live." This thought of thine causes karmic bondage of the nature of vice or virtue.
163
Next it is pointed out that the thought to kill is the same as killing.
अवसिदेण बंधो सत्ते मारेउ मा व मारेउ । एसो बंधसमासो जीवाणं णिच्छयणयस्स ॥२६२॥ ajjhavasideņa bandho satte mareu mă va māreu eso bandhasamāso jīvanaṁ nicchayaṇayassa (262) अध्यवसितेन बन्धः सच्वान् मारयतु मा वा मारयतु । एष बन्धसमासो जीवानां निश्चयनयस्य ॥ २६॥
262. The will to kill is enough to bring bandage irrespective of the fact whether animals are killed or are not killed. From the real point of view this in short is the mode of bondage in the case of jivas (or empirical selves).

Again the auther points out how thought is the cause of bondage and of papa or punya, vice or virtue.
एवमलिये अदत्ते ब्रह्मचेरे परिग्गहे चेव ।
कीरइ अज्भवसाणं जं तेण दु बज्झए पावं ॥२६३॥
evamaliye adatte abramhacere pariggahe ceva kirai ajjhavasānam jam tena du bajjhae pāvai (263) एवमलीके दत्तेऽब्रह्मचर्ये परिग्रहे चैव ।
कियते ऽध्यवसानं यत्तेन तु बध्यते पापम् ॥ २६३॥

Page #293

164
SAMAYASARA
263. Thus (the will to kill), the will to lie, to steal, to be unchaste and to acquire property (inordinately) leads to bondage of evil karmas.
'तहवि य सच्चे दत्ते बंभे अपरिगहत्तणे चेव ।
कीरइ अज्भवसाणं जं तेण दु बज्झए पुण्णं ॥ २६४ ॥ tahavi ya sacce datte bambhe aparigahattane ceva kirai ajjhavasāṇam jam teņa du bajjhae punnam (264) तथापि च सत्ये दत्ते ब्रह्मणि अपरिग्रहत्वे चैव । क्रियतेऽध्यवसानं यत्तेन तु बध्यते पुण्यम् ॥ २६४॥
264. Whereas (the will not to kill), the will not to lie, not to steal, not to be unchaste and not to acquire property (inordinately) leads to the bondage of good karmas.
CAMMENTARY
The same truth is conveyed by Christ through His teachings when he emphasises the inner purity of heart, "Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God." This clearly implies that the relisation of the divinity in man is necessarily conditioned by the purity of heart; whereas when the heart is impure, it brings about sin. The following words of Christ make this clear. "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shall not commit adultery, But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." St. Matthew V. 27 & 28.
Next it is pointed out that the objects in the external world can neither be the cause of karmic bondage.
वत्युं पडुच्च जं पुण अज्झवसाणं तु होदि जीवाणं ।
य वत्युदो दु बंधो अज्भवसाणेण बंधोत्ति ॥ २६५॥

vatthum paducca jam puna ajjhavasāņam tu hodi jivāņaṁ na ya vatthudo du bandho ajjhavasanena bandhotti (265)
वस्तु प्रतीत्य यत्पुनरध्यवसानं तु भवति जीवानाम् ।
न च वस्तुतस्तु बन्धोऽध्यवसानेन बन्धोऽस्ति ॥२६५॥
265. Through in an empirical Self is always conditioned by an object in the external world. Nevertheless it is not that exter
'अवहे सच्चे दत्ते बम्हे ।

Page #294

CHAPTER VIII
165
nal object that is the cause of bondage. It is by thought that bondage is caused.
COMMENTARY
The direct cause of bondage is thought and not any external object, though this is the cause of thought itself. Then why should external object be tabooed? It is for the purpose of condemning the thought based upon the external objects. Thought without the basis of an external object never occurs in the consciousness of Self. If it is possible to have thought without the basis of an external object, then thought corresponding to non-existing object must also appear. In the case of a person born of a real mother, you can entertain the thought, going to kill her son". But in the case of a barren woman, the thought, "I am going to kill her son", would be meaningless because there can be no son born to a barren woman. Hence it is certain that there can be no thought without a basis in reality. Hence it necessarily follows that condemnation of evil thoughts leads to the condemnation of corresponding objects of reality. For it is only by preventing the cause that the effect can be prevented from occurring. Could it not be maintained that because the external object is the cause of that cause which produces bondage, therefore, the external object is itself the cause of bondage? No. For, the real causal condition of bondage, the conative idea is lacking. If the external object were by itself capable of producing karmic bondage, then it would have identical effect in the case of a saint who moves about with gentleneess and caution actuated by the ideal of love and mercy and of a hypocrite in the garb of a saint who roams about rough and tough without any care. That is, both of them must have the same reaction in the environment which is common to both. It is not so as a matter of fact. The saint pure in heart is untouched by sin though he lives in the same environment as the false and hypocritical ascetic who, because of the absence of the purity of thought, is still attached to sensual pleasures and is thus subject to karmic bondage. Hence it is not the environmental object but it is the inner thought that is the cause of bondage.

Page #295

166
SAMAYASARA Next the author points out that the thought which is said to be the cause of bondage is false because of the absence of objecttive evidence to carroborate it.
दुक्खिदसुहिदे जीवे करेमि बंधेमि तह विमोचेमि ।
जा एसा मूढमई णिरच्छया सा हु दे मिच्छा ।।२६६।। dukkhidasuhide jīve karemi bardhemi taha vimocemi jā esā mūdhamī ņiracchayā sä hu de miccha (266)
दुःखितसुखितान् जीवान् करोमि बध्नामि तथा विमोचयामि ।
या एषा मूढमतिः निरर्थिका सा खलु ते मिथ्या ॥२६६॥ 266. "I make living beings miserable or happy; I bind or release them.” Such thought in you is meaningless. Verily it is false.
COMMENTARY Happiness or misery of a person is entirely dependent upon that person's nature and it cannot be due to any external influence. Hence the proposition, “I make him happy or I make him miserable” is false, because it is uncorroborated by objective reality. Mere assertion of a proposition cannot make it real. It cannot create its own objective evidence of corroboration. If it is possible for the asserted proposition to carry within itself the corroborative evidence of objective reality, then such statements must become real by the mere fact of assertion as, "I am gathering skyflowers.” Hence no assertion by itself can carry its own truth-value with it.
Next it is explained how such a thought is without corroborative evidence.
अज्झवसाणणिमित्तं जीवा बझंति कम्मणा जदिहि ।
मुच्चंति मोक्खमग्गे ठिदा य ते किं करोसि तुमं ॥२६७॥ ajjhavasāņaạimittam jīvā bajjhasti kammaņā jadihi muccanti mokkhamagge țhida ya te kim karosi tumam (267)
अध्यवसाननिमित्तं जीवा बध्यन्ते कर्मणा यदि हि ।
मुच्यन्ते मोक्षमार्ग स्थिताश्च तत् किं करोषि त्वम् ॥२६७॥ 267. If their own thoughts are the real condition by which souls are bound by karmas or get released from them while standing on the path of salvation, then what is there that thou canst achieve ?

Page #296

CHAPTER VIII
COMMENTARY
The proposition in thought, "I bind or I release" in order to be true must have as its objective meaning, actual bondage or release of jivas, as corroborative evidence. But as a matter of fact jivas are bound or released according to their own thought conditions. Another person's thought would be entirely ineffective, therefore, to bind or release other jivas. Hence your thought, "I bind or I release other jivas" is entirely false since it is not corroborated by objective evidence. Hence your claim, "I bind or release other jivas" is only illusory.
Next the author describes the behaviour of one who is deluded by such ineffectual and fruitless thought. सव्वे करेइ जीवो अज्झवसाणेण तिरियणेरइए ।
167
देवमणुवे य सव्वे पुण्णं पावं च अणेयविहं ॥ २६८॥
savve karei jiva ajjhavasāņeņa tiriyaneraie devamanuve ya savve punņam pāvam ca aneyaviham (268) सर्वान् करोति नीवोऽध्यवसानेन तिर्यङनैरयिकान् ।
देवमनुनांश्च सर्वान् पुण्यं पापं च नैकविधम् ॥ २६८॥
268. The Self, by its own thought activity creates for itself the form of beings-sub-human, hellish, celestial, and human and also various types of virtue and vice. धमाधम्मं च तहा जीवाजीवे अलोयलोयं च । सव्वे करेइ जीवो अज्भवसाणेण अप्पाणं ॥ २६६॥ dhammādhammam ca taha jivajive aloyaloyam ca savve karei jivo ajjhavasāņeņa appāṇaṁ (269) धर्माधर्मं च तथा जीवाजीवौ अलोकलोकं च ।
सर्वान् करोति जीवः अध्यवसानेन आत्मानम् ॥ २६९॥
269. Similarly, the Self through its own thought-activity may identify itself with the categories of dharma or adharma, soul, non-soul, the Universe and the Beyond.

COMMENTARY
The will to do a thing makes a person the doer of that act. Thus the will to kill makes him a killer, the will to steal makes him a thief and so on. Thus a particular conative tendency in the Self makes that Self the agent of the corresponding action.

Page #297

168
SAMAYASARA
Similarly thought condition determining birth as a hell inhabitant, when ripe will lead to the birth as a hellish being. Similarly appropriate and efficient thought conditions will make the Self, a celestial or human being. The same appropriate thought activity will cause him to do virtuous deeds or vicious deeds and enjoy happiness or misery. The very same thought activity as a process of knowledge, may bring in the categories of dharma, adharma, the world including animate and inanimate objects, and space beyond as objects of knowledge related to Self. But this very same thought vitiated by absence of right knowledge may lead the Self to erroneously identify itself with the various external objects. In all these cases the Self deviates from its own intrinsic nature of purity and gets vitiated by alien influences on account of which the Self through its vitiated thought activity goes astray from his own nature assuming various forms unreal, ephemeral, and impure. Thus the real ?șis are entirely free from such vicious and erroneous thought activity.
Next it is pointed out that those who are free from such thought activity are not subject to karmic bondage.
एदाणि णत्थि जेसि अज्झवसाणाणि एवमादीणि । ते असुहेण सुहेण व कम्मेण मुणी ण लिप्पंति ॥२७०॥ edāņi natthi jesim ajjhavasāņā ņi evamādīņi te asuheņa suheņa va kammeņa munī ņa lippamti (270) एतानि न सन्ति येषामध्यवसानान्येवमादीनि । तेऽशुभेन शुभेन वा कर्मणा मुनयो न लिप्यन्ति ॥२७०॥
270. The saints, in whom such thought activities ar present, are not contaminated by karmas. good or bad.
COMMENTARY
The thought activities mentioned above, occur when the intrinsic rature of the Self is not realised. The realisation of the true Self implies the three aspects. Faith in the ultimate purity of the self, knowledge of the ultimate self, and being identified with that ultimate self-these three aspects constitute the niscaya qatnatraya, the three jewels from the higher point of view. The

Page #298

CHAPTER VIII
169
thought activities referred to in the preceding two gathās are not based upon the experience of that Absolute Self. Therefore they are associated with the empirical Self. Empirical Self implies the opposite of the Transcendental Real Self. Therefore the activities of belief, knowledge and conduct of the empirical Self are from the real point of view, erroneous belief, erroneous knowledge and erroneous conduct. Therefore karmic bondage results from them. Hence it follows that in the case of a saint equipped with true knowledge of Self, these psychic activities are absent and hence there is no karmic bondage.
Next the term Adhyavasāna is explained.
बुद्धी ववसाओवि य अज्झवसाणं मदीय विण्णाणं । एयट्टमेव सव्वं चित्तं भावो य परिणामो ॥२७१॥ buddhi vavasāovi ya ajjhavasāṇam madīya viņņāņam eyatthameva savvam cittam bhāvo ya pariņāmo (271) बुद्धिर्व्यवसायोऽपि च अध्यवसानं मतिश्च विज्ञानं । ।
एकार्थमेव सर्व चित्तं भावश्च परिणामः ॥२७१॥
271. Buddhi (understanding), vyavasāya (resolving), adhyavasāna (conative activity), mati (thinking), vijñāna (knowing), citta (consciousness), bhāva (conscious mode), and pariņāma (conscious manifestation)—all these words have the same meaning
Next the vyavahāraṇaya is denied by the niscayaņaya.
एवं ववहारणओ पडिसिद्धो जाण णिच्छयणयेण । णिच्छयणयास्सिदा पुण मुणिणो पावंति णिव्वाणं ॥२७२॥ evam vavahāraṇao padisiddho jāņa nicchayaņayeņa ņicchayaņayāssida puņa muniņo pāvaṁti ņivvāņam (272) एवं व्यवहारनयः प्रतिषिद्धो जानीहि निश्चयनयेन । निश्चयनयाश्रिताः पुनर्मुनयः प्राप्नुवन्ति निर्वाणम् ॥२७२॥
272. Thus know ye that the practical point of view is contradicted by the real point of view. It is by adopting the real point of view that the saints attain Nirvāņa or Liberation.
COMMENTARY The (niscaya) real point of view is based upon the Self. The (vyavahāra) practical point of view is based upon external things.
22

Page #299

170
SAMAYASARA
Thus from the real point of view, all the externally conditioned thought activities because they constitute the causal condition for karmic bondage have to be rejected by the saints who have renounced all. To renounce such thought activities, they have to reject the practical point of view itself since that is based upon external things. Spiritual liberation from karmic bondage is possible only by adopting the real point of view. Hence one who wants to reach the goal of Nirvana has to adopt the real point of view and reject the practical point of view.
वदसमिदीगुत्तीओ सीलतवं जिणवरेहिं पण्णत्तं ।
कुव्वतो वि अभविओ अण्णाणी मिच्छादिट्ठी दु ॥ २७३॥
vadasamidiguttio silatavam jiņavarehim pannattam kuvvamto vi abhavio anṇāņi micchādiṭṭhi du (273) व्रतसमितिगुप्तयः शीलंतपो जिनवरैः प्रज्ञप्तम् ।
कुर्वन्नप्यभव्योऽज्ञानी मिथ्यादृष्टिस्तु ॥ २७३॥
273. Persons incapable of spiritual liberation even though they observe vows, carefulness, restraints, rules of conduct, and penance as described by the Jinas do remain without true knowledge and of false faith.

COMMENTARY
Various kinds of religious discipline prescribed by the Jina are from the vyavahara point of view, Hence they constitute vyavahāra caritra, course of conduct prescribed for the ordinary man. These rules of conduct may be observed even by abhavyas -persons innately unfit for spiritual salvation. Even though such an abhavya practises those rules of conduct, he cannot be considered to be equipped with the three jewels of the higher order which are based upon the nature of the pure Self. Hence his conduct is only of the lower order belonging to the three jewels of the lower order. Hence from the absolute point of view, since the abhavya is endowed with the inferior jewels, his faith and knowledge cannot be considered to be of the right kind. Therefore even the successful observance of the rules of conduct does not entitle him to be classed among those of right knowledge and right faith. Hence he must remain ajñānī and mithyadṛṣṭi.

Page #300

CHAPTER VIII
171
Even when he is well-versed in the Scriptures, is he still to be called an ajñāni ? The answer is given in the next gathā. मोक्खं असद्दहंतो अभवियसत्तो दु जो अधीएज्ज ।
पाठोण करेदिगुणं असद्दहंतस्स गाणं तु ॥ २७४॥ mokkham asaddahamto abhaviyasatto du jo adhiejja patho na karedi gunam asaddahamtassa ṇāņam tu (274) मोक्षम श्रद्दधानो ऽभव्य सत्त्वस्तु योऽधीयेत ।
पाठो न करोति गुणमश्रद्दधानस्य ज्ञानं तु ॥ २७४॥
274. An abhavya, one unfit for spiritual salvation, has no faith in mokşa, hence though well-versed in all the scriptures, such a study does not endow him with right knowledge or qualification because of the lack of faith.
COMMENTARY
The reality of mokşa is not believed in by the abhavya because he is devoid of the right knowledge of the pure nature of the Self. Therefore he has no belief even in knowledge. Thus devoid of right knowledge and right faith, his mastery of the scriptures cannot make him the real Knower and it does no good to him. Thus in spite of his learning, he remains devoid of knowledge.
Has he not by his observance of the rules of conduct, faith at least in dharma? The answer is given in the gathā below. सद्दहदि य पत्तेदि य रोचेदि य तह पुणो य फासेदि ।
धम्मं भोगणिमित्तं हु सो कम्मक्खयणिमित्तं ॥ २७५॥ saddahadi ya pattedi ya rocedi ya taha puno ya phasedi dhammam bhoganimittam nahu so kammakkhayanimittam (275) nzufa a gàfa a Ñaufà a amı gaza egafa | धर्मं भोगनिमित्तं न खलु स कर्मक्षयनिमित्तम् ॥ २७५॥
275. No doubt he has faith in (a kind of) dharma, he acquires it, he delights in it and practises it. But it is all with the object of future enjoyment. Certainly not (that dharma which leads to the) destruction of karmas.
Next mokşa marga, path of salvation is described from the vyavahāra and niscaya points of view, the former to be rejected and the latter to be adopted.

Page #301

172
SAMAYASĀRA
आयारादीणाणं जीवादीदसणं च विण्णेयं । 'छज्जीवणिकायं च तहा भणइ चरित्तं तु ववहारो ॥२७६॥ āyārādīņāņaṁ jīvādīdamsanam ca vinneyam chajjivanikayam ca tahā bhanai carittam bu vavahāro (276)
आचारादिज्ञातं जीवादिदर्शनं च विज्ञेयम् ।
षट् जीवनिकायं च तदा भणति चरित्रं तु व्यवहारः ॥२७६॥ 276. Let it be known that (knowledge of the scriptures such as) Ācārānga is right knowledge. (Faith in the categories of) jīva etc., is right faith. (Protection of) the six kinds of organisms is right conduct. These, it is said, constitute vyavahāra (mokşamārga) —the path of salvation from the practical point of view).
आदा खु मज्झ णाणं आदा मे सणं चरित्तं च ।
आदा पच्चक्खाणं आदा मे संवरो जोगो ॥२७७॥ ādā khu majjha ņāņas ādā me dainsanaṁ carittam ca ādā paccakkhāņañ ādā me samvaro jogo (277)
आत्मा खलु मम ज्ञानमात्मा मे दर्शनं चरित्रं च ।। आत्मा प्रत्याख्यानं आत्मा मे संवरो योगः ॥२७७॥
___277. Whereas the Self is my right knowledge, the Self is my right faith, the Self again is my right conduct. The Self is renunciation, the Self is the stoppage of karmas and yogic meditation. (These constitute the nisaya moksa mārga, or Path of Salvation from the real point of view).
Emotional states such as attachment are the cause of bondage. They are alien to the nature of the pure Self. Then how do they occur in the consciousness of the Self ? Do they result from direct manifestation of the Self or are they caused by alien influences ? This question is answered in the succeeding gathās.
जह फलियमणि सुद्धो ण सयं परिणमइ रायमाईहिं ।
रंगिज्जदि अण्णेहि दु सो रत्तादीहि दव्वेहि ॥२७८॥ 'छज्जीवाणं च नहा।

Page #302

CHAPTER VIII
(278)
jaha phaliyamani suddho na sayaṁ pariņamai rāyamāihim ramgijjadi annehim du so rattadihim davvehim यथा स्फटिकमणिः शुद्धो न स्वयं परिणमते रागाद्यैः । रज्यतेऽन्यैस्तु स रक्तादिभिर्द्रव्यैः ॥ २७८ ॥
एवं णाणी सुद्धोण सयं परिणमइ रायमाईहि । इज्जदि अहि दु सो रागादीहिं दोसेहिं ॥२७६॥ evam ṇāņi suddho na sayam parinamai rāyamāihim raijjadi annehim du so ragadihim dosehim (279) एवं ज्ञानी शुद्धो न स्वयं परिणमते रागाद्यैः । रज्यतेऽन्यैस्तु स रागादिभिर्दोषैः ॥ २७९ ॥
278-279. As a piece of crystal, itself being pure and colourless, cannot appear red-coloured of its own accord, but in association with another red-coloured object, it appears coloured-red; in the same way the Self, himself being pure cannot have emotional activities such as attachment, etc., of his own accord. But when influenced by alien impurities, he gets tainted by such impure emotions of attachments, etc.
It is next pointed out that one who knows the real nature of things realises that the Self, the Knower, is not the cause of the impure psychic states such as attachment, etc. णय रायदोसमोहं कुव्वदि णाणी कसायभावं वा ।
सयमप्पणो ण सो तेण कारगो तेसिं भावाणं ॥ २८० ॥ na ya rayadosamohaṁ kuvvadi ṇāṇī kasāyabhāvaṁ vā sayamappano na so tena kārago tesim bhāvānam (280) न च रागद्वेषमोहं करोति ज्ञानी कषायभावं वा ।
स्वयमेवात्मनो न स तेन कारकस्तेषां भावानाम् ॥ २८० ॥
280. The Knower does not of his own accord produce in himself attachment, aversion, delusion and such other grosser emotions. Hence he is not the causal agent for those psychic
states.

173
Next it is pointed out that the ego devoid of the knowledge of the reals and immersed in nescience is causally responsible for such impure psychic states.
Sayo
राहिय दोसम्हि कसायकम्मेसु चेव जे भावा । हिंदु परिणमंतो रागादी बंधदि पुणोवि ॥२८१ ॥

Page #303

174
SAMAYASĀRA rāgamhiya dosamhiya kasāyakammesu ceva je bhāvā tehim du parinamamto rāgadi bamdhadi punovi (281)
रागे च द्वेषे च कषायकर्मसु चैव ये भावाः ।
तैस्तु परिणममानो रागादीन बध्नाति पुनरपि ॥२८१॥ 281. When the material karmas pertaining to attachment, aversion, and grosser emotions begin to operate, the empirical ego begins to have corresponding psychic states. These psychic manifestations of attachment. etc., of which he is the causal agent do produce in their turn fresh kurmic bondage.
रागम्हिय दोसम्हिय कसायकम्मेसु चेव जे भावा । 'तेहिं दु परिणमंतो रागादी बंधदे चेदा ॥२८२॥ rāgamhiya dosamhiya kasāyakammesu ceva je bhāvā tehim du parinamamto rāgadi bamdhade ceda (282)
रागे च दोषे च कषायकर्मसु चैव ये भावाः ।
तैस्तु परिणममानो रागादीन् बध्नाति चेतयिता ॥२८२॥ 282. The empirical ego which is manifesting in the psychic states of attachment, aversion, and grosser emotions and which identifies itself with those psychic states gets bound by corresponding fresh karmic matter.
Next the author points out that the Self is not the causal agent for the emotion of attachment, etc.
अपडिक्कमणं दुविहं अपच्चक्खाणं तहेव विण्णेयं ।
एएणुवएसेण य अकारओ वण्णिओ चेया ॥२८३॥ apadikkamaņaṁ duviham apaccakkhāṇaḥ taheva vinneyam eeņuvaeseņa ya akārao vaņņio ceyā
(283) अप्रतिक्रमणं द्विविधमप्रत्याखानं तथैव विज्ञेयम् ।
एतेनोपदेशेन तु अकारको वणितश्चेतयिता ॥२८३॥ - 283. Non-repentance is of two kinds and non-renunciation also should be known to be similar. By such teaching the Self of the nature of consciousness is said to be not their causal agent.
अपडिक्कमणं दुविहं दवे भावे तहा अपच्चक्खाणं ।
एएणुवएसेण य अकारओ वण्णिओ चेया ॥२८४॥ १. तेहि टु परिणममाणो।

Page #304

CHAPTER VIII
175
apadikkamaņas duviham davve bhāve taha apaccakkhānam . eenuvaeseņa ya akārao vaņņio ceyā (285)
अप्रतिक्रमणं द्विविधं द्रव्ये भावे तथाप्रत्याख्यानम् ।
एतेनोपदेशेन तु अकारको वर्णितश्चेतयिता ॥२८४॥ 284. Non-repentance is of two kinds, physical and psychical and so also non-renunciation; by such teaching the Self of the nature of consciousness is said to be not their causal agent.
जावं अपडिक्कमणं अपच्चक्खणं च दव्वभावाणं ।
कुम्वइ आदा तावं कत्ता सो होइ णायव्वो ॥२८५॥ jāvam apadikkamaņam apaccakkhanam ca davvabhāvānam knvvai ādā tāvam kattā so hoi ņāyavvo
(285) यावदप्रतिक्रमणमप्रत्याख्यानं च द्रव्यभावयोः ।
करोत्यात्मा तावत्कर्ता स भवति ज्ञातव्यः ॥२८५॥ 285. So long as the Self does not practise renunciation and repentance, both physical and psychical, it should be understood that he is the causal agent of karmas.
COMMENTARY Pratikramaņa implies confession and repentance for past misdeeds. Apratikramaņa, therefore, means instead of confession and repentance, recalling to memory the past experiences with implicit approval. This recalling to memory the past impure experience is of two kinds, psychical and physical. Pratyakhyāna implies restraining or abstaining from a desire for future sensual enjoyment. Apratyākhyāna is its opposite. It means the absence of that restraint and hence an uninhibited longing for future pleasures. This is also of two kinds material and psychical. The material karmic condition produces the corresponding psychic states of emotion either approving the past experience or longing for future pleasures. The causal relation therefore exists between the material aspect and the psychical aspect and these two aspects of apratikramana. " and apratyākhyāna since they imply the operation of material karmas and the appearance of psychic karma have no relation to the pure Self of the nature of consciousness. Hence the pure Self cannot be considered as the causal agent of these two types of

Page #305

176
SAMAYASĀRA
karmas. This is the Message of the Scriptures. But when the pure Self forgets its own real nature and identifies itself with the grosser emotions of the empirical ego, he is not able to repent for the past experiences, nor refrain from the future ones. So long as he is thus spiritually incapacitated to wipe out the past and to reject the future, he feels himself responsible for all those impure emotions caused by karmic materials and thus he becomes the kartā or the causal agent of those experiences.
How the material condition can produce psychic states operating as nimitta and how the Self is concerned or related to this causal process is elucidated by an example taken from ordinary life.
धाकम्मादीया पोग्गलदव्वस्स जे इमे दोसा । कह ते कुव्वइ णाणी परदव्वगुणाउ जे णिच्चं ॥२८६॥ ādhakammādīyā poggaladavvassa je ime dosā kaha te kuvvi ņānī paradavvaguņāu je niccam (286)
अधःकर्माद्याः पुद्गलद्रव्यस्य य इमे दोषाः ।
कथं तान्करोति ज्ञानी परद्रव्यगुणाँस्तु ये नित्यम् ॥२८६॥ 286. How can the Self, the Knower, cause these defects in the material things used in the preparation of food since those are the attributes of external objects.
आधाकम्मं उद्देसियं च पोग्गलमयं इमं दव्वं ।
कह तं मम हो कयं जं णिच्चमचेयणं वुत्तं ॥२८७।। ādhākammas uddesiyam ca poggalamayaṁ imam davvam kaha tam mama ho kayam jai niccamaceya nam vuttam (287)
अधःकर्मोद्देशिकं च पुद्गलमयमिदम् द्रव्यम् ।
कथं तन्मम भवति कृतं यन्नित्यमचेतनमुक्तम् ॥२८७॥ 287. Even when food is prepared by others for me, the things used are material in nature. How can these defects be considered to be caused by me when they really pertain to inanimate objects.
COMMENTARY In the case of the householder as well as the ascetic there are important principles prescribed in the matter of food. Only

Page #306

CHAPTER VIII
177 what is called pavitra-ahāra or pure food is fit to be eaten by them. But in the matter of preparing food there are various possibilities of defects occuring therein. The articles used may be defective and may vitiate the quality of food prepared thereform. The necessary things used for preparing food such as water, fire, etc., because of careless selection may also vitiate the food prepared. Whether the preparation is made by yourself or by a cook under your instructions, the defects which may be present in the food prepared and which make it unfit for consumption are all defects of matterial articles utilised in the preparation of food. The articles used for the preparation together with the person engaged in cooking are all external condition to you. Food prepared forms the effect of all these external causal conditions and this is also external, the whole process of causal condition resulting in the form of effect. The prepared food is completely external to the person who is going to consume the food. He is not concerned in the series of operating causes and the resulting effect. Therefore he is neither concerned in the production of the defects present in the food nor is he responsible for the same. They all pertain to material inanimate objects in the external world. But if he accepts that food which is defective and unfit for consumption with the full knowledge of the fact that defective articles were used and there was carelessness in preparation thereof, he becomes responsible for those defects, and he is therefore subject to demerit thereof. But if he rejects that food, he is not responsible for the defect and therefore he will remain uninfluenced by the demerits thereof. This illustration is quite parallel to the previous case where the material karmic conditions produce corresponding psychic states of an impure nature. These impure psychic states, since they are produced by material karmic conditions which are different in nature from the Self and also external to it, both the cause and effect remain external and alien to the Self. Therfore the pure Self is not directly concerned in this causal series and hence is not responsible for the defects and impurities present in the result. He can maintain this unconcernedness and indifference only by the practice of pratikramaņa and pratyakhyāna, disowning the past
23

Page #307

178
SAMAYASARA
and rejecting the future occurrence of those impure psychic states. If on the other hand, the Self by abandoning the spiritual discipline imposed by pratikramana and pratyakhyāna, identifies itself with the past impure emotions and readily commits himself to future similar indulgences, he becomes fully responsible for the defects thereof, and therefore gets bound by corresponding karmas. This case, is therefore analogous to the case where the person accepts the defective and impure food though he is not concerned with the preparation thereof.

Thus ends the chapter on bandha or Bondage. Thus bandha quits the stage.
CHAPTER IX
MOKSA OR LIBERATION Then Mokşa enters the stage.
जह णाम कोवि पुरिसो बंधणयम्मि चिरकालपडिबद्धो । तिब्वं मंदसहावं कालं च वियाणए तस्स ॥ २८८ ॥ jaha nama kovi puriso bamdhanayammi cirakālapaḍibaddho tivvam mamdasahāvam kalam ca vijānae tassa (288) यथा नाम कश्चित्पुरुषो बन्धनके चिरकालप्रतिबद्धः । तीव्र मन्दस्वभावं कालं च विजानाति तस्य ॥ २८८ ॥
जइ वि कुणइ छेदं ण मुच्चए तेण बंधणवसो सं । काले उ बहुएणविण सो णरो पावइ विमोक्खं ॥ २८६ ॥ jai navi kunai chedam na muccaye tena bamdhaṇavaso saṁ kālena u bahuenavi na so naro pāvai vimokkham ( 289 ) यदि नापि करोति छेदं न मुच्यते तेन बन्धेनावशः सन् । कालेन तु बहुकेनापि न स नरः प्राप्नोति विमोक्षम् ॥ २८९ ॥ इय कम्मबंधणाणं पयेसपयडिद्विदीयअणुभागं । जाणतो वि ण मुंचइ सो चेव जइ सुद्धो ॥ २६०॥

Page #308

CHAPTER IX
iya kammabamdhaṇāņam payesapayadiṭṭhidiyaaṇubhāgaṁ jāņaṁto vi na mumcai mumcai so ceva jai suddho (290)
इति कर्मबन्धानां प्रदेश प्रकृतिस्थित्यनुभागम् ।
जानन्नपि न मुञ्चति मुञ्चति स चैव यदि शुद्धः ॥२९०॥
288-290. As a person, who has been in shackles for a long time may be aware of the nature of his bondage, intense or feeble, and also its duration still so long as he does not make any effort to break them, he does not get himself free from the chains, and may have to remain so, for a long time without obtaining freedom. Similarly a person with karmic bondage, even if he has the knowledge of the extent, the nature, the duration, and the strength of the karmic bondage, does not get liberation (by this mere knowledge) but he gets complete liberation if pure in heart.
COMMENTARY
Separating the Self and bondage from each other is called mokşa. Some maintain that mere knowledge of the nature of this bondage is able to produce mokşa; or Liberation. But this is wrong. Just as in the case of a person in chains, mere knowledge of the chain is ineffectual in securing his freedom, so also the mere knowledge of the nature of karmic bondage is ineffectual in securing his spiritual liberation.
179
Next it is pointed out that mere thinking about the process and development of karmic bondage does not lead to the liberation of the Self.
जह बंधे चिंतंतो बंधणबद्धो ण पावइ विमोक्खं ।
तह बंधे चिततो जीवो वि ण पावइ विमोक्खं ॥२९१॥
jaha bandhe cimtamto bamdhanabaddho na pāvai vimokkham taha bamdhe cimtamto jivo vi na pavai vimokkham (291) यथा बन्धं चितयन् बन्धनबद्धो न प्राप्नोति विमोक्षम् ।
तथा बन्धं चिंतयन् नीवोऽपि न प्राप्नोति विमोक्षम् ॥ २९९ ॥

291. As by (merely) thinking of bondage one bound in shackles does not get release, so also the Self by merely thinking of (karmic) bondage does not attain moksha.

Page #309

180
SAMAYASĀRA
COMMENTARY Others maintain that the concentration of mind on the idea of bondage is itself the cause of mokṣa or spiritual liberation.
his view also is wrong. By mere concentration of thought on bondage one cannot obtain liberation, just as concentrated attention on the shackles cannot get freedom for the person in chains.
What then is the cause of liberation? The answer is given below.
जह बंधे छित्तण य बंधणबद्धो उ पावइ विमोक्खं । तह बंधे छित्तूण य जीवो संपावइ विमोक्खं ।।२६२॥ jaha bañdhe chittūņa ja bamdhanabaddho u pāvai vimokkhan taha bandhe chittuna ya jivo sampāvai vimokkham (292) यथा बन्धछित्त्वा च बन्धनबद्धस्तु प्राप्नोति विमोक्षम् ।
तथा बन्धछित्त्वा च जीवः संप्राप्नोति विमोक्षम् ॥२९२॥
292. As one bound in shackles gets release only on breaking the shackles, so also the Self attains emancipation only by breaking (karmic) bondage.
How is this to be effected? The method is shown below.
बंधाणं च सहावं वियाणिओ अप्पणो सहावं च । बंधेसु जो विरजदि सो कम्मविमोक्खणं कुणइ ॥२६३॥ bandhāņań ca sahāvam viyāņio appaņo sahāvam ca bamdhesu jo virajjadi so kammavimokkhanam kunai (293) बन्धानां च स्वभावं विज्ञायात्मनः स्वभावं च । बन्धेषु यो विरज्यते स कर्मविमोक्षणं करोति ॥२९३॥
293. Whoever with a clear knowledge of the nature of karmic bondage as well as the nature of the Self, does not get attracted by bondage-that person obtains liberation from karmas.
COMMENTARY Thus the direct cause of liberation is determined to be the separation of the Self and the bondage from each other.
जीवो बंधोय तहा छिन्नति सलक्खणेहिं णियएहिं । पण्णाछेदणएण उ छिण्णा णाणत्तमावण्णा ॥२६४॥

Page #310

CHAPTER IX
181
jivo baṁdhoya tahā chijjamti salakkhanehim niyaehim paņņāchedanaeņa u chiņņā ņāņattamāvannā (294)
जीवो बन्धश्च तथा छिद्यते स्वलक्षणाभ्यां नियताभ्याम् ।
प्रज्ञाछेदनकेन तु छिन्नौ नानात्वमापन्नौ ॥२९४॥ 294. The Self and bondage are differentiated by their intrinsic and distinctive features; cut through by the instrument of discriminative wisdom, they fall apart.
COMMENTARY The attribute of the Self is pure consciousness and the attribute of bondage is the impure emotions of anger, etc., based upon wrong belief. These two by association get identified with each other. This identification of the Self with impure emotions due to karmic bondage is the foundation of the empirical Self in samsāra. These two entities, the Self and karmic bondage, characterised by their own intrinsic properties are linked together from time immemorial. This unholy alliance must be broken up. What is the effective instrument to cut these two apart ? Such an instrument is said to be the discriminative wisdom. This discriminative wisdom fully realises the pure nature of the Self and its intrinsic difference from the impure emotions due to bondage, and aids the Self to reject the latter and to extricate itself. This process of isolating the Self karmic emotions, when once effected through discri native wisdom, keeps the two entities permanently apart.
What ought to be done, after the separation of Self and bondage is effected, is indicated below.
जीवो बंधोय तहा छिज्जति सलक्खणेहिं णियएहिं ।
बंधो छेययन्वो सूद्धो अप्पाय चित्तव्वो ॥२९॥ jīvo bamdhoya tahā chijjanti salakkhanehin niyaehis bamdho cheyayavvo suddho appāya ghittavvo (295)
जीवो बन्धश्च तथा छिद्यते स्वलक्षणाभ्यां नियताभ्याम् ।
बन्धश्छेत्तव्यः शुद्ध आत्मा च गृहीतव्यः ॥२९५॥ 295. When the Self and bondage which are differentiated by their intrinsic and distinctive attributes, are thus separated then by completely casting away all bondage, the pure Self ought to be realised.

Page #311

182
SAMAYASARA
Thus it is emphasised that the very object of separating the two is to realise the pure Self by shaking of all bondage. Next it is pointed out how this object of self-realisation is to be achieved.
कह सो धिप्पइ अप्पा पण्णाए सो उ धिप्पए अप्पा ।
जह पण्णाए विभत्तो तह पण्णा एव चित्तव्वो ॥२६६॥ kaha so ghippai appa pannāe so u ghippae appa jaha pannāe vibhatto taha paņņā eva ghittavvo (296)
कथं स गृह्यते आत्मा प्रज्ञया स तु गृह्यते आत्मा ।
यथा प्रज्ञया विभक्तस्तथा प्रज्ञयैव गृहीतव्यः ॥२९६॥ : 296. How is the Self realised ? The Self is realised by discriminative wisdom. Just as he is separated by discriminative wisdom so also by the very same discriminative wisdom he is realised.
How is the Self realised through discriminative wisdom ? The answer is given below.
पण्णाए पित्तन्वो जो चेदा सो अहं तु णिच्छयदो।
अवसेसा जे भावा ते मज्झ परे त्ति णायव्वा ॥२६७॥ paņņāe ghittauvo jo cedā so aham tu nicchayado avasesā je bhāvā te majjha pare tti ņāyavvā (297)
प्रज्ञया गृहीतव्यो यश्चेतयिता सोऽहं तु निश्चयतः ।
अवशेषा ये भावास्ते मम परा इति ज्ञातव्याः ॥२९७॥ -297. That (pure) conscious being which is apprehended by discriminative wisdom is in reality the “I”. Whatever mental states remain (besides) are all to be known to be other than "mine".
Just like pure consciousness, pure perception and pure knowledge are described to be the intrinsic attributes of the pure Self.
पण्णाए चित्तवो जो दट्ठा सो अहं तु णिच्छयदो । अवसेसा जे भावा ते मज्झ परे त्ति णायव्वा ॥२६८॥ þannāe ghittavvo jo daţthā so aham tu nicchayado avasesā je bhāvā te majjha pare tti ņāyavvā (298) प्रज्ञया गृहीतव्यो यो दृष्टा सोऽहं तु निश्चयतः । अवशेषा ये भावास्ते मम परा इति ज्ञातव्याः ॥२९८॥

Page #312

CHAPTER IX
183
298. That seer who is apprehended by discriminative wisdom is in reality the "I.” Whatever mental states there are (besides) are all to be known to be other than "mine".
पण्णाए चित्तव्यो जो णादा सो अहं तु णिच्छयदो। अवसेसा जे भावा ते मज्झ परेत्ति णायव्वा ॥२६६॥ paņņāe ghittavvo jo nādā so aham tu nicchayado avasesa je bhāvā te majjha paretti ņāyavvā (299)
प्रज्ञया गृहीतव्यो यो ज्ञाता सोऽहं तु निश्चयतः ।
अवशेषा ये भावास्ते मम परा इति ज्ञातव्याः ॥२९९।।
299. That knower, who is apprehended by discriminative wisdom is in reality the "I.” Whatever mental states remain (besides) are all to be known to be other than "mine."
COMMENTARY
If the pure Self is of the nature of conscious unity, how can he be the seer and the knower ? Is not his nature transcending these two aspects ? No. perception and knowledge are not attributes to be transcended by the supreme consciousness, because they are the attributes of the supreme consciousness itself. If the supreme consciousness is to transcend these attributes, it will become an empty abstraction, for there can be no reality without attributes. This universal postulate, no reality without its attributes, is applicable to the supreme reality also. Hence an attributeless reality is mere nothing. Again if it is assumed for arguments' sake, that a general substratum can exist even after the elimination of its attributes, even then, the position would be untenable. For consciousness devoid of the attributes of perception and knowledge will become practically a non-conscious entity which cannot be the nature of the Supreme Self. Hence perception and knowledge inasmuch as they are attributes resulting from the manifestation of pure consciousness must be considered to be the intrinsic properties of the pure Self, since manifesting entity cannot be different from the manifestation,

Page #313

SAMAYASARA
Thus, though the pure Self is to be considered apart from the characteristics of empirical consciousness, it should not be abstracted from all attributes as is done by the Vedantin. The Vedantin relying upon the fact that the characteristics and attributes of the empirical ego are entirely alien to the nature of the Supreme Self, justifiably places the Supreme Self quite beyond the empirical properties. Swami Kunda Kunda also emphasises the same fact when he says that all other mental attributes are entirely alien to "me." This justifiable denial of the empirical impure attributes to the Supreme Self is immediately followed by the predication of the attributes of pure perception and knowledge which are present in the Supreme Self even after transcending the empirical nature. Of course it should not be misunderstood that these properties of perception and knowledge are the same as the process of perceiving and knowing associated with the empirical ego. In the latter case though the properties are called by the same names, they are entirely limited by physical conditions. Whereas the pure perception and pure knowledge associated with the Supreme Self are the unconditioned and unlimited manifestation of the Supreme Self. Thus it should be noted that the Advaitin, though he keeps company with Bhagavan Kunda Kunda to a considerable distance in the path of metaphysical investigation, ultimately parts company and walks to a different goal. Thus in short the Supreme Self of Sri Kunda Kunda is not the same as the Supreme Self of the other schools.
184
Next it is pointed out that a person who is equipped with this kind of discriminative wisdom, will not consider alien mental states to be his own.

को नाम भणिज्ज हो जाउं सव्वे 'परोयये भावे । मज्झमि ति य वणं जाणंतो अप्पयं सुद्धं ॥ ३०० ॥
ko nama bhanijja buho näum savve paroyaye bhāve
majjhamiņam ti ya vayaṇam jānamto appayam suddham (300) को नाम भणेत् बुधः ज्ञात्वा सर्वान् परोदयान् भावान् ।
ममेदमिति च वचनं नानन्नात्मानं शुद्धम् ॥ ३००॥
१. पराइये भावे ।

Page #314

CHAPTER IX
185
300. What wiseman knowing the nature of the pure Self and understanding all the mental states caused by alien conditions would utter the words, “These are mine ?”
That the Self which identifies itself with the external object, is subject to karmic bondage is explained by an illustration from ordinary life.
तेयाई अवराहे जो कुव्वइ सो उ संकिदो भमइ । मा वज्झेहं केणवि चोरोत्ति जणम्मि वियरंतो ॥३०१॥ teyāl avarāhe jo kuvvai so u samkido bhamai ma vajjheham kenavi corotti janammi viyaramto (301) स्तेयादीनपराधान् यः करोति स तु शङ्कितो भ्रमति ।
मा बध्ये केनापि चौर इति जने विचरन् ॥३०१॥
301. He who commits crimes such as theft, while moving among the people, is troubled by anxiety and fear, "I may be arrested at any moment as a thief."
जो ण कुणइ अवराहे सो णिस्संको उ जणवए भमइ । णवि तस्स वज्झि, जे चिन्ता उपन्नइ कयावि ॥३०२॥ jo ņa kuņai avarāhe so nissamko u jasavae bhamai ņavi tassa vajjhidum je cinta üppajji kayāvi (302) यो न करोत्यपराधान् स निःशङ्कस्तु जनपदे भ्रमति ।
नापि तस्य बद्धं यः चिन्तोत्पद्यते कदाचित् ॥३०२।।
302. But one who commits no such crime freely moves among the people without any such anxiety. Because in his case no thought of arrest ever occurs.
एवं हि सावराहो वज्झामि अहं तु संकिदो चेया । जइ पुण णिरवराहो णिस्संकोहं ण वज्झामि ॥३०३॥ evain hi sāvarāho vajjhāmi aham tu samkido ceyā jai puņa ņiravāraho nissamko ham na vajjhami (302) एवं अस्मि सापराधो बध्येऽहं तु शङ्कितश्चेतयिता ।
यदि पुनर्निरपराधो निःशङ्कोऽहं न बध्ये ॥३०३।।
303. Similarly the Self which is guilty always has the fear, "I may be bound,” whereas if guiltless the Self feels, “I am fearless and hence I may not be bound."
24

Page #315

SAMAYASARA
COMMENTARY
It is the law of the State that the criminal should be detected and punished, Hence the criminal who commits theft always moves in society with a guilty conscience and ultimately he may get arrested, punished and imprisoned. Whereas a person who lives in society honourably without coveting others' property always moves about freely without fear of being arrested. The same analogy holds good in the case of Self. The Self which commits the mistake of claiming alien characteristics as his own is bound to face the consequences thereof-that is, karmic bondage. Whereas the Self that disowns all such impure states as alien has the privilege of remaining free from bondage.
186
Next the author explains the term aparādha or guilt. संसिद्धिरासिद्धं साधियमाराधियं च एयटुं ।
अवगयराधो जो खलु चेया सो होइ भवराहो ॥ ३०४॥
samsiddhidhārasiddham sadhiyamaradhiyam ca eyaṭṭham avagayarādho jo khalu ceya so hoi avaraho (304) संसिद्धिराधसिद्धं साधितमाराधितं चैकार्थम् ।
अपगतराधो यः खलु चेतयिता स भवत्यपराधः ॥ ३०४ ॥
304. Samsiddhi (attainment), rādha (devotion to Self) sidhi (fulfilment), sadbitam (achievement), äradhitam (adoration), are synonymous. When the soul is devoid of devotion to Pure Self, then he is certainly guilty.
जो पुण णिरवराहो चेया णिस्संकिओ उ सो होइ । आराहणाए णिचं वट्टइ अहमिदि जाणतो ॥ ३०५ ॥ jo puna niravaraho ceya nissaṁkio u so hoi. ārāhaṇāe niccam vaṭṭai ahamidi jāņaṁto (305) a: gaffkızıazðafuar fazzifmatg a nafa | आराधना नित्यं वर्तते अहमिति जानन् ॥ ३०५ ॥
305. When the soul is free from guilt, he is also free from fear. Thus realising the ego, he is ever engaged in adoration of the Self.

Is it
How is the pure spotless state of Self to be realised? by concentrated adoration of the Pure Self or by the practice of

Page #316

CHAPTER IX
187
various kinds of moral discipline such as pratikramana, etc. ? The answer is given below.
पडिकमणं पडिसरणं परिहारो धारणा णियत्ती य । जिंदा गरुहा सोही अट्टविहो होइ विसकुंभो ॥३०६।। padikamaņam padisaranam parihāro dhāraṇā niyattī ya nimda garuha sohi atthaviho hoi visakumbho (306) प्रतिक्रमणं प्रतिसरणं परिहारो धारणा निवृत्तिश्च । निन्दा गर्दा शुद्धिरष्टविधो भवति विषकुम्भः ॥३०६॥
306. Pratikramana (repentence for past misconduct), pratisaranam (pursuit of the good), parihāra (rejecting the evil), dharaņā (concentration) nivritti (abstinence from attachment to external objects) ninda (self-censure), garha (confessing before the
master) and suddhi (purification by expiation), these eight kinds constitute the pot of poison.
अपडिक्कमणं अपडिसरणं अपरिहारो अधारणा चेव । भणियत्ती य अणिंदा अगरुहासोही अमयकुंभो ॥३०७।। apadikkamanam apadisaranam aparihāro adhāraņā ceva aniyatti ya animda agaruhāsohi amayakurebho (307) अप्रतिक्रमणमप्रतिसरणमपरिहारोऽधारणा चैव ।
अनिवृत्तिश्चानिन्दागर्दाशुद्धिरमृतकुम्भः ॥३०७॥
307. Non-repentance for past misconduct, non-pursuit of the good, non-rejecting the evil, non-concentration, nonobstinence from attachment to external objects, non-selfcensure, non-confessing before the master, and non-purification by expiation, these eight kinds constitute the pot of nectar.
COMMENTARY
These two gāthās by their paradoxical statement, will be a shock from the ordinary point of view. In the case of an empirical Self, the uncontrolled rush of emotions must be kept under restraint. For achieving this purpose, the eight kinds of
१. परिहारा धारणा णियत्तीय ।

Page #317

188
SAMAYASĀRA
discipline, pratikramaņa, etc., become necessary and desirable. Since they promote the achievement of the good they must be said to constitute the pot of nectar. Whereas the lack of the eight-fold discipline must constitute the opposites that is the pot of poison since there is a free vent to evil. This ordinary description is reversed in the two gathās by Sri Kunda Kunda. He is thinking of the transcendental Self which is quite beyond the region of good and evil. Hence the question of discipline or non-discipline is meaningless. And hence in the case of the supremely pure state of the Self, to talk of pratikramana, etc., is to drag it down to the empirical level and to postulate the possibility of occurrence of impure emotions which ought to be disciplined and controlled. Hence to talk of pratikramana, etc. in this state will be a positive evil. Hence the revered author considers the various kinds of moral discipline to be things to be avoided and calls them poison pot. Then what is the significance of the opposite, apratikramana, etc. which are described to constitute the pot of nectar? Here the term aparatikramana implies not the mere opposite of pratikramaņa. The mere opposite of pratikramana would imply removing the disciplinary act and giving free access to the impure emotions towards the focus of attention. That would be positive degradation of the Self. Hence this interpretation of the term would be inapplicable to the pure Self in the transcendental region. Therefore the negative prefix in the words apratikramana, etc. must be taken to signify the absence of necessity to practise the discipline. When the self is absorbed in its own pure nature by attaining the yogic samādhi, there is a full stop to the series of impure psychic states characteristic of the empirical Self. Hence there is no necessity to practise the various kinds of discipline. The very absence of those disciplinary practises produces spiritual peace that passes understanding. It is in that stage there is the pot of nectar. Such a spiritual peace necessarily implies spiritual bliss which is the characteristic of the Supreme Self.
Thus ends the chapter on mokşa.. Here mo kşa quits the stage.

Page #318

CHAPTER X ALL-PURE KNOWLEDGE NOW ENTERS ALL PURE KNOWLEDGE
That the Self, from the real point of view, is not the doer of karmas, is explained below.
दवियं जं उप्पज्जइ गुणेहिं तं तेहि जाणसु अणण्णं । जह कडयादीहिं दु पज्जएहिं कणयं अणण्णमिह ॥३०॥ daviyaṁ jaṁ uppajjai gunehiin tai tehim jāņasu aņaņņam jaha kadayādīhim du pajjaehim kaņayam aņaạnamiha (308) द्रव्यं यदुत्पद्यते गुणैस्तत्तै नोह्यनन्यत् ।
यथा कटकादिभिस्तु पर्यायैः कनकमनन्यदिह ॥३०८॥
308. Whatever is produced from a substance, has the same attributes as those of the substance. Know ye: certainly they cannot be different, just as bangles, etc. made of gold cannot be other than gold.
जीवस्साजीवस्स दु जे परिणामा दु देसिया सुत्ते । तं जीवमजीवं वा तेहिमणण्णं वियाणाहि ॥३०॥ jīvassā jīvassa du je pariņāmā du desiyā sutte tam jivamajivam va tehimanannam viyanahi (309) ' . जीवस्याजीवस्य तु ये परिणामास्तु दर्शिताः सूत्रे ।
तं जीवमनीवं वा तैरनन्य विजानीहि ॥३०९॥
309. Whatever modifications of the Self and the non-Self are described in the Scriptures, know ye: that these modifications are identical in nature with the Self and non-Self respectively and not different.
ण कुदोवि विउप्पण्णो जम्हा कन्नं ण तेण सो आदा। उप्पादेदि ण किंचिवि कारणमवि तेण ण स होइ ॥३१०॥ na kudovi viuppanno jamhā kajjań na teņa so ādā uppādedi na kimcivi kāranamavi tena na sa hoi (310) न कुतश्चिदप्युत्पन्नो यस्मात्कार्यं न तेन स आत्मा। उत्पादयति न किंचिदपि कारणमपि तेन न स भवति ॥३१०॥ . .
--

Page #319

190
SAMAYASARA
310. The Self is not an effect because it is not produced by anything whatever, nor is it a cause because it does not produce anything whatever.
कम्मं पडुच्च कत्ता कत्तारं तह पडुच्च कम्माणि । उप्पळतिय णियमा सिद्धी दु ण दीसए अण्णा ॥३११॥ kamman paducca katta kattāram taha paducca kammāni uppajjaħtiya niyamā siddhi du na dīsae anņā (311) कर्म प्रतीत्य कर्ता कर्तारं तथा प्रतीत्य कर्माणि । उत्पद्यन्ते च नियमात् सिद्धिस्तु न दृश्यतेऽन्या ॥३११॥
311. The manifested effect conditions the nature of the manifesting agent and similarly the manifesting agent determines the nature of effects. This is the principle of causation that is observed to operate in the world of reality and no other principle is evident.
COMMENTARY Whatever is produced by the direct self-manifestation of jiva, the living, being, is also of the nature of the living being and cannot be a non-living thing. In the same manner whatever is produced by the direct manifestation of the non-living material must also be of the nature of non-living material and cannot certainly be of the nature of the living being. Thus all things whether animate or inanimate and their manifested products must be identical in nature just as gold and the ornaments made thereof. Thus no substance can be really responsible as a causal agent for the appearance of objects of entirely different nature. When this principle is admitted, then it necessarily follows that the inanimate effect cannot be caused by the living jīva. Hence it follows that jiva or the self is akartā, that is, he is not a causal agent influencing non-living karmic matter. It is only from the un-enlightened point of view that the Self is described as the causal agent, whereas the real and enlightened view takes him to be otherwise.
Next it is pointed out that the bondage of the Self by karmic materials is brought about by the wonderful potency of nescience or ajñana.

Page #320

CHAPTER X
191 चेयाउ पयडियटुं उप्पन्नइ विणस्सइ । पयडी वि चेययटुं उप्पन्नइ विणस्सइ ॥३१२॥ ceyāu payadiyathai uppajjai viņassai payadi vi ceyayațțhas uppajjai viņassai (312) चेतयिता तु प्रकृत्यर्थमुत्पद्यते विनश्यति । प्रकृतिरपि चेतकार्थमुत्पद्यते विनश्यति ॥३१२॥
312. The Self is born and dies because of the operation of karmic praksti. Similarly the karmic prakyti as conditioned by the Self appears and disappears.
एवं बंधो उ दुण्हंपि अण्णोण्णपच्चया हवे । अप्पणो पयडीए य संसारो तेण जायए ॥३१३।। evañ bamdho u dunhampi annonnapaccayā have appano payadie ya samsāro teņa jāyae (313) एवं बन्धस्तु द्वयोरपि अन्योन्यप्रत्यययोर्भवेत् ।
आत्मनः प्रकृतेश्च संसारस्तेन जायते ॥३१३॥
313. Thus the association of the two, the Self and karmic praksti is brought about by their mutual determination as the instrumental cause. Thus by them, samsāra or the cycle of births and deaths, is produced.
COMMENTARY Birth and death are the intrinsic characteristics of organic beings. An organic being which is subject to birth and death, has two different aspects of existence, bodily and mental. The physical body of the organism is constituted by physical molecules. The other aspect of the organic being, consciousness, which may be present in varying degrees of development, is entirely different from the matter of which its body is made. Hence this element of consciousness is postulated to be the characteristic of a different entity altogether. It is called jīva or Soul. Thus an organism in the empirical world is brought about by the combination of two different entities--matter and soul, inanimate and animate categories. How are these two brought together; and how is the behaviour of the organism to be explained? This is the crucial problem facing pyschology and metaphysics. Very often an easy solution is attempted by reducing the two categories as derived from the manifestation

Page #321

192
of one and the same principle. This method of cutting the gordian knot by the monistic metaphysician is not considered to be the correct solution by the Jaina thinkers. The thinking entity, Self, and the inanimate matter are kept distinctly apart and yet they are mutually related in the case of an organic being in the ordinary world. Psychologists in the West who accept the difference between mind and matter, have adopted the psychophysical parallelism to explain the relation between the two. The changes in the body are entirely according to the law of causation which is observed to hold good in the physical realm. Similarly the series of successive mental states, according to the operation of the law of causation pertain to the realm of consciousness. Changes physical and chemical in the material body do not directly produce changes in consciousness and yet physical change and conscious change mysteriously determine each other, each functioning as the external determining condition of the other. An attitude similar to the modern hypothesis of parallelism is adopted by the Jaina thinkers. The body is subject to its own causal law of operation. Consciousness has also its own law of operation and yet one determines the other, operating in the form of external nimitta condition. Conscious changes constitute the nimitta condition for physical changes. Thus the two causal series, though not directly inter-related are indirectly related to each other; each determining the other only as an external nimitta condition. Thus the two series are brought together in the case of an embodied empirical ego who can be said to be born or to have died. The conscious Self, taken by itself in its pure nature, apart from the association of the body is not subject to birth or death. It becomes subject to birth and death only when it gets embodied, when it becomes samsari jiva. How does it get embodied? The building up of the body of an organic being is supposed to be due to its own mental activity. In the environment there are subtle material particles suitable for building the body. When the Self forgetting its own pure nature manifests in the form of impure psychic states, it causes the building of a body to itself out of the suitable particles in the environment. When once the building up of the body is completed, then begins the career of the empirical Self or samsari jiva having a series of births and deaths.

SAMAYASARA

Page #322

CHAPTER X
193 जाएस पयडियटुं चेया णेव विमुंचइ । भयाणओ हवे ताव मिच्छादिट्ठी असंजओ ॥३१४॥ jāesa payadiyațțham ceyā ņeva vimumcai ayanao have tava micchaditthi asamjao (314) यावदेष प्रकृत्यर्थं चेतयिता नैव विमुञ्चति ।
अज्ञायको भवेत्तावन्मिथ्यादृष्टिरसंयतः ॥३१४॥ - 314. So long as the conscious Self does not break this relation to karmic praksti, he remains without enlightenment, without right belief and without discipline.
जया विमुंचइ चेया कम्मफ्फलमणंतयं । तया विमुत्तो हवइ जाणओ पासओ मुणी ॥३१॥ jaya vimumcai ceyā kammapphalamaņamtayam tayā vimutto havai jāņao pāsao muni (315) यदा विमुञ्चति चेतयिता कर्मफलमनन्तकम् । तदा विमुक्तो भवति ज्ञायको दर्शको मुनिः ॥३१५॥
315. But when the conscious Self breaks up this relation to the infinitely various fruits of karma, then the saint becomes endowed with right knowledge and right belief and freedom from karmas. But the enlightened one, when the fruits of karma begin to appear, does not enjoy them but remains merely a spectator.
Next it is pointed out that just as the real Self is not the producer of karmas, he is not the enjoyer of the fruits thereof.
अण्णाणी कम्मफलं पयडिसहावढिओ दु वेदेइ । णाणी पुण कम्मफलं जाणइ उदिदं ण वेदेइ ॥३१६॥ annāņī kammaphalaṁ payadisahāvatthio du vedei rāni puna kammaphalam janai udidam na vedei (316) अज्ञानी कर्मफलं प्रकृतिस्वभावस्थितस्तु वेदयते । ।
ज्ञानी पुनः कर्म फलं जानाति उदितं न वेदयते ॥३१६॥
316. The unenlightened Self conditioned by and identifying himself with the nature of the karmic prakyti, enjoys the fruits of karmas. But the enlightened one, when the fruits of karma begin to appear, does not enjoy them but remains merely a spectator.
25

Page #323

194
SAMAYASARA
COMMENTARY
The ajñāni or the unenlightened Self devoid of the knowledge of the pure nature of the Self misunderstands the Self and the non-Self as being identical, believes them to be the same and also behaves as if they were identical. Thus with the thought, "I am the same as the Karmic Prakṛti" he enjoys the fruits of the karma. But the enlightened one realising the pure nature of the Self, understands the Self and the non-Self to be distinct, believes them to be different and correspondingly behaves unconcerned with the other. Thus being uninfluenced by external karmic conditions, he does not enjoy the fruits thereof but remains merely aware of their occurrence.
Next it is further emphasised that it is the ajñāni, the Self without right knowledge, that is the enjoyer.
ण मुणइ पर्याडमभव्वो सुट्ठवि अज्झाइऊण सत्याणि gegefa fqat qonar forfar ifa 1132011
na munai payadimabhavvo suṭṭhuvi ajjhaiūna satthāni gudadudhampi pivamto na pannaya nivvisa homti (317) न मुञ्चति प्रकृतिमभव्यः सुष्ट्वप्यधीत्य शास्त्राणि । गुडदुग्धमपि पिवन्तो न पन्नगा निर्विषा भवन्ति ॥३१७॥

317. The abhavya or the unfit Self, even though wellversed in the Scriptures, does not give up his attachment to karmic prakṛti just as a snake by drinking sweetened milk does not become non-poisonous.
Next it is declared that the enlightened Self is not an enjoyer.
णिव्वेयसमावण्णो णाणी कम्मफलं वियाणेइ ।
महुरं कडुवं बहुविमवेयओ तेण सो होइ ॥ ३१८ ॥
nidveyasamavanno ṇāņi kammaphalam viyāņei mahuram kaḍuvam bahuvihamaveyao tena so hoyi (318)
निर्वेदसमापन्नो ज्ञानी कर्मफलं विजानाति ।
मधुरं कटुकं बहुविधमवेदकस्तेन स भवति ॥ ३९८ ॥

Page #324

CHAPTER X
195
318. The enlightened Self equipped with complete nonattachment (merely) knows the fruits of various karmas, sweet or bitter. He therefore remains the non-enjoyer.
COMMENTARY
The knower, because he realises his own true nature, is uninfluenced by the environment, his own body or other enjoyable objects. Thus uninfluenced by these alien things and fully absorbed in the transcendental bliss of his own pure nature, he is not affected by the inferior type of pleasure-pain experience derived from sense-presented objects. Since he is unaffected by the objects of the perceptual world, he remains the abhoktā or the non-enjoyer, though he is fully aware of the fact that good produces pleasure and evil produces pain.
णवि कुब्वइ गवि वेदइ णाणी कम्माइ बहु पयाराइ । जाणइ पुण कम्मफलं बंधं पुण्णं च पावं च ॥३१९॥ navi kuvvai ņavi vedai nāņi kammãi bahu payārāi jāņai puna kammaphalam bamdhan punnam ca pāvam ca (319) नापि करोति नापि वेदयते ज्ञानी कर्माणि बहुप्रकाराणि ।
जानाति पुनः कर्मफलं बन्धं पुण्यं च पापं च ॥३१९॥
319. The knower neither produces the various kinds of karmas nor enjoys the fruits thereof, nevertheless he knows the nature of karmas and their results, either good or bad as well as the bondage.
दिट्ठी सयंपि णाणं अकारयं तह अवेदयं चेव । जाणइ य बंधमोक्खं कम्मुदयं णिज्जरं चेव ॥३२०॥ ditthi sayaṁpi nāņam akārayam taha avedayam ceva jāņai ya bandhamokkham kammudayań nijjaram ceva (320) दृष्टिः स्वयमपि ज्ञानमकारकं तथावेदकं चैव ।
जानाति च बन्धमोक्षौ कर्मोदयं निर्नरां चैव ॥३२०॥
320. Knowledge, too, like sight is neither the doer nor the enjoyer (of karmas); but only knows the bondage, the release, the operation of karmas and the shedding of karmas.

Page #325

196
SAMAYASĀRA
COMMENTARY . It is a well-known fact in our experience that visual perception and the perceived object are not causally related to each other. Hence we cannot say that the act of perception produces the object perceived. Hence the relation of perception to perceived object is such that the perceived object is uninfluenced by the act of perception. If the two are causally related to each other then the perceiving agent, say in the case of fire perceived, must himself be combustible and burst into flame in order to produce the flame perceived and similarly he must feel the heat of it in his own body. No such thing happens in the perceiving agent. This visual perception merely is aware of the object without in any way producing it. The behaviour of knowledge is said to be identical with that of the visual perception. The relation between knowledge and the object known is exactly identical. Knowledge is not in any way causally related to the objects known. Knowledge therefore cannot be said to produce the objects known. Hence jñāna is said to be akāraka not a causal agent and also avedaka, non-enjoyer in relation to bandha (bondage), mokṣa (release), etc. which as objects of knowledge are merely known and not produced.
Those who see in the ātmā a creator, like ordinary people, are not sages desiring emancipation.
लोयस्स कुणइ विण्ह सुरणारयतिरियमाणुसे सत्ते। समणाणंपि य अप्पा जइ कव्वइ छविहे काए ॥३२१॥ - loyassa kuņai viņhū suraņārayatiriyamāņuse salte samaņāņampi ya appā jai kuvvai chavvihe kāe (321) लोकस्य करोति विष्णुः सुरनारकतिर्यङ्मानुषान् सत्त्वान । श्रमणानामपि च आत्मा यदि करोति षड्विधान् कायान् ॥३२१॥ . लोयसमणाण मेवं सिद्धतं पडि ण दीसइ विसेसो। लोयस्स कुणइ विण्हू समणाणं पि अप्पओ कणइ ॥३२२॥ loyasamaņāņa mevaṁ siddhastaṁ padi na dîsai viseso loyassa kuņai viņhū samaņāņai pi appao kunai (322) लोकश्रमणानामेवं सिद्धान्तं प्रति न दृश्यते विशेषः । लोकस्य करोति विष्णुः श्रमणानामप्यात्मा करोति ॥३२२॥

Page #326

CHAPTER X
एवं ण कोवि मोक्खो दीसइ लोयसमणाण दोहंपि । णिच्च कुव्वंताणं सदेवमणुभासुरे लोये ॥ ३२३॥
evam na kovi mokkho disai loyasamaṇāņa doṇhampi niccam kovvamtāņaṁ sadevamaṇuāsure love (323) एवं न कोऽपि मोक्षो दृश्यते लोकश्रमणानां द्वयेषामपि ।
नित्यं कुर्वतां सदेव मनुजान् सुरान् लोकान् ॥ ३२३॥
321 to 323; According to the ordinary people Visņu creates all creatures celestial, hellish, sub-human and human; if according to the Śramaņas, the soul creates his six kinds of organic bodies, then between the popular doctrine and the Śramaņa doctrine, both being identical, no difference can be perceived. For the people it is Vişņu that creates and for the Śramaņas it is the Self that creates. Thus if the ordinary people and the Śramaņas both believe in the doctrine of perpetual creation of worlds, human and divine, then there is no such thing as mokşa or liberation discernible in their doctrine.
COMMENTARY
Creative activity also implies desire to achieve something. The moment a desire to achieve an ideal appears, there comes a train of emotions such as attachment, aversion, delusion, etc, Hence continuous creative activity implies perpetuation of samsara and hence there is no chance for liberation or mükti.
T
Next, when the Self and non-Self are so entirely distinct and when there is no chance of association of any kind between the two, much less the causal relatation, how does the feeling of doer occur in the Self? The following gathas offer an
explanation.
aazıcııfagy. 3 qre ¤¤ noifa fafzuçur i जाणंति णिच्छयेण उणय मम परमाणुमेत्तमवि किचि ॥ ३२४ ॥
197
vavahārabhāsieṇa u paradavvam mama bhanamti vidiyatthal janamti nicchayena u naya mama paramanumettamavi kimci
(324)
व्यवहारभाषितेन तु परद्रव्यं मम भणन्ति विदितार्थाः । नानन्ति निश्चयेन तु न च मम परमाणुमात्रमपि किंचित् ॥ ३२४॥

Page #327

198
SAMAYASĀRA जह कोवि णरो जंप्पइ अम्हा गामविसयणयररटुं। णय होति तस्स ताणि उ भणइ य मोहेण सो अप्पा ॥३२५॥ jaha kovi naro jampai amhā gāmavisayaņayararaţtham naya homti tassa tāni u bhanaiya mohena so appa (325) यथा कोऽपि नरो जल्पति अस्माकं ग्रामविषयनगरराष्ट्राणि । न च भवन्ति तस्य तानि तु भणति च मोहेन स आत्मा ॥३२५॥ एमेव मिच्छदिट्ठी णाणी णिस्संसयं हवइ एसो । जो परदव्वं मम इदि जाणंतो अप्पयं कृणइ ॥३२६॥ emeva micchaditthī ņāņī nissaṁsayam havai eso jo paradavvam mama idi janamto appayam kunai (326) एवमेव मिथ्यादृष्टिानी निस्संशयं भवत्येषः । . यः परद्रव्यं ममेति जानन्नात्मानं करोति ॥३२६॥ तम्हा ण मेति णिच्चा दोण्हं वि एयाण कत्ति ववसायं । परदब्वे जाणंतो जाणिज्जो दिदिरहियाणं ॥३२७॥ tamhā ņa meti ņiccha donham vi eyāṇa katti vavassāyam paradavve jāņañto jāņijjo dițțhirahiyāṇam (327) तस्मान्न मे इति ज्ञात्वा द्वयेषामप्येतेषां कर्तृव्यवसायम् ।
परद्रव्ये जानन् जानीयाद् दृष्टिरहितानाम् ॥३२७॥
324 to 327. Those who know the nature of reality speak of non-Self as "mine" using the language of the ordinary people, while they know really there is not even an atom of non-Self which is "mine". Just when a person speaks of my village, my country, my town or my kingdom, those are not really his. That person so speaks through self-delusion. In the same way, a person who (deluded by vyavahāra point of view) understands non-Self as his and identifies himself with it, certainly becomes one of erroneous belief. There is no doubt about this. Among these two (ordinary people and śramaņas) if a person knowing the truth that no object of non-Self is his still persists in thinking of the existence of a creative will producing the external reality, he does so being devoid of right belief. Let it be understood to be the truth.
मिच्छत्तं जइ पयडी मिच्छादिट्ठी करेइ अप्पाणं । तम्हा अचेयणा दे पयडी णणु कारगो पत्ता॥३२८॥

Page #328

CHAPTER X
1995
micchattam jai payadi micchādiţthi karei appanam tamha aceyaņā de payadi ņaņu kārago patta (328) मिथ्यात्वं यदि प्रकृतिमिथ्यादृष्टिं करोत्यात्मानम् ।
तस्मादचेतना ते प्रकृतिर्ननु कारकाः प्राप्ताः ॥३२८॥
328, If the karmic material, responsible for wrong belief (by its own potency) makes the Self a wrong believer, then does not your non-intelligent praksti assume the role of an intelligent doer?
अहवा एसो जीवो पोग्गलदव्वस्स कुणइ मिच्छत्तं । तम्हा पोग्गलदव्वं मिच्छादिट्ठी ण पुण जीवो ॥३२६॥ ahavā eso jīvo poggaladavvassa kunai micchattam tamha poggaladavvam micchiditthi na pura jivo (329) अथवैषः जीवः पुद्गलद्रव्यस्य करोति मिथ्यात्वम् । तस्मात्पुद्गलद्रव्यं मिथ्यादृष्टिर्न पुनर्जीवः ॥३२९॥
329. If, on the other hand, the soul causes wrong belief in matter then it is matter that becomes a non-believer and not the soul.
अह जीवो पयडीतह पोग्गलदव्वं कुणंति मिच्छत्तं । तम्हा दोहि कयं तं दोण्णिवि भुंजंति तस्स फलं ॥३३०॥ aha jīvo payaditaha poggaladavvaṁ kunamti micchattam tamha dohi kayam tam donnivi bhumjamti tassa phalam (330) अथ नीवः प्रकृतिरपि पुद्गलद्रव्यं कुरुते मिथ्यात्वम् ।।
तस्माद्वाभ्यां कृतं द्वावपि भुंजाते तस्य फलम् ॥३३०॥
330. Again if soul and (inanimate) prakrti together create wrong belief out of karmic materials, then they both must enjoy the fruit of their actions.
अह ण पयडी ण जीवो पोग्गलदव्वं कुणंति मिच्छत्तं । तम्हा पोग्गलदव्वं मिच्छत्तं तत्तु णहु मिच्छा ॥३३१॥ aha ņa payadi na jivo poggaladavvam kunasti micchattam tamha poggaladavvam micchattam tattu rahu miccha (331) अथ न प्रकृतिर्न जीवः पुद्गलद्रव्यं कुरुते मिथ्यात्वम् । तस्मात्पुद्गलद्रव्यं मिथ्यात्वं तत्तु न खलु मिथ्या ॥३३१॥

Page #329

2001
SAMAYASĀRA
331. Further neither karmic prakrti nor jiva is able to produce wrong belief out of karmic matter. Therefore it is not karmic materials that become wrong-belief. Snch a view is entirely erroneous.
COMMENTARY Thus it is established that the Self is the causal agent of the karma which is the effect.
Next it is pointed out that nescience, etc. are all produced by karma.
कम्मेहि दु अण्णाणी किज्जइ णाणी तहेव कम्मेहि । कम्भेहि सुवाविज्जइ जग्गाविज्जइ तहेव कम्मेहिं ॥३३२॥ kammehim du annari kijjai ņāņī taheva kammehim kammehin suvāvijjai jaggāvijjai taheva kammehim (332) कर्मभिस्तु अज्ञानी क्रियते ज्ञानी तथैव कर्मभिः । कर्मभिः स्वाप्यते जागर्यते तथैव कर्मभिः ॥३३२॥ कम्मेहि सुहाविनइ दुक्खाविन्जइ तहेव कम्मेहिं । कम्मेहि य मिच्छत्तं णिजइ णिजइ असंजमं चेव ॥३३३॥ kammehim suhavijjai dukkhāvijjai taheva kammehiin kammehim ya micchattam nijjai nijjai asamjamam ceva (333) कर्मभिः सुखीक्रियते दुःखीक्रियते तथैव कर्मभिः । कर्मभिश्च मिथ्यात्वं नीयते नीयतेऽसंयमं चैव ॥३३३॥ कम्मेहि भमाडिब्जइ उड्ढमहो चावि तिरियलोयं च । कम्मेहि चेव किन्नइ सुहासुहं जेत्तियं किंचि ॥३३४॥ kammehim bhamādijjai uddhmaho cāvi tiriyaloyam ca kammehim ceva kijjai suhasuham jettiyam kimci (334) कर्मभिर्धाम्यते ऊर्ध्वमधश्चापि तिर्यगलोकं च । कर्मभिश्चैव क्रियते शुभाशुभं यावत्किंचित् ॥३३४॥ जम्हा कम्मं कुव्वइ कम्म देई हरइत्ति जं किचि । तम्हा उ सव्वजीवा अकारया हुंति आवण्णा ॥३३५॥ jamha kamman kuvvai kammam dei haraitti jam kimci tamha u savvajīvā akarayā humti āvanņā (335)

Page #330

CHAPTER X
201
यस्मात् कर्म करोति कर्म ददाति हरतीति यत् किंचित् ।
तस्मात्तु सर्वनीवा अकारका भवन्त्यापन्नाः ॥३३५॥
332 to 335. It is by karma that the soul is nescient; it is by karma that he is made the Knower; it is by karma that he is asleep and it is by karma that he is awake; it is by karma that he is happy and it is by karma that he is miserable; it is by karma that he is led to wrong belief; and by the same he is led to nondiscipline; it is by karma that he is made to wander in the upper, middle and nether worlds; and whatever good and evil is done, is also by karma; because it is karma that does, karma that gives and it is karma that destroys, therefore all jīvas must become akārakā or non-doer.
पुरुसिच्छियाहिलासी इच्छीकम्मं च पुरिसमहिलसइ । एसा आइरिय परंपरागया एरिसी दु सुई ॥३३६॥ purusicchiyāhilāsi icchīkammañ ca purisamahilasai esā āiriya paramparāgayā erisi du sui (336) पुरुषः स्त्र्यभिलाषी स्त्रीकर्म च पुरुषमभिलषति । एषाचार्यपरम्परागतेदृशी तु श्रुतिः ॥३३६॥ तम्हा ण कोवि जीवो अबम्हचारी उ तुम्हमुवएसे । जम्हा कम्मं चेव हि कम्मं अहिलसइ नं भणियं ॥३३७॥ tamhā ņa kovi jīvo abamhacārī u tumhamuvayese jamha. kammam ceva hi kammam ahilasai jam bhaniyam (337) तस्मान्न कोऽपि जीवोऽब्रह्मचारी युष्माकमुपदेशे ।
यस्मात्कमैव हि कर्माभिलषतो यद् भणितम् ॥३३७॥
336 to 337. The karmic material determining the male sex creates a longing for woman, and the karmic material determining the female sex creates a longing for man. If this is the teaching of the scripture handed down traditionally by the Ācāryas, then according to your gospel sex-desire is merely a matter of one material karma desiring another material karma as mentioned before.
जम्हा घाएदि परं परेण घाइज्जए य सा पयडी। एएणत्थेण दु किर भण्णइ परघायणामेत्ति ॥३३८॥
26

Page #331

202
SAMAYASARA
jamha ghaedi param parena ghyijjae ya sa payadi eyenatthena du kira bhannai paraghāyanāmetti (338) यस्माद्धन्ति परं परेण हन्यते च सा प्रकृतिः । एतेनार्थेन किल भण्यते परघातनामेति ॥ ३३८ ॥

तम्हा ण कवि जीवो उवघायओ अत्थि तुम्ह उवएसे ।
जम्हा कम्मं चेव हि कम्मं घाएदि इदि भणियं ॥ ३३९ ॥
tamha na kovi jivo uvaghayao atthi tumha uvaese jamhā kammar ceva hi kammam ghāedi idi bhaniyam. (339) तस्मान्न कोऽपि नीव उपघातकोऽस्ति युष्माकमुपदेशे । यस्मात्कर्म चैव हि कर्म हन्तीति भणितम् ॥ ३३९॥
338 to 339. One class of karma (prakṛti) destroys another or is destroyed by another; that class in this sense is called “Paraghāta” (killing another being). Therefore no soul according to your teaching (can be considered) guilty of killing, because killing is merely a matter of one material karma destroying another material karma, as said above.
एवं संखुवएसं जे पविति एरिसं समणा ।
तेसि पयडी कुव्वइ अप्पा य अकारया सव्वे ॥ ३४० ॥ evam samkhuvaesaṁ jeu parūvimti erisam samaņā tesim payadi kuvvai appa ya akārayā savve (340) एवं सांख्योपदेशे ये तु प्ररूपयन्तीदृशं श्रमणाः ।
तेषां प्रकृतिः करोत्यात्मानश्चाकारकाः सर्वे ॥ ३४० ॥
अहवा मण्णसि मज्भं अप्पा अप्पाणमप्पणी कुणइ । एसो मिच्छसहावो तुम्हं एयं मुणंतस्स || ३४१ ॥
ahavā manasi majjhai appa appānamappano kunai eso micchasahāvo tumham eyar munaitassa ( 341 ) अथवा मन्यसे ममात्मात्मानमात्मना करोति ।
एष मिथ्यास्वभावस्तवैतन्मन्यमानस्य ॥ ३४९ ॥
340-341. If any śramanas thus preach approving such a Samkhya doctrine, then according to them prakṛti (karmic material) becomes the agent and all the souls would be inactive. On the other hand, if you maintain, "my soul transforms itself by itself”, the opinion of "yours is wrong.

Page #332

203
CHAPTER X अप्पा णिच्चो असंखिज्जपदेसो देसिओ उ समयम्हि ।
णवि सो सक्कइ तत्तो हीणो अहिओ य काउं जे ॥३४२॥ appa nicco, asaṁkhijjapadeso desio u samayamhi navi so sakkai tatto hino ahio ya kaum je (342) आत्मा नित्योऽसंख्येयप्रदेशो दर्शितस्तु समये । नापि स शक्यते ततो हीनोऽधिकश्च कर्तुं यत् ॥३४२॥
342. In the Scripture, the soul is described to be eternal and of immeasurable extension. Hence, of its own accord, it is incapable of increasing or decreasing (its spatial form ).
जीवस्स जीवरूवं वित्थरओ जाण लोयमेत्तं खु । तत्तो सो कि हीणो अहिओ य कहं कुणइ दव्वं ॥३४३।। jīvassa jīvarūvam vittharao jāņa loyamettam khu tatto so kim hīņo ahio ya kaham kunai davvaṁ (343) जीवस्य जीवरूपं विस्तरतो जानीहि लोकमानं खलु । ततः स किं हीनोऽधिको वा कथं करोति द्रव्यम् ॥३४३॥
343. Know ye: that the soul, from the point of view of extension, is really co-extensive with the universe. Therefore, how is this eternal substance caused to assume decreased or increased spatial form.
अह जाणओ दु भावो णाणसहावेण अत्थि इत्ति मयं । तम्हा णवि अप्पा अप्पाणं तु सयमप्पणो कुणइ ॥३४४॥ aha jānao du bhāvo nāṇasahāveņa atthi itti mayan tamha navi appa appānam tu sayamappano kunai (344) अथ ज्ञायकस्तु भावो ज्ञानस्वभावेन तिष्ठतीति मतम् । तस्मान्नाप्यात्मात्मानं तु स्वयमात्मनः करोति ॥३४४॥
344. It is accepted that the conscious principle remains of the nature of knowledge. Therefore, the Self, of its own accord, does not transform itself by itself.
COMMENTARY According to the Sankhya doctrine the Self or Puruşa is nitya and akartā, an absolutely unchanging, permanent cetana entity. All change and all activity proceed from acetana praksti. The Self is only aware of the activity. Thus he is only the

Page #333

204
SAMAYASĀRA
knower, a mere spectator of the various changes physical and psychical which both are due to prakyti according to the Sānkhya view. Though the Puruşa is not responsible for any activity, he is still considered to be enjoying the fruits of the action of the prakyti. Thus the Purușa is also the bhokta. This Sānkhya description of the Self, that he is the knower, permanent, actionless, and enjoyer is incompatible with the Jaina conception of the Self. Obviously about the time of Bhagavān Kunda Kunda, some Jaina thinkers must have had leanings towards the Sānkhya view. According to these Sramaņābhāsas, or the Jaina heretics, the karmic material played the part of the Sāņkhyan praksti. Every change and every activity was credited to the operation of karmic material, the Self remaining an active spectator. This attitude is condemned by our author by showing the utter untenability of the Sānkhya doctrine. If every change and every activity is aitributed to prakyti and if the Self is merely an unchanging permanent spectator absolutely uninfluenced by the action of karmas, he must remain for ever a mokşa-jiva, a liberated Self. It would mean the absence of samsāra. This conclusion is contradicted by actual experience, because in actual experience we have an empirical ego or samsära jiva as a fact of reality which cannot be dismissed as unreal. This empirical state of existence in which saṁsāra jīva lives as a matter of fact certainly demands an explanation. This explanation which is not supplied by the Sankhya vicw is offered by the Jaina doctrine which is put forth by our author as a corrective to the Sankhya view. The karmic material is no doubt the main operative principle responsible for the physical and psychic changes produced in the being of a person. When the karmic material is operative, the Self does not remain an inactive spectator according to Jaina metaphysics. If the Self were so inactive, he would not be different from the Sānkhya Purușa. But the successful operation of the karmic material and the consequent psycho-physical changes are due to the attitude of the Self which has a suitable responsive reaction. Without this responsive reaction on the part of the Self, the karmic material would be impotent and will not be able to produce any change either in the body or

Page #334

CHAPTER X
205 in the consciousness. This attitude of responsive reaction on the part of the Self, is responsible for the psycho-physical changes when stimulated by karmic material. The changes in the empirical Self therefore are directly due to the activity of the empirical ego in the form of responsive reaction brought about by the operation of karmic material. Thus for the changes in the consciousness, the ego is responsible. Hence the empirical ego must be considered to be an active agent capable of producing modifications in his own consciousness in response to the operation of karma. Thus the Self must not only be active but must also be liable to change. As against the nature of Sānkhya Purușa, who is said to be nitya and akartā, the Jaina doctrine makes him anitya and kartā, a changing Self and an active agent. But to leave the position here would be untrue. This description of the Self is applicable only to the empirical ego which is the samsāra jīva. Though he is anitya and kartā, as an empirical ego, because of the absence of discriminative knowledge between the Self and the non-Self, still when he acquires this discriminative knowledge, when he realises his pure nature, unsullied by karmic influence, he would remain for ever without any change and without any action ; at that stage, certainly he is nitya and akartă. The Jaina metaphysics combines both these aspects. From the absolute real point of view, the Self is nitya and akartā, but from the empirical or vyavahāra point of view he is anitya and karta. It is because of the combination of such apparently conflicting views, that the Jaina system is said to be the anekanta view. All the other systems which emphasise one aspect of reality or other exclusively are described to be ekānta-vadas and no ekānta-vādi is able to offer a complete and comprehensive solution for the problem of reality. Sānkhya is thus as an ekanta system refuted because of its incapacity to explain the nature of concrete reality or samsāra.
Next another ekānta system is taken up for consideration and refutation. The Bauddha system of metaphysics lays emphasis upon the changes in reality. This one-sided emphasis converts reality into an impermanent and everchanging stream of existence. This doctrine is also considered to be inadequate as is shown below.

Page #335

206
SAMAYASARA
केहि चिदुपज्जहि विणस्सए णेव केहि चिदु जीवो । जम्हा तम्हा कुव्वइ सो वा अण्णो व णेयंतो ॥ ३४५॥ kehim cidu pajjayehim viņassaye neva kehim cidu jivo jamha tamha kuvvai so vā anno va neyainto (345) कैश्चित् पर्यायैर्विनश्यति नैव कैश्चित्तु जीवः । यस्मात्तस्मात्करोति स वा अन्यो वा नैकान्तः || ३४५॥
345. From some point of view ( paryāyārthika naya) the soul dies, but from an other point of view (dravyarthika naya) the soul never dies. Because of this nitya-anitya nature of the soul, the one-sided view that the soul (that enjoys) is the same as the doer or entirely different from this would be untenable.
केहि चिदुपज्जह विणस्सए व केहिचिदु जीवो । जहा तम्हा वेददि सो वा अण्णो व णेयंतो ॥ ३४६॥ kehimcidu pajjayehim viņassaye neva kehimcidu jivo jamhā tamha vedadi so vā anno va neyato (346) कैश्चित् पर्यायैर्विनश्यति नैव कैश्चित्तु नीवः ।
यस्मात्तस्माद्वेदयति स वा अन्यो वा नैकान्तः
॥३४६॥
346. From some point of view (paryayarthika naya) the soul dies, but from an other point of view (dravyarthika naya) the soul never dies. Because of this nitya-anitya nature of the soul, the one-sided view that the soul (that acts) is the same as the enjoyer (of the fruits thereof) or entirely different from him would be untenable.

जो चेव कुणइ सो चेव य ण वेयए जस्स एस सिद्धंतो । सो जीवो णायव्वो मिच्छादिट्ठी अणारिहदो ॥३४७॥
jo ceva kunai so ceva ya na veyae jassa esa siddhamto so jivo nāyavvo micchāditthī anārihado (347) 'यश्चैव करोति स चैव न वेदयते यस्य एष सिद्धान्तः ।
स नीवो ज्ञातव्यो मिथ्यादृष्टिरनार्हतः ॥३४७॥
347. Let it be known that the person who holds the doctrine that the soul that acts is absolutely identical with the soul that enjoys (the fruits thereof) is a wrong believer and is not of the Arhata faith.

Page #336

CHAPTER X
207 अण्णो करेइ अण्णो परिभुंजइ जस्स एस सिद्धंतो। सो जीवो णायवो मिच्छादिदी अणारिहदो ॥३४८॥ anno karei anno paribhumjai jassa esa siddhaṁto so jivo ndyavwo micchāditthi anarihado (348) अन्यः करोत्यन्यः परिभुङ्क्ते यस्य एष सिद्धान्तः ।
स जीवो ज्ञातव्यो मिथ्यादृष्टिरनार्हतः ॥३४८।।
348. Let it be known that the person who holds the doctrine that the soul that acts is absolutely different from the soul that enjoys (the fruits thereof) is a wrong believer and is not of the Arhata faith.
Next the author explains through a practical illustration how the Self is the actor and the action, the enjoyer and the enjoyed.
जह सिप्पिओ उ कम्म कुन्वइ ण य सो उ तम्मओ होइ। तह जीवोवि य कम्म कुव्वइ ण य तम्मओ होइ ॥३४६॥ jaha sippio u kammam kuvvai ņa ya so u tammao hoi taha jivovisya kammam kuvvai na ya tammao hoi (349) यथा शिल्पीकस्तु कर्म करोति न च तन्मयो भवति ।।
तथा जीवोऽपि च कर्म करोति न च तन्मयो भवति ॥३४९॥
349. As an artisan performs his work, but does not become identical with it; so also the Self produces karma but does not become identical with it.
जह सिप्पिओ उ करणेहि कुव्वइ ण य सो उ तम्मओ होइ । तह जीवो करणेहिं कुम्वइ ण य तम्मओ होइ ॥३५०॥ jaha sippio u kara ņehim kuvvai ņa ya so u tammao hoyi taha jivo karanehim kuvvai na ya tammao hoi (350) यथा शिल्पिकस्तु करणैः करोति न स तु तन्मयो भवति ।
तथा जीवः करणैः करोति न च तन्मयो भवति ॥३५०॥
350. As the artisan works with his tools, but does not become identified with them, so also the Self acts through the instrumentality (of trikarana, thought, word and deed) but does not become identified with them.
जह सिप्पिओ उ करणाणि गिलइ ण य सो उ तम्मओ होइ। तह जीवो करणाणि उ गिलइ ण य तम्मओ होइ ॥३५१॥

Page #337

208
SAMAYASĀRA
jaha sippio u karaņāņi ginhai na ya so u tammao hoi taha jivo karanāni u ginhai na ya tammao hoi (351) यथा शिल्पिकस्तु करणानि गृह्णाति न च तु तन्मयो भवति ।
तथा जीवः करणानि तु गृह्णाति न च तन्मयो भवति ॥३५१॥
351. As the artisan holds his tools (while working) but does not become identified with them so also the Self makes use of his organs tri-karana (while acting) but does not become identified with them.
जह सिप्पिओ कम्मफलं भुंजइ ण य सो उ तम्मओ होइ । तह जीवो कम्मफलं भुंजइ ण य तम्मओ होइ ॥३५२॥ jaha sippio kammaphalam bhumjai na ya so u tammo hoi taha jivo kammaphalam bhuinjai na ya tamman hoi (852) यथा शिल्पिकः कर्मफलं न च स तु भुङ्क्ते तन्मयो भवति ।।
तथा जीवः कर्मफलं भुङ्क्ते न च तन्मयो भवति ॥३५२॥
352. As the artisan enjoys the fruit of his labour, but does not become one with it, so also the Self enjoys the fruit of karma but does not become one with it.
एवं ववहारस्स उ वत्तव्वं दरिसणं समासेण । सुणु णिच्छयस्स वयणं परिणामकयं तु जं होइ ॥३५३॥ evam vavahārassa u vattavvam darisaņam samāseņa sunu nicchayassa vayanam parināmakayam tu jam hoi (353) एवं व्यवहारस्य तु वक्तव्यं दर्शनं समासेन ।
शृणु निश्चयस्य वचनं परिणामकृतं तु यद्भवति ॥३५३॥
353. Thus has the doctrine been stated briefly from the vyavahāra point of view; now listen to the statement from the niscaya point of view which refers to changes resulting from modifications (of the soul).
जह सिप्पिओ उ चिटुं कुम्वइ हवइ य तहा अणण्णो सो। तह जीवोवि य कम्मं कुव्वइ हवइ य अणण्णो सो ॥३५४॥ jaha sippio u cittham kuvvai havai ya tahā aṇaņņo so taha jivovi ya kamman kuvvai havai ya añanno so (354) यथा शिल्पिकस्तु चेष्टां करोति भवति च तथानन्यस्तस्याः । तथा जीवोऽपि च कर्म करोति भवति चानन्यस्तस्मात् ॥३५४॥

Page #338

CHAPTER X
209 354. As the artisan starts with the mental image (of the object to be produced) and translates it into physical form by his bodily activity and thus is one with it, so also the Self starts with the mental counterpart of karma and is therefore one with it.
जह चिट्ठं कुव्वंतो उ सिप्पिओ णिच्चदक्खिओ होइ । तत्तो सिया अणण्णो तह चिटुंतो दुही जीवो ॥३५५॥ jaha ciţtham kuvvasto u sippio ņiccadukkhio hoi tatto siya aranno taha cițțhamto duhi jivo (355) यथा चेष्टां कुर्वाणस्तु शिल्पिको नित्यदुःखितो भवति ।
तस्माच्च स्यादनन्यस्तथा चेष्टमानो दुःखी जीवः ॥३५५॥
355. As the artisan making an effort (to translate the mental image into physical form) always suffers thereby and is therefore one with that suffering, so also the Self that acts as stimulated by impure mental states undergoes suffering and becomes one with it.
COMMENTARY
A casual observation of an artist at work will give us the following particulars. The metal or marble which he is going to shape, the instruments used therefore, his dexterity in handing those instruments and the final value which he obtains for the finished product, all these facts are external to the nature of the artist who remains distinct from all the external facts. But instead of such a casual observation if we try to understand the creative activity of the artist then we have a different account of the process. The artist starts with the vision of the object which he is going to make. His creative activity consists in shaping out of the shapeless metal or marble a figure exactly answering to his mental image. With this object in view he sets about to work. Thus looked at from the inner side of the artist's mind, his whole activity is a continuous identical process of expressing in the form of metal or marble what he has in his mind. The method of his work and the instruments employed all become auxiliary and sub-servient to this one process by which the artist transforms his idea into an objective figure.
27

Page #339

210
SAMAYASARA
art.
Here the artist cannot be differentiated from the continuous process of creative activity resulting in the finished product of At every stage of this process we have the progressive manifestation of the artist's mind and hence the process of activity is the artist himself engaged in the art of creation. The artist while thus engaged in translating his idea into an objective figure has to undergo an amount of labour and suffering peculiar to the creative activity of the artist. This feature of the artist in both of the aspects is employed to explain the creative activity of the Self according to the principle of analogy. The Self also has to deal with external karmic matter. To shape this karmic matter into various patterns, various instruments are employed. The Self, like the artist has to manipulate these instruments and after shaping the karmic matter into various patterns he has to experience the hedonic value of the finished product. All these external facts are quite distinct from the nature of the Self who cannot identify himself with any of these. The account corresponds to the casual observation of the artist and hence does not represent the real and true nature of the activity of the Self. When we try to probe into the inner working of the activity of the Self we have a complete parallel to the creative activity of the artist. The Self also starts with an intellectual pattern of the shape of things to be. Starting with such an intellectual pattern, he approaches the karmic material in order to create a material pattern exactly answering to the psychic pattern which he attempts to translate into material shape. When the process of expressing the intellectual pattern in physical form is completed, he experiences the hedonic value thereof. Here also we have an identical and continuous self-expression and the Self that expresses through this process of manifestation is identical with the process itself. The process, the product and the value thereof are but the different stages in the creative activity. Hence the Self cannot be taken to be distinct from the exertion and suffering, characteristic of the creative activity of the Self. Thus these two accounts of the activity of the Self, one from the vyavahara point of view and the other from the niscaya point of view, are parallel and analogical to the activity of the artist
described above.

Page #340

CHAPTER X
211
Next it is pointed out that though apparently an object of reality seems to be capable of transferring its own attributes to another object, really it cannot do so.
जह सेटिया दु ण परस्स सेटिया सेटिया य सा होइ । तह जाणओ दु ण परस्स जाणभी जाणओ सोदु ॥३५६॥' jaha sețiyā du ņa parassa sețiyā séțiyā ya sa hoi taha. janaa du na parassa janao janao sodu (356) यथा सेटिका तु न परस्य सेटिका सेटिका च सा भवति ।
तथा ज्ञायकस्तु न परस्य ज्ञायको ज्ञायकः स तु ॥३५६॥
356. As chalk ( when applied to whiten the surface of another thing ) does not become that thing but remains as chalk (on the surface of that thing), so the Self (while knowing an object) remains as the knower and does not become the object known (which is other than the Self ).
जह सेटिया दु ण परस्स सेटिया सेटिया य सा होइ । तह पासओ दु ण परस्स पासो पासओ सोदु ॥३५७॥ jaha sețijā du ņa parassa sețiya sețiyā ya sa hoi taha pasao du na parassa pasao pasao sodu (357) यथा सेटिका तु न परस्य सेटिका सेटिका च सा भवति ।
तथा दर्शकस्तु न परस्य दर्शको दर्शकः स तु ॥३५७॥
357. As chalk (when applied to whiten the surface of another thing) does not become that thing but remains as chalk (on the surface of that thing), so the Self (while perceiving an object (remains as the perceiver and does not become the object perceived (which is other than the Self).
जह सेटिया दु ण परस्स सेटिया सेटिया य सा होइ । तह संजओ दुण परस्स संजभो संजओ सोदु ॥३५८॥ jaha setiya du na parassa sețiya sețiyā ya să hoi taha sanjao du na parassa samjao samjan sodu (358) यथा सेटिका तु न परस्य सेटिका सेटिका च सा भवति ।
तथा संयतस्तु न परस्य संयतः संयतः स तु ॥३५८॥
358. As chalk (when applied to whiten the surface of another thing) does not become that thing but remains as chalk (on the surface of that thing) so the Self (while renouncing the

Page #341

212
SAMAYASARA
external possessions) remains as the disciplined abstainer and does not become one with the renounced possessions ( which are other than the Self ).
जह सेटिया दु ण परस्स सेटिया सेटिया य सा होइ। तह दंसणं दु ण परस्स दंसणं दंसणं तं तु ॥३५६॥ jaha sețiyā du ņa parassa sețiya sețiyā ya sā hoi taha damsanam duna parassa damsanam damsanam tam tu (359) यथा सेटिका तु न परस्य सेटिका सेटिका च सा भवति ।
तथा दर्शनं तु न परस्य दर्शनं दर्शनं तत्तु ॥३५६॥
359. As chalk (when applied to whiten the surface of another thing) does not become that thing but remains as chalk (on the surface of that thing), so right faith in the Tattvas remains as right faith and does not become one with the Tattvas.
एवं तु णिच्छयणयस्स भासियं णाणदसणचरित्ते। सुगु ववहारणयस्स य वत्तव्वं से समासेण ॥३६०॥ evam tu nicchayaņayassa bhāsiyam ņāņadamsaņacaritte sunu vavahāranayassa ya vattavvam se samāsena (360) एवं तु निश्चयनयस्य भाषितं ज्ञानदर्शनचरित्रे ।
शृणु व्यवहारनयस्य च वक्तव्यं तस्य समासेन ॥३६०॥
360. From the stand point of reality, knowledge, faith and conduct have thus been described; now listen to a brief statement of the same from the vyavahāra point of view.
जह परदव्वं सेटदि ह सेटिया अप्पणो सहावेण । तह परदव्वं जाणइ णाया विसएण भावेण ॥३६१॥ jaha paradavvas seţadi hu sețiyā appaņo sahāveņa taha paradavvam janai naya visayena bhavena (361) यथा परद्रव्यं सेटयति खलु से टिकात्मनः स्वभावेन ।
तथा परद्रव्यं जानाति ज्ञातापि स्वकेन भावेन ॥३६१॥
361, As chalk whitens another thing because of its intrinsic nature (of whiteness), so also the knower knows other things because of his own intrinsic nature (of knowledge).
जह परदव्वं सेटदि हु सेटिया अप्पणो सहावेण । तह परदव्वं पस्सइ जीवो वि सएण भावेण ॥३६२॥

Page #342

CHAPTER X
jaha paradavvam seṭādi hu seṭiya appano sahāveṇa taha paradavvam passai jivo vi sayena bhāvena यथा परद्रव्यं सेटयति खलु सेटिकात्मनः स्वभावेन ।
तथा परद्रव्यं पश्यति जीवोऽपि स्वकेन भावेन ॥३६२॥
जह परदव्वं सेटदि हु सेटिया अप्पणी सहावेण ।
तह परदव्वं विजहइ णाया वि सएण भावेण ॥ ३६३ ॥
362. As chalk whitens another thing because of its intrin - sic nature (of whiteness) so also the Self perceives other things because of his own intrinsic nature (of perception).
jaha paradavvam seṭadi hu seṭiya appano sahāveņa taha paradavvam vijahai nāyā vi saeņa bhāvena यथा परद्रव्यं सेटयति खलु सेटिकात्मनः स्वभावेन । तथा परद्रव्यं विनहाति ज्ञातापि स्वकेन भावेन ॥ ३६३ ॥
जह परदव्वं सेटदि हु सेटिया अप्पणी सहावेण । तह परदव्वं सद्दहइ सम्माइट्ठी सहावेण || ३६४॥
363. As chalk whitens another thing because of its intrinsic nature (of whiteness) so also the knowing Self renounces external possessions because of his own intrinsic nature (of nonattachment).
यथा परद्रव्यं सेटयति खलु सेटिकात्मनः स्वभावेन ।
तथा परद्रव्यं श्रद्धत्ते सम्यग्दृष्टिः स्वभावेन ॥ ३६४॥
(362)
jaha paradavvam seṭadi hu seṭiya appano sahāvena taha paradavvai saddahai sammāitthī sahāvena (364)
evam vavahārassa du vinicchao naṇadamsanacaritte bhanio anņesu vi pajjaesu emeva nāyavvo (365) एवं व्यवहारस्स तु विनिश्चयो ज्ञानदर्शनचरित्रे । भणितोऽन्येष्वपि पर्यायेषु एवमेव ज्ञातव्यः ॥ ३६५॥
(363)

213
364. As chalk whitens another thing because of its intrinsic nature (of whitheness), so also a right believer believes in the external reality because of his intrinsic nature (of right belief). एवं ववहारस्स दु विणिच्छओ णाणदंसणचरिते । भणिओ अण्णेसु वि पज्जएस एमेव णायव्वो ॥ ३६५॥

Page #343

214
SAMAYASARA 365. Thus it has been stated the truth about knowledge, faith and conduct from the vyavahāra point of view; the other modes (of consciousness) should be understood similarly.
COMMENTARY When chalk is used to whiten a object, say a mud pot, though chalk appears to transfer its white colour to the pot, it does not become identical with the mud pot, nor does it lose its intrinsic nature. The relation is only external. The white surface on the pot consists of chalk particles. This illustration of external relation of one thing to another, where two things are related to each other without losing their respective intrinsic nature is used to explain the relation between the knowing Self and the object known. The two are intrinsically different in nature, one is cetana and the other acetana, conscious and nonconcsious, and yet the two are related to each other in the process of knowledge as the knowing Self and the object known. The relation between the knower and the known is merely external. In the process of knowing the knower and the known, both retain their intrinsic nature. Jñana or knowledge is compared by the Jaina metaphysicians to light. Light by illuminating the external objects, make them visible without in any way interfering with their real nature, so also the external object become known through knowledge, they themselves remaining uninfluenced by the process of knowing. This theory of knowledge according to Jainism is incompatible with two other rival doctrines which are refuted' in these găthas,--BrahmaAdvaitic doctrine, and the Buddhistic doctrine. Since knowledge implies the relation between two entirely distinct reals, the pantheistic monism of the first school cuts the gordian knot by deriving both the Self and the non-Self from a primeval Brahman. This merely pushes the problem further without offering any real solution. How could the same identical cause produce two contradictory effects, still remains an insoluble mystery. Metaphysical monism offers an easy escape from the problem of knowledge without offering any satisfactory solution. The logical development of such a doctrine must necessarily identify the primeval Brahman with one of the twothe cetana dravya and must end by condemning the

Page #344

CHAPTER X
215 external acetana worlds as māyā or illusory, an extremely inconvenient, and erroneous conclusion. The solution offered by the Buddhistic metaphysics is equally unsatisfactory. The process of knowledge of jñana at any particular moment of its existence manifests in the dual aspect of the knower and the known. The metaphysical categories of Self and matter are treated to be purely hypothetical and unwarranted assumptions. Jñāna or knowledge is the only real and it manifests as objects of knowledge in the process of knowing. This solution of the problem of knowledge apparently gets rid of the difficulty of explaining the relation between two contradictory categories, the Self and the non-Self, by reducing both to a simple principle of jñāna or knowledge. If the object of knowledge is just the manifestation of knowledge itself, what happens to it when there is no process of knowing. Absence of knowledge must necessarily mean the disappearance of the external world. This nihilistic conclusion or fanyavāda that when knowledge ceases to be, then the Self and the external world cease to be is contradicte our concrete experience. Hence both these theories of knowledge are refuted by our author in the above gāthās.
Impure emotional states such as attachment and aversion are the results of absence of clear knowledge of the exact nature of the reals. This is explained below.
दसणणाणचरित्तं किचिवि णत्थि दु अचेयणे विसए । तम्हा कि घादयदे चेदयिदा तेसु विसएसु ॥३६६।। damsaņaņāņacarittañ kiincivi natthi du aceyane visae tamha kim ghādayade cedayidā tesu visaesu (366) दर्शनज्ञानचरित्रं किंचिदपि नास्ति त्वचेतने विषये ।
तस्मारिक घातयति चेतयिता तेषु विषयेषु ॥३६६॥
366. There is no faith, knowledge, or conduct whatsoever in a non-intelligent object; therefore what does the soul destroy in those objects ?
दसणणाणचरितं किंचिवि णस्थि दु अचेयणे कम्मे । तम्हा किं घादयदे चेदयिदा तम्हि कमम्मि ॥३६७॥ damsaņaņāņa carittam kimcivi natthi du aceyane kamme tamha kim ghāda yade cedayidā tamhi kammammi (367)

Page #345

216
SAMAYASĀRA दर्शनज्ञानचरित्रं किंचिदपि नास्ति त्वचेतने कर्मणि ।
तस्मादिक घातयति चेतयिता तत्र कर्मणि ॥३६७॥
367. There is no faith, knowledge or conduct whatsoever in non-intelligent karmic material; therefore what does the soul destroy in those karmas ?
दसणणाणचरित्तं किंचिवि णत्थि दु अचेयणे काये । तम्हा कि घादयदे चेदयिदा तेसु कायेसु ॥३६८॥ damsaņāņānacarittam kimcivi natthi du aceyane kave tamhā kim ghādayade cedayidā tesu kāyesu (368) दर्शनज्ञानचरित्रं किंचिदपि नास्ति त्वचेतने काये ।
तस्मात् किं घातयति चेतयिता तेषु कायेषु ॥३६८॥
368. There is no faith, knowledge, or conduct whatsoever in non-intelligent body; therefore what does the soul destroy in those bodies?
णाणस्स सणस्स य भणिओ घाओ तहा चरित्तस्स । णवि तम्हि पोग्गलदव्वस्स कोऽवि घाओउ णिहिट्ठो ॥३६६ ॥ ņānassa damsaņassa ya bhanio ghão tahā carittassa navi tamhi poggladavvassa kovi ghao uniddittho (369) ज्ञानस्य दर्शनस्य च भणितो घातस्तथा चारित्रस्य ।
नापि तत्र पुद्गलद्रव्यस्य कोऽपि घातस्तु निर्दिष्टः ॥३६९॥
369. Destruction of knowledge, faith and conduct (of the erroneous kind by the soul) is spoken of; but destruction of matter is never indicated.
जीवस्स जे गुणा केई णत्थि खलु ते परेसु दव्वेसु । तम्हा सम्मादिद्विस्स णत्थि रागो उ विसएसु ।।३७०॥ jīvassa je guna kei natthi khalu te paresu davvesu tamhā sammādiţthissa ņatthi rāgo u visaesu (370) जीवस्य ये गुणाः केचिन्न सन्ति खलु ते परेषु द्रव्येषु ।
तस्मात्सम्यग्दृष्टेर्नास्ति रागस्तु विषयेषु ॥३७०॥
370. Whatever attributes are present in a soul, those are certainly not present in other substances: therefore in a right believer there is no attraction for sense-objects,

Page #346

CHAPTER X
रागो दोसो मोहो जीवस्सेव य अणण्णपरिणामा । एएण कारणेण उ सद्दादिसु णत्थि रागादि ॥ ३७१॥ rago doso moho jivasseva ya anaṇṇapariņāmā eeņa kāraṇena u saddādisu ṇatthi rāgādi (371) राग द्वेषो मोहो जीवस्यैव चानन्यपरिणामाः ।
एतेन कारणेन तु शब्दादिषु न सन्ति रागादयः ॥ ३७१॥
371. Attachment, aversion and delusion are the soul's own inalienable modes; for these reasons there is no attachment, etc. in sound, etc.

217
COMMENTARY
A substance and its intrinsic property are so intimately related to each other that if the substance is destroyed, the property is also destroyed and, conversely, when the property is destroyed the substance must also be destroyed. For example take a flame and the light proceeding from it. If the flame will be destroyed there will be no light and if the light will be destroyed there will be no flame. But in the case of objects which do not have the intimate relations, the destruction of one need not follow the destruction of the other. For example take the case of lamp placed on a stand. The lamp may be destroyed while the stand may remain intact and conversely the stand may break without destroying the lamp. Faith, knowledge and conduct are the intrinsic properties of the Self. In their impure form, they form the states of the impure Self which blinded by nescience is incapable of realising its pure nature. Realisation of the pure nature of the Self necessarily presupposes the destruction of these impure states of consciousness, wrong faith, wrong knowledge, and wrong conduct. These attributes of the Self are externally related to karmic materials. Since the psychic attributes of the Self have nothing to do with non-conscious matter which is only accidentally and externally related to psychic states, the destruction of the psychic states will not in any way result in the destruction of matter. Otherwise destruction of the properties of the Self must lead to the destruction of matter and, conversely, the destruction of the properties of matter must lead to the destruction of the soul. This is 28

Page #347

218
SAMAYASĀRA
absurd. Therefore the emotional states of attachment, aversion, and delusion are only properties of the Self brought about by ajñāna and they can never be present in their objects. But when ajñana or nescience disappears, the impure emotions depending upon it will also disappear and the Self will regain its pure nature. The presence of impure emotions and their destruction
ntial restoration of the purity of the Self neither of these things can be predicated of external objects since the nature of the physical object cannot accommodate these properties of consciousness.
Next the author points out that the property of one thing cannot be produced by an entirely different thing.
अण्णदवियेण अण्णदवियस्स णो कोरइ गुणुप्पाओ। तम्हा उ सव्वदव्वा उप्पवंते सहावेण ॥३७२॥ aņņadaviyena annadaviyassa ņo kirai gunuppão tamha u savvadavvā uppajjamte sahaveņa (372) अन्यद्रव्येणान्यद्रव्यस्य न क्रियते गुणोत्पादः । तस्मात्तु सर्वद्रव्याण्युत्पधन्ते स्वभावेन ॥३७२॥
372. By one substance (dravya) the properties of another substance are never produced. Therefore all substances are produced by their own nature.
COMMENTARY By this gāthās the author once again emphasises the fact that impure conditions such as attachment and aversion being attributes of consciousness are not really produced by external objects. Hence if a person dissatisfied with his impure states of consciousness and actuated by sincere desire for self-reformation proceeds with a righteous indignation to destroy those external objects which he imagines to be the cause of his own impure emotions of attachment and aversion, he merely exhibits his own ignorance of the real nature of things and proceeds in a wrong path to achieve his goal of self-reformation. It is this point that is elaborated in the previous six gāthās and further emphasised in the present one.
f.
Juara!

Page #348

CHAPTER X
219
प्रिंदियसंथुयवयणाणि पोग्गला परिणमंति बहुगाणि । ताणि सुणिऊण रुसइ तूसइ पुणो अहं भणिओ ॥३७३॥ şimdiyasamthuyavayaņāņi poggalā pariņamaiti bahugāņi tāni suniuna rusai tusai puro aham bhanio (373) निन्दितसंस्तुतवचनानि पुद्गलाः परिणमन्ति बहुकानि ।
तानि श्रुत्वा रुष्यति तुष्यति च पुनरहं भणितः ॥३७३॥
373. Words of blame or praise are (only) sound produced by material particles modified in various form. On hearing them one gets angry or pleased thinking, “I am addressed thus."
पोग्गलदव्वं सहत्तपरिणयं तस्स जइ गुणो अण्णो । तम्हा ण तुमं भणिभो किंचिवि कि रुससि अबूहो ॥३७४।। poggaladavvam saddattapariņayam tassa jai guņo anno tamha na tumam bhanio kimcivi kim rusasi abaho (374) पुद्गलद्रव्यं शब्दत्वपरिणतं तस्य यदि गुणोऽन्यः ।
तस्मान्न त्वं भणितः किंचिदपि कि रुण्यस्यबुधः ॥३७४॥
374. As words are really produced by modification of material particles, therefore their properties are entirely different from that of yours. Hence you are not in any way addressed by them. Why do you get angry? Oh, ignorant person.
भसुहो सुहोव सहो ण तं भणइ सुणसु मं ति सो चेव । ण य एइ विणिग्गहिउं सोयविसयमागयं सह ।।३७५।। asuho suhova saddo na tam bhaņai suņasu mam ti so ceva na ya ei viniggahium soyavisayamagayam saddam (375) अशुभः शुभो वा शब्दः न त्वां भणति शृणु मामिति स एव ।
न चैति विनिगृहीतुं प्रोत्रविषयमागतं शब्दम् ॥३७५॥
375. A bad or good word does not of its own accord say to thee, “Hear me". Even when the sound reaches the organ of hearing it does not arrive to seize your attention (by force).
असुहं सुहं च रूवं ण तं भणइ पेच्छ में ति सो चेव । णय एइ विणिग्गहिउं चक्खुविसयमागयं रूवं ॥३७६॥ asuhan suham caraan na tam bhaņai pec cha maṁ ti so ceva ņaya ei viniggaliuri cakkhuvisayamūgayam rüvam (376)

Page #349

220
SAMAYASĀRA
अशुभं शुभं वा रूपं न त्वां भणति पश्य मामिति स एव ।
न चैति विनिर्गृहीतुं चक्षुर्विषयमागतं रूपम् ॥३७६॥
376. An unpleasant or pleasant visual form does not of its own accord say to thee, “See me.” Even when the visual stimulus reaches the organ of sight, it does not arrive there to seize your attention (by force).
असुहो सुहो व गंधो ण तं भणइ जिग्घ मं ति सो चेव । णय एइ विणिग्गहिउं घाणविसयमागयं गंधं ॥३७७॥ asuho suho va gaidho na tam bhaņai jiggha mam ti so ceva naya ei viniggahium ghānavisayamāgayam gamdhan (377) अशुभः शुभो वा गन्धो न त्वां भणति जिघ्र मामिति स एव । न चैति विनिर्गृहीतुं घ्राणविषयमागतं गन्धम् ॥३७७॥
377. Disagreeable or agreeable odour does not of its own accord say to thee, "Smell me.” Even the smell reaches the organ of smelling, it does not arrive there to seize your attention (by force).
असुहो सुहो व रसो ण तं भणइ रसय मं ति सो चेव । णय एइ विणिग्गहिउं रसणविसयमागयं तु रसं ॥३७८॥ asuho suho va raso na tam bhaņai rasaya mam ti so ceva naya ei viniggahium rasanavisayamāgayam tu rasain (378) अशुभः शुभो वा रसो न त्वां भणति रसय मामिति स एव ।
न चैति विनिर्गृहीतुं रसनविषयमागतं तु रसम् ॥३७८॥
378. Bad or good taste does not of its own accord say to thee, "Taste me." Even when the taste reaches the organ of tasting (tongue) it does not arrive there to seize your attention (by force).
असुहो सुहो व फासो ण तं भणइ फास मं ति सो चेव । णय एइ विणिग्गहिउं कायविसयमागयं फासं ॥३७६॥ asuho suho va phāso na tam bhaņai phāsa mam ti so ceva naya ei viniggahium kayavisayamagayam phasam (379) अशुभ: शुभो वा स्पर्शो न त्वां भणति स्पृश मामिति स एव । न चैति विनिर्गृहीतुं कायविषयमागतं स्पर्शम् ॥३७९॥

Page #350

221
379. Unpleasant or pleasant touch does not of its own accord say to thee, "Touch me." When the contact stimulus reaches the organ of contact (body) it does not arrive there to seize your attention (by force).
अहो सुहो व गुणो ण तं भणइ बुज्झ मं ति सो चेव । tres विणिग्गहिरं बुद्धिविसयमागयं तु गुणं ॥ ३८० ॥
CHAPTER X
asuho suho va guno na tam bhanai bujjha mam ti so ceva. naya ei viniggahiyum buddhivisayamāgayain lu gunam (380) शुभ: शुभो वा गुणो न त्वां भणति बुध्यस्व मामिति स एव । न चैति विनिर्गृहीतुं बुद्धिविषयमागतं तु गुणम् ॥ ३८० ॥ 380. The bad are good quality (of an object) does not of its own accord say to thee, "Think of me." Even when the quality reaches the organ of thinking (mind), it does not arrive there to seize your attention (by force).
असुहं सुहं व दव्वं णतं भणइ बुज्झ मं ति सो चेव ।
य एइ विणिग्गहिरं बुद्धिविसयमागयं दव्वं ॥ ३८१ ॥
asuham suham va davvam na tam bhanai bujjha mam ti so ceva naya ei viniggahiyum buddhivisayamāgayam davvam (381)
अशुभं शुभ वा द्रव्यं न त्वां भणति बुध्यस्व मामिति स एव ।
न चैति विनिर्गृहीतुं बुद्धिविषयमागतं द्रव्यम् ॥ ३८१॥
381. A bad or good substance does not of its own accord say to thee, "Think of me." Even when the (idea of) substance reaches the organ of thinking (mind) it does not arrive there to seize your attention (by force).
एवं तु जाणिदव्वस्स उवसमंणेव गच्छइ मूढो । णिग्गहमणा परस्स य सयं च बुद्धि सिवमप्पत्तो ॥ ३८२॥

evam tu jāni davvassa uvasamaṁņeva gacchai madho niggahamana parassa ya sayam ca buddhim sivamappatto (382) एवं तु ज्ञातद्रव्यस्य उपशमनैव गच्छति मूढः ।
विनिर्ब्रहमनाः
ः परस्य च स्वयं च बुद्धिं शिवामप्राप्तः ॥ ३८२॥
382. Thus devoid of a clear understanding of the nature of the objects of knowledge and incapable of abstaining from external influence and himself not attaining mental happiness, the ignorant person does not go along the path of peace.

Page #351

292
SAMAYASĀRA COMMENTARY
Here is a beautiful picture of an individual perceiving agent situated in the midst of an environment abounding in sense-stimuli of various kinds. The environment is always full of sense-stimuli pertaining to sound, sight, smell, taste, and touch. These stimuli proceed from physical object situated in the environment and hence they are also of physical nature. These stimuli of physical nature may reach the appropriate sense-organs of the individual person. Sound-stimulus may reach the ear, light may reach the eyes, odour may reach the nose, taste stimulus may reach the tongue, contact stimulus the skin of the body. The mere presence of the stimuli in the environment and even their coming into contact with the respective sense-organs may not be effective enough to produce the psychic reaction in the consciousness of the individual.
ny sound stimuli may not even cross the threshold of consciousness. One or two may appear in the field of consciousness and yet may flit away without being noticed. The same in the case with the other sense-stimuli. That particular sense stimulus which is capable of producing the corresponding psychic reaction does so because of the selective attention on the part of the individual. This selective attention on the part of the individual is prompted and directed by his own interest in the thing. It is this interest that he takes in the particular thing towards which his selective attention is directed that is mainly responsible for that particular sense-perception. Whether the sense perception is auditory or visual or of any other kind in each case the individual chooses a particular stimulus, attends to it because of his personal relation to it. Thus the immediate causal condition of the psychic fact of perception is the individual himself. Whatever interests him will be perceived by him and others which are of no interest to him will pass away unnoticed. When one the psychic fact of perception is thus brought about by the selective attention on the part of the individual consciousness, the perception further brings about the hedonic reaction in the individual consciousness of pleasantness or unpleasantness. This feeling of pleasure or

Page #352

223
CHAPTER X pain aissociated with the psychic fact of perception is also determined by the attitude of individual consciousness. When perception and its hedonic reaction in the consciousness are thus entirely determined by the psychological attitude of the individual, it is merely ignorance to take external objects of the perceptual world to be responsible for the hedonic reaction in one's self. The objects in the external world from which the stimuli proceed are entirely physical in nature and hence cannot be directly responsible for the psychic modification, perceptual and hedonic, occurring in the individual consciousness. It is this important psychological truth that is imparted by the author to an unenlightened person who is ignorant of the real nature of perception and the hedonic reaction thereby. If you set your mind in order, if you cease to take interest in the object of the perceptual world, if you direct your attention on your own Self and thus get absorbed in contemplation of the truth and beauty of the Pure Self then the innumerable sense stimuli present in the environment which bombard your sense-organs constantly will be absolutely impotent to disturb you from your selfabsorption, and you will remain enjoying the spiritual bliss which transcends all pleasures derivable from the sense-presented world.
Next it is pointed out that the Self which is free from the impure psychic states of attachment and aversion, which remains the pure Knower, will also be rid of the consciousness of being the agent, enjoyer of karmas and continue to be only the pure consciousness of the Knower.
कम्मं जं पुवकयं सुहासुहमणेयवित्थरविसेसं । तत्तो णियत्तए अप्पयं तु जो सो पडिक्कमणं ॥३८३॥ kammam jam puvvakayaṁ suhasuhamaņeyavittharavisesam tatto niyattae appaym tu jo so padikkamaņas (383) कर्म यत्पूर्वकृतं शुभाशुभमनेकविस्तरविशेषम् । तस्मान्निवर्तयत्यात्मानं तु यः स प्रतिक्रमणम् ॥३८३॥
383. When a person turns his Self away from his previous kärmas good or bad and of multifarious kinds, then that Self is certainly the niscaya pratikramaņa, real repentance,

Page #353

224
SAMAYASĀRA कम्मं जं सुहमसुहं जम्हि य भावेहिं बज्झइ भविस्सं । तत्तो णियत्तए जो सो पच्चक्खाणं हवइ चेया ॥३८४॥ kammam jam suhamasuhas jamhi ya bhavehim bajjhai bhavissam tatto niyattae jo so paccakkhanam havai ceya (384) कर्म यच्छुभमशुभं यस्मिंश्च भावे बध्यते भविष्यत् ।
तस्मान्निवर्तते यः स: प्रत्याख्यानं भवति चेतयिता ॥३८४॥
384. When a person keeps his Self away from future bondage likely to be caused by impure psychic states resulting from karmas good or bad, then that Self is certainly the niscaya pratyākhyāna or real renunciation.
जं सुहमसुहमुदिण्णं संपहि य अणेयवित्थरविसेसं । तं दोसं जो चेयइ सो खलु आलोयणं चेया ॥३८५॥ jañ suhamasuhamudinnas sampahi ya aneyavittharavisesan tam dosan jo ceyai so khalu aloyanam ceya (385) यच्छुभमशुभमुदीर्णं संप्रति चानेकविस्तरविशेषम् ।
तं दोषं यः चेतयते स खल्वालोचनं चेतयिता ॥३८५॥
385. That soul which realises as evil all those psychic states of multifarious kinds which arise at present in the consciousness) due to the operation of karmas is certainly the niscaya alocanā or real confession.
णिच्चं पच्चक्खाणं कुव्वा णिच्चं जो य पडिक्कमदि । णिच्चं आलोचेयइ सो हु चरित्तं हवइ चेया ॥३८६॥ niccam paccakkhānan kuvvai niccai jo ya padikkamadi ņiccam āloceyai so hu carittam havai ceya
(386) नित्यं प्रत्याख्यानं करोति नित्यं प्रतिक्रमति यश्च ।। नित्यमालोचयति स खलु चरित्रं भवति चेतयिता ॥३८६॥
386. That Self which is always engaged in the practice of these-real repentance, renunciation and confession, is certainly the niscaya cāritra or real right conduct.
COMMENTARY The Self which is thus of real pure conduct is the same as the Self which has realised his own pure nature of jñāna or knowledge.

Page #354

225
CHAPTER X वेदंतो कम्मफलं अप्पाणं कुणइ जो दु कम्मफलं । सो तं पुणो वि बंधइ बीयं दुक्खस्स अट्ठविहं ॥३८७॥ vedasto kammaphalam appāņam kuņai jo du kammaphalam so tam puno vi bandhai bayam dukkhassa atthaviham (387) वेदयमानः कर्मफलमात्मानं करोति यस्तु कर्मफलम् ।
स तत् पुनरपि बध्नाति बीजं दुःखस्याष्टविधम् ॥३८७॥
387. One who experiencing the fruit of karmas identifies the Self with the fruit of karmas, again sows the seeds of karmic bondage and misery of eight different kinds.
वेदंतो कम्मफलं मये कयं मुणइ जो दु कम्मफलं । सो तं पुणोवि बंधइ बीयं दुक्खस्स अट्टविहं ॥३८८॥ vedamto kammaphalań maye kayam munai jo du kammaphalam so tam punovi bandhai biyam dukkhassa atthaviham (388) वेदयमानः कर्मफलं मया कृतं जानाति यस्तु कर्मफलम् ।
स तत् पुनरपि बध्नाति बीजं दुःखस्याष्टविधम् ॥३८८॥
388. One who experiencing the fruit of karmas thinks that he has brought it about, again sows the seeds of karmic bondage and misery of eight different kinds.
वेदंतो कम्मफलं सुहिदो दुहिदो य हवदि जो चेदा । सो तं पुणोवि बंधइ बीयं दुक्खस्स अट्ठविहं ॥३८६॥ vedamto kammaphalam suhido duhido ya havadi jo cedā so tam purovi bamdhai biyam dukkhassa atthaviham (389) वेदयमानः कर्मफलं सुखितो दुःखितश्च भवति यश्चेतयिता ।
स तत्पुनरपि बध्नाति बीजं दुःखस्याष्टविधम् ॥३८९।।
389. The soul that experiencing the fruit of karmas is made happy or miserable thereby, again sows the seeds of karmic bondage and misery of eight different kinds.
COMMENTARY The consciousness that, 'I am other than jñāna or pure knowledge' is ajñāna cetana or nescient consciousness. That is of two kinds, karma cetana, and karma-phala-cetana.' The feeling that, 'I produce all these things other than jñāna' is karma-cetana. The
29

Page #355

226
SAMAYASĀRA
consciousness that, 'I enjoy the fruits of all things other than jñāna' is karma-phala-cetana. These two constitute the seed for samsāra, because they form really the cause of the eight kinds of karmas which form the causal condition of samsāra. Therefore the person who wants to attain mokşa must destroy these two forms of ajñāna-cetana, nescient consciousness. In order to achieve this end, he must renounce all karma or action and also renounce all karma-phala or the fruits of his action. It is only by that method he can realise his divine nature of (śuddha-jñāna cetana) pure consciousness of knowledge which will be his permanent heritage.
Next it is pointed out that the nature of knowledge is entirely distinct from that of other objects.
'सत्थं णाणं ण हवइ जम्हा सत्थं ण याणए किंचि । तम्हा अण्णं णाणं अण्णं सत्थं जिणा विति ॥३९०॥ sattham nāņań na havai jamhā sattham na yānae kimci tamhā annam nānam annam sattham jind vinti (390) शास्त्रं ज्ञानं न भवति यस्माच्छास्त्रं न जानाति किंचित् ।
तस्मादन्यज्ज्ञानमन्यच्छास्त्रं जिना वदन्ति ॥३९०॥
390. The Scripture is not knowledge, because the Scripture knows not anything. Therefore the Jinas have said that knowledge is entirely different from Scripture.
सद्दो णाणं ण हवइ जम्हा सद्दो ण याणए किचि । तम्हा अण्णं णाणं अण्णं सह जिणा विति ॥३६१॥ saddo ņāņam na havai jamhā saddo ņa yāṇae kimci tamha annam rānam annam saddam jinā vinti (391) शब्दो ज्ञानं न भवति यस्माच्छब्दो न जानाति किंचित् । तस्मादन्यज्ज्ञानमन्यं शब्दं जिना वदन्ति ॥३९१॥
391. Sound is not knowledge, because sound knows not anything. Therefore the Jinas have said that knowledge is entirely different from sound.
१. सचमिति

Page #356

CHAPTER X
227
रूवं गाणं ण हवइ जम्हा रूवं ण याणए किचि । तम्हा अण्णं णाणं अण्णं रूवं जिणा विति ॥३६२।। rūvain ņāņam na havai jamhā rūvam ņa yānae kimci tamha annam nānam annam ruvam jinā vinti (392) रूपं ज्ञानं न भवति यस्माद्रूपं न जानाति किंचित् ।
तस्मादन्यज्ज्ञानमन्यद्रूपं जिना वदन्ति ॥३९२॥
392. Visual form is not knowledge, because visual form knows not anything. Therefore the Jinas have said that knowledge is entirely different from visual form.
वण्णो णाणं ण हवइ जम्हा वण्णो ण याणए किचि । तम्हा अण्णं णाणं अण्णं वण्णं जिणा विति ॥३६३॥ vanno ņāņam na havai jamhā vaņno na yānae kimci tamhd. annam rānam annam vannam jind vimti (393) वर्णो ज्ञानं न भवति यस्माद्वर्णो न जानाति किंचित् ।
तस्मादन्यज्ज्ञानमन्यं वर्ण जिना वदन्ति ॥३९३॥
393. Colour is not knowledge, because colour knows not anything. Therefore the Jinas have said that knowledge is entirely different from colour.
गंधो णाणं ण हवइ जम्हा गंधो ण याणए किंचि । तम्हा अण्णं णाणं अण्णं गंधं जिणा विति ॥३६४॥ gamdho nāņań na havai jamha gamdho na yāņae kimci tamha annam nanath annam gamdham jina vimti (394) गन्धो ज्ञानं न भवति यस्माद्गन्धों न जानाति किंचित् । तस्मादन्यज्ञानमन्यं गन्धं जिना वदन्ति ॥३९४॥
394. Smell is not knowledge, because smell knows not anything. Therefore the Jinas have said that knowledge is entirely different from smell.
ण रसो दु हवइ णाणं जम्हा दु रसो ण याणए किंचि । तम्हा अण्णं णाणं रसं य भण्णं जिणा विति ॥३६५॥ ņa raso du havai ņāņam jamha du raso na yāņae kimci tamha annam ndnam rasam_ya annam jind vinti (395) न रसस्तु भवति ज्ञानं यस्मात्तु रसो न जानाति किंचित् । तस्मादन्यज्ज्ञानं रसं चान्यं जिना वदन्ति ॥३९५॥

Page #357

228
SAMAYASĀRA 395. Taste is not knowledge, because taste knows not any thing. Therefore the Jinas have said that knowledge is entirely different from taste.
फासो णाणं ण हवइ जम्हा फासो ण याणए किंचि । तम्हा अण्णं णाणं अण्णं फासं जिणा विति ॥३६६॥ phāso ņāņam na havai jamha phaso na yāņae kimci tamha annam ndnam annam phasam jind vimti (396) स्पर्शों ज्ञानं न भवति यस्मात्स्पों न जानाति किंचित् ।
तस्मादन्यज्ज्ञानमन्यं स्पर्श जिना वदन्ति ॥३९६॥
396. Touch is not knowledge, because touch knows not anything. Therefore the Jinas have said that knowledge is entirely different from touch.
कम्म णाणं ण हवइ जम्हा कम्म ण याणए किंचि । तम्हा अण्णं णाणं अण्णं कम्मं जिणा विति ॥३६७॥ kammam nāņam na havai jamha kammań na yāņae kimci tamhd. annam ndnam amam kammam jind vinti (397) कर्म ज्ञानं न भवति यस्मात्कर्म न जानाति किंचित् ।
तस्मादन्यज्ज्ञानमन्यत्कर्म जिना वदन्ति ॥३९७॥
397. Karma is not knowledge, because karma knows not anything. Therefore the Jinas have said that knowledge is entirely different from karma.
धम्मो णाणं ण हवइ जम्हा धम्मो ण याणए किंचि । तम्हा अण्णं णाणं अण्णं धम्म जिणा विति ॥३६८।। dhammo ņāņam na havai jamha dhammo na yānae kimci tamha annam nanam annam dhammam jind vinti (398) धर्मो ज्ञानं न भवति यस्माद्धर्मो न जानाति किंचित् । तस्मादन्यज्ज्ञानमन्य धर्म जिना वदन्ति ॥३९८॥
398. Principle of motion is not knowledge, because the principle of motion knows not anything. Therefore the Jinas have said that knowledge is entirely different from the principle of motion.
णाणमधम्मो ण हवदि जम्हाधम्मो ण याणए किंचि । तम्हा अण्णं णाणं अण्णमधम्म जिणा विति ॥३६॥

Page #358

CHAPTER X
nanamadhammo na havadi jamha adhammo na yāņae kimci tamha annam nānam annamadhammain jinā vinti ( 399 ) ज्ञानमधर्मो न भवति यस्मात् अधर्मो जानाति किंचित् ।
तस्मादन्यज्ज्ञानमन्यमधर्मं बिना वदन्ति ॥ ३९९॥
399. The principle of Rest is not knowledge, because the principle of Rest knows not anything. Therefore the Jinas have said that knowledge is entirely different from the principle of
rest.
कालो णाणं ण हवइ जम्हा कालो ण याणए किंचि । तम्हा अण्णं णाणं अण्णं कालं जिणा विति ॥ ४०० ॥

kālo ṇānam na havai jamhā kālo na yāṇae kimci tamhā anņain nānam anņain kālan jinā vimti (400) कालो ज्ञानं न भवति यस्मात्कालो न जानाति किंचित् ।
तस्मादन्यज्ज्ञानमन्यं कालं जिना वदन्ति ॥ ४००॥
400. Time is not knowledge, because time knows not anything. Therefore the Jinas have said that knowledge is entirely different from time.
आयासंपि ण णाणं जम्हायासं ण याणए किचि ।
तम्हा आयासं अण्णं णाणं अण्णं जिणा विति ॥ ४०१ ॥
229
āyāsampi ṇā ṇāṇāṁ jamhāyāsaṁ ṇa yāṇae kimci tamhā āyāsain anņain nānani annani jinā vimti (401) आकाशमपि न ज्ञानं यस्मादाकाशं न जानाति किंचित् ।
तस्मादन्याकाशमन्यज्ज्ञानं निना वदन्ति ॥ ४०१॥
401. Space is not knowledge, because space knows not anything. Therefore the Jinas have said that knowledge is entirely different from space.
णाज्भवसाणं गाणं अज्झवसाणं अचेदणं जम्हा ।
तम्हा अण्णं गाणं अज्झवसाणं तहा अण्णं ॥ ४०२ ॥
ṇājjhavasāṇam ṇāņam ajjhavasāṇam acedaṇam jamhā tamha anņain nānam ajjhavasānar taha annam (402) नाध्यवसानं ज्ञानमध्यवसानमचेतनं यस्मात् ।
तस्मादन्यज्ज्ञानमध्यवसानं तथान्यत् ॥ ४०२ ॥
402. Effort is not knowledge, because, effort knows not anything. Therefore knowledge is one thing and effort quite another.

Page #359

230
SAMAYASĀRA
जम्हा जाणइ णिच्चं तम्हा जीवो दु जाणओ णाणी । णाणं च जाणयादो अव्वदिरित्तं मुणेयव्वं ॥४०३॥ jamhā jāņai piccam tamhā jīvo du jāņao ņāṇī ņāņam ca jānayādo avvadirittam muneyavvam (403) यस्माज्जानाति नित्यं तस्माज्जीवस्तु ज्ञायको ज्ञानी ।
ज्ञानं च ज्ञायकादव्यतिरिक्तं ज्ञातव्यम् ॥४०३॥
403. As the characteristic of the soul is to be always knowing, therefore the soul is certainly the subject of knowledge. the Knower, par excellence. It should be understood that knowledge and the knower cannot be differentiated from each other.
णाणं सम्मादिट्टि दु संजमं सुत्तमंगपुन्वगयं । धम्माधम्मं च तहा पव्वज्ज अब्भुवंति बुहा ॥४०४॥ ņāņam sammāditthi du samjamam suttamañgapuvvagayam dhammadhammam ca tahā pavvajjan abbhuvanti buhā (404) ज्ञानं सम्यग्दृष्टिस्तु संयमं सूत्रमंगपूर्वगतम् ।
धर्माधर्मं च तथा प्रवृज्यामभ्युपयन्ति बुधाः ॥४०४॥
404. Knowledge is the same as right belief, discipline, Scripture consisting of angas pūrvas, merit and demerit and asceticism. So declare the wise.
COMMENTARY The investigation into the nature of Self or samayasāra has resulted in the above definitions of the ātmā. The definition is both negative and affirmative. Negatively it states what it is not and affirmatively it states what it is. All the facts which are distinct in nature from that of the Self are excluded from the scope of definition, whereas all the facts which are of the nature of Self are included. Thus the definition is logically accurate inasmuch as it is free from the usual fallacy of definition of either being too wide or too narrow. These two defects according to Indian Logic are called respectively ativyapti and avyāpti. The former indicates the defects of including the things which do not come into the concept defined, and the latter resers

Page #360

CHAPTER X
231
to the neglect of not including the facts which should come under the scope of definition. The definition in its affirmative form therefore emphasises the intrinsic identity between the thing and its attributes, jīva and jñāna-Self and Knowledge. A thing and its attributes are not different categories brought together by a third category called samavāya, a view maintained by other schools of thought. According to Jaina metaphysics dravya and guņa are inseparable and indivisible unity--no dravya without guna and no guna without dravya. This leads to the fundamental proposition which states the identity of the Self with knowledge. The Self, the Knower, is identical with knowledge. jñāna and jñānī are one and the same. The definition further implies as its corrollory that the different aspect and modifications of the Self are also identical with the Self or atma. Thus right belief, right knowledge, and right conduct, which are but different aspects of the same Self become identical with the Self. These three conjointly constitute the moksa marga--the path to spiritual salvation, and the moh mārga also must be located in the nature of the Self as it is identical in nature with that of the Self inasmuch as it represents a stage in the development of the Self. Thus it is clearly pointed out that the Kingdom of Heaven is within you. One who deserves to reach the goal of liberation or mokşa has nothing to do with the non-conscious external things since he has within himself everything that is necessary to realise his purpose. The spiritual development therefore consists in the continuous development of the Self to a higher and higher state followed by the progressive widening of knowledge till the Self becomes perfect and knowledge becomes completely co-extensive with the reality. At this stage the Self becomes both sarvajña and paramātmā, the Omniscient and the Absolute Self. This is the end of saṁsāra and the goal of life from which there is no return.
If jñāna is thus completely different from other things, how can jñāna be the eater of food? The answer is given below.
अत्ता जस्स अमुत्तो णहु सो आहारओ हवइ एवं । आहारो खलु मुत्तो जम्हा सो पोग्गलमओ उ ॥४०॥

Page #361

232
SAMAYASARA
attā jassa amutto nahu so āhārao havai evam ahāro khalu mutto jamha so poggalamao u (405) आत्मा यस्यामूर्ती न खलु स आहारको भवत्येवम् ।
आहारः खलु मूर्तो यस्मात्स पुद्गलमयस्तु ॥४०५॥
405. Since the Self is non-corporeal, he is certainly not the eater of food, because food being of the nature of matter is corporeal.
ण वि सक्कइ चित्त जंण' वि मोत्तजं य ज परदव्वं । सो कोवि य तस्स गुणो पाउग्गिय विस्ससो वावि ॥४०६॥ ņa vi sakkai ghittum jam na vi mottum jam ya jam paradavvam so kovi ya tassa guņo pāuggiya vissaso vāvi (406) नापि शक्यते गृहोतुं यन्न विमोक्तुं यत्पर द्रव्यम् ।।
स कोऽपि च तस्य गुण: प्रायोगिको वैस्रसो वापि ॥४०६।।
406. It has no attribute either acquired or natural to enable it to grasp or give up foreign matter.
तम्हा उ जो विसुद्धो चेया सो णेव गिए किंचि । णेव विमुचइ किचिवि जीवाजीवाण दव्वाणं ॥४०७॥ tamhā u jo visuddho ceya so neva ginhae kimci ņeva vimuộcai kimcivi jivājīvāņa davvāņam (407) तस्मात्तु यो विशुद्धश्चेतयिता स नैव गृहणाति किंचित् ।
नैव विमुञ्चति किंचिदपि जीवाजीवयोव्ययोः ॥४०७॥
407. Therefore that Self which is of the nature of pure consciousness neither grasps anything nor relinquishes anything of objects, animate or inanimate.
COMMENTARY These gāthās are obviously intended to refute the Upanişadic doctrine that ātmā is anna-maya and kośa-maya for valid reasons.
Next it is pointed out that adopting any bodily insignia or mark as a means for realising mokṣa is certainly inadequate because the body is shown to be the eater of food and hence corporeal and distinct from the non-corporeal Self.
१णवि मोत्तं जं परं दन्वं ।

Page #362

CHAPTER X
233 पासंडिय लिंगाणिव गिहलिंगाणि व बहुप्पयाराणि । चित्तुं वदंति मूढा लिंगमिणं मोक्खमग्गोत्ति ॥४०८॥ pāsamdiya limgāņiva gihalingāņi va bahuppayārāņi ghittum vadamti mudha lingaminam mokkhamaggotti (408) पाषण्डिलिङ्गानि वा गृहलिङ्गानि वा बहुप्रकाराणि ।
गृहीत्वा वदन्ति मूढा लिङ्गमिदं मोक्षमार्ग इति ॥४०८॥
408. Fools put on various types of insignia of false ascetics or householders and maintain that this outer mark constitutes the path to moksa.
णदु होइ मोक्खमग्गो लिगं जं देहणिम्ममा अरिहा । लिंगं मूचित्त दंसणणाणचरित्ताणि सेवंति ॥४०९॥ nadu hoi mokkhamaggo lingam jam dehaạimmamā ariha limgam mucittu damsananānacarittāni sevamti (409) न तु भवति मोक्षमार्गो लिङ्ग यहिनैर्ममा अर्हन्तः ।
लिङ्गं मुक्त्वा दर्शनज्ञानचारित्ताणि सेवन्ते ॥४०९॥
409. Bodily mark is not cartainly the path of emancipation (as is evident from the fact that) the Arhats discard the bodily mark by disowning the body itself and devote their attention only to right belief, knowledge and conduct.
णवि एस मोक्खमग्गो पासंडी गिहमयाणि लिंगाणि । दसणणाणचरित्ताणि मोक्खमग्गं जिणा विति ॥४१०॥ navi esa mokkhamaggo pasamdi gihamayāni lingāni damsananānacarittāni mokkhamaggam jinā vimti (410) नाप्येष मोक्षमार्गः पाषण्डिगृहमयानि लिङ्गानि ।
दर्शनज्ञानचरित्राणि मोक्षमार्ग जिना वदन्ति ॥४१०॥
410. The insignia of false ascetics or householders never (constitute) the path of emancipation. The Jinas declare that faith, knowledge and conduct (together constitute) the path of emancipation.
COMMENTARY Thus it is further emphasised that it is not the bodily mark but the spiritual qualities that constitute the path to salvation.
30

Page #363

234
SAMAYASARA
जम्हा जहित्तु लिंगे सागारणगारएहि वा गहिए । दंसणणाणचरिते अप्पाणं जुंज मोक्खपहे ॥४११॥ jamha jahittu limge sagaraṇagāraehim va gahie damsaṇaṇāṇacaritte appānam jumja mokkhapahe (411) यस्मात् जहित्वा लिङ्गानि सागारैरनगारिकैर्वा गृहीतानि । दर्शनज्ञानचारित्रे आत्मानं युङ्क्ष्व मोक्षपथे ॥ ४११ ॥
411. Therefore, giving up the insignia adopted by householders and the homeless ones, direct the Self to faith, knowledge and conduct, the path of emancipation.
COMMENTARY
Hence the saint has to discard all bodily marks as they are useless and concentrate upon the three jewels or Right Belief, Right Knowledge, and Right Conduct which are spiritual in nature and which are therefore the true path.
मक्खप अप्पाणं ठवेहि तं चैव झाहि तं चेद ।
तत्थेव विहरणिचं मा विहरसु अण्णदव्वे ॥ ४१२॥
mokkhapahe appāņam thavehi tam ceva jhahi tam ceda tattheva vihara niccam ma viharasu annadavvesu (412) मोक्षपथे आत्मानं स्थापय तं चैव ध्यायस्व तं चैतयस्व |
तत्रैव विहर नित्यं मा विहार्षीरन्यद्रव्येषु ||४१२॥
412. Keep the Self on the path of emancipation, meditate on him, experience him, always move in Him, do not move among other things.
COMMENTARY
It has already been shown that the three jewels which constitute the mokşa marga are really of the nature of the Self. Therefore the directions to establish, to experience, to meditate etc., refer to the Self. Thus it is emphasised that you are always to live, move and have your to look beyond to the outer world. for self-realisation.
being in the Self and never This is the surest method

Next it is pointed out that those who are devoid of real knowledge and who put their faith on bodily garbs alone, cannot realise the Absolute Self.

Page #364

235
CHAPTER X पाखंडिलिंगेसु व गिहलिगेसु व बहुप्पयारेसु । कुव्वंति जे ममत्तं तेहिं ण णायं समयसारं ॥४१३॥ pākhamdilingesu va gihalimgesu va bahuppayāresu kuvvamtije mamalam tehim na nāyam samayasaram (413) पाषंण्डिलिङ्गेषु वा गृहोलिङ गेषु वा बहुप्रकारेषु ।
कुर्वन्ति ये ममत्वं तैर्न ज्ञात: समयसारः ॥४१३॥
413. The real Self is not seen by those who put on the garb of ascetics or householders and fancy that therefore they are the real seers.
Next it is emphasised that bodily insignia are therefore irrelevant and useless.
ववहारिओ पुण णओ दोण्णिवि लिंगाणि भणइ मोक्खपहे। णिच्छयणओ ण इच्छइ मोक्खपहे सवलिंगाणि ॥४१४॥ vavahārio puņa ņavo donnivi limgāņi bhaņai mokkhapahe nicchayaņao na icchai mokkhapahe savvalingāni (414) व्यवहारिकः पुनर्नयो द्वे अपि लिङ्गे भणति मोक्षपथे ।
निश्चयनया नेच्छति मोक्षपथे सर्वलिङ्गानि ॥४१४॥
414. Although, the vyavahāra point of view declares the two (classes of insignia) to be the path of emancipation, the standpoint of reality does not want any insignia whatsoever for the path of liberation.
COMMENTARY Those who maintain that what is obtained from the vyavahāra point of view is the real and ultimate truth can never realise the samayasāra or the Supreme Self. Realisation of samayasāra or True Self is possible only by adopting the niscaya point of view which is the only way to reach the Absolute Reality,
जो समयपाहुडमिणं पठिऊण अत्थवच्चओ गाउं । अत्थे ठाहिदि चेया सो होहि उत्तमं सोक्खं ॥४१५॥ jo samayapāhudamiņam pathiūņa atthataccao ņāum atthe thahidi ceyā so hohi uttamam sokkham (415) यः समयप्राभृतमिदं पठित्वा अर्थतत्त्वतो ज्ञात्वा । अर्थे स्थास्यति चेतयिता स भविष्यत्युत्तमं सौख्यम् ॥४१५॥

Page #365

236
SAMAYASĀRA 415. That person who, having read the Samaya pāhuda, and having known its real meaning, firmly holds to the truth thereof will attain Supreme Bliss.
COMMENTARY In the last gātha the author indicates the benefits that will accrue to one who carefully studies the work dealing with the nature of the Supreme Self. It is a well-known fact that the value of a study depends upon the nature of the book whereas the book itself derives its value from the subject matter dealt therein. This book by Bhagavān Kunda Kunda has as its contents and investigation into the nature of the Supreme Reality called samayasāra, by the author which is synonymous with paramātmā or the para brahman or the Supreme Self. The nature of this parama brahman is said to be jñāna-maya, knowledge, parexcellence, which illuminates the whole of reality and comprehends it within Itself. This Self is the Light that illuminates the whole of reality since it has transcended completely the toil and turmoil of the world of saṁsāra, a world full of jarring discord and, since the Self has reached the place of Perfect Harmony and Supreme Bliss, He is also designated to be ananda-maya or of the nature of Supreme Bliss. This parama brahaman characterised by jñānamaya and anandamaya, all-knowledge and all-bliss, constitutes the subject matter of this book. Hence the book itself is therefore described as Sabda Brahman, the Word Divine, the name which it derives from its contents. This Sabda Brahman is therefore the gateway to the Realm of Ultimate Reality, the parama brahman ! One who studies this work carefully and who comprehends clearly its meaning has therefore the privilege of entering into the promised Land of Paradise, the Realm of the Real, the place of the Paramātmā. This privilege which he acquires through study leads to the falling off of scales from his eyes. He sees a vision. He is face to face with the light that lights up the whole Universe. His own personality is in tune with the infinite. His whole being throbs in a responsive melody to the divine and perfect harmony. Being in that atmosphere of Supreme Bliss, He himself feels a thrill of joy unsurpassed-verily a great boon for a noble effort. .
Thus ends Samayasāra,

Page #366

GĀTHĀNUKRAMA
गा० सं०
गा० सं०
गा० सं०
[
आ]
[अ] अह जाणओ दु ३४४ उम्मग्गं गच्छंतं
२३४ अज्झवसाणणिमित्तं २६७ अह जीवो पयडीतह
३३०
उवओगस्स अणाई अज्झवसिदेण बंधो २६२ अह ण पयडी ण ३३१ उवओगे उवओगो १८१ अवियप्पे कम्मे १८२ अह पुण अण्णो कोहो ११५ उवभोगमिदियेहि १९३ अट्टविहं पि य कम्म
४५
अहमेक्को खलु सुद्धो ३८,७३ अण्णदवियेण अण्णद ३७२ ___ अहमेदं एदमहं
२० अण्णाणमओ भावो १२७
अहवा एसो जीवो ३२९ एकस्स दु परिणामो ३२९
१३८ अण्णाणमया भावा १२९,१३१ अहवा मण्णसि मज्झं। ३४१ एक्कं च दोण्णि ६५ अण्णाणमोहिदमदी २३ अह संसारत्थाणं ६३ एक्कस्स दु परिणामो १४० अण्णाणस्स स उदओ १३२ अह सयमप्पा परि
एदं तु अविवरीदं १८३ अण्णाणी कम्मफलं ३१६ अह सयमेव हि ११९ एदं तु असम्भूदं २२ अण्णाणो पुण रत्तो २१९
एदम्हि रदो णिच्चं २०६ अण्णो करेइ अण्णो ३४८
एदाणि णत्थि जेसि
२७० आउक्खयण मरण २४८,२४९ अत्ता जस्स अमुत्तो
एदे अचेदणा खलु १११ अपडिक्कमणं अपडि ३०७ आऊदयेण जीवदि २५१,२५२
एदेण कारणेण दु ८२,१७६ अपडिक्कमणं दुविहं अप २८३ आदम्हि दव्वभावे २०३
एदेण दु सो कत्ता अपडिक्कमणं दुविहं दवे २८४ आदा खु मज्झ गाणं २७७
एदे सम्वे भावा आधाकम्म उद्देसियं २८७ अपरिग्गहो अणिच्छो २१०,
एदेसु य उवओगो ९० आधाकम्मादोया २११,२१२,२१३
२८६
एदेसु हेदुभूदेसु अपरिणमंतेहि सयं १२२ आप्पाणमयाणंला ३९
एदेहि य णिवत्ता अप्पाणं अप्पणो
आभिणिसुदोहिमण २०४ १८७
एदेहि य संबंधो अप्पाणं झायंतो
२७६ आयारादीणाणं १८९
एमेव कम्मपयडी १४९ अप्पाणमयाणंतो
आयासंपि ण णाणं २०२
४०१
एमेव जीवपुरिसो आसि मम पुव्वमेदं अप्पा णिच्चो असंखिज्ज ३४२
एमेव मिच्छदिट्ठो अरसमरूवमगंधं ४९
एमेव य ववहारो अवरे अज्झवसाणेसु ४० इणमण्णं जीवादो
एयत्तणिच्छयगदो असुहं सुहं च रूवं ३७६ इय कम्मबंधणाणं
एवं गंधरसफासरूवा असुहं सुहं व दव्वं ३८१
एवं जाणदि णाणी १८५ असुहो सुहो व गंधो
[1]
एवं ण कोवि मोक्खो असुहो सुहो व गुणो ३८० उवघायं कुव्वंतस्स २३९,२४४ एवं णाणी सुद्धो ण २७९ असुहो सुहो व फासो ३७९ उदयविवागो विविहो १९८ एवं तु जाणि दव्वस्स ३८२ असुहो सुहो व रसो ३७८ उप्पण्णोदयभोगे २१५ एवं तु णिच्छय ३६० असुहो सुहो व सद्दो ३७५ उप्पादेदि करेदि य १०७ एवं पराणि दवाणि
**5:56. Firsits: 632159
१३५
५७
२२५
२१
wVm
२८
ওও
३२३

Page #367

238
एवं पोग्गलदव्वं
एवं बंधो उ दुहंपि
एवं मिच्छादिट्ठी
एवं ववहारणओ
एवं वबहारस्स उ
एवं ववहारस्स दु
एवंविहा बहुविहा एवं संखुवएसं
[क]
कणयमया भावादो
कम्मं जं पुण्वकयं
कम्मं जं सुहमसुहं
कम्मं गाणं ण हव
कम्मं पडुच्च कत्ता कम्मं बद्धमबद्धं
१३०
३८३
३८४
३९७
३११
१४२
११७
१४५
७५
१९२
कम्मस्सुदयं जीवं
४१
१९
कम्मे णोकम्मम्हि कम्मे हिंदु अण्णाणी
३३२
३३४
कम्मेहि भमाडिज्जइ कम्मे हिं सुहाविज्जइ ३३३ कम्मोदयेण जीवा २५४, २५५, २५६
कह सो धिप्प
२९६
४००
काणो णाणं ण हवइ केहि चिदुपज्जयेहिं ३४५, ३४६ को नाम भणिज्ज २०७,३०० कोहादि वट्टंतस्स, को जुत्तोकोहो
कम्मइयवग्गणासु य
कम्ममसुहं कुसीलं कम्मस्स य परिणामं
कम्मस्साभावेण य
[ग]
गंध जाणं ण हवइ गुणादु दे
६४
३१३
२४१
२७२
३५३
३६५
४३
३४०

७०
१२५
SAMAYASARA
[च]
चविह अणेयभेयं चारित्तपडिणिबद्धं चेयाउ पडिय
[छ]
छिदिभिददिय
छज्ज वा भिज
[ज]
जं कुणदि भावमादा
जं भावं सुमहं
सुमहमुद
जइ जीवेण सहच्चिय
जइ वि कुणइ
जइया इमेण जीवेण
जइया स एव संखो
जदि जीवो ण
जदि पोग्गलकम्ममिणं
जदि सो परदव्वाणि
जदि सो पुग्गल
जम्हा कम्मं कुव्व
जम्हा घादि परं
जहाजहित्तु लिंगे
जम्हा जाणइ णिच्चं
१७०
१६३
३१२
२३८,२४३
२०९
३९४
११२ जह पुण सोचिय
९१,१२६
१०२
३८५
१३९
२८९
७१
२२२
२६
८५
९९
२५
३३५
३३८
४११
४०३
८६
१७१
३१५
१८४
३२५
३५५
११३
जम्हा दु अत्तभावं जहा दु जहणादो जया विमुंच चेया जड़कणयमग्गितवियं जह कोवि णरो
जह चिट्ठ कुतो
जह जीवरस अणुव जह णवि सक्कम
८
जह णाम कोवि १७, ३५, १४८, २३७, २८८ जह परदव्वं सेदि ३६१,३६२, ३६३, ३६४ २२६

जह पुण सो चेव
जह पुरिसेणाहारो
जह फलियमणि
जह बंधे चितो
जह बंधे छित्तून
जह मज्जं पिवमाणो
जह राया ववहारा
१०८
१९५
जह विसमुवभुजंता जह सिप्पिओ उ कम्मं ३४९
जह सिपिओ उ करणाणि ३५१ जह सिप्पियो उ करणेहिं ३५०
जह सिपिओ उ चिट्ट ३५४ जह सिप्पिय कम्भफलं ३५२ जह सेटिया दुण
जास पडिय
जावं अपविक्रमणं
२४२
१७९
२७८
२९१
२९२
१९६
जाव ण वेदि विसे
जिद मोहस्स दु
जीवणबद्धा एदे
जीवपरिणाम हेदुं
जीव म्हि हेदुभूदे
जीवस्स जीवरूवं
जीवस्स जे
गुणा जीवस णत्थि ई
जीवस्स णत्थि रागो
जीवस्स णत्थि वग्गो
जीवस्य णत्थि वण्णो
जीवस्स द कम्मेण दु जीवाजीवस्सदु जीवादीसह
जीवे कम्मं बद्धं
जीवेण सयं
जीवो कम्मं उहह्यं
जीवो चरित्तदंसण
जोवो चैव हि
जीवो ण करेदि.
जीवो परिणामयदे
३५६,३५७,
३५८, ३५९
३१४
२८५
६९
३३
७४
८०
१०५
३४३
३७०
५३
५१
५२
५०
१३७
३०९
१५५
१४१
११६
४२
२
६२
१००
११८

Page #368

GATHANUKRAMA
239
३०१
२१८
जीवो बंधोय तहा २९४,२९५ ण रसो दु हवइ ३९५ तह जोवे कम्माणं ५९ जे पोग्गलदव्वाणं १०१ णवि एस मोक्खमग्गो ४५० तह णाणिस्स दु पुर्व १८० जे अप्पणा दु मण्णदि २५३ णवि कुव्वइ णवि ३१९ तह णाणिस्स दु विविहे २२१ जो इंदिए जिणित्ता ३१ वि कुव्वदि कम्म ८१ तह णाणी विहु २२३ जो कुणदि वच्छलत्तं २३५ णवि परिणमदि ण ७६,७७, तहवि य सच्चे २६४ जो चत्तारि वि २२९
७८,७९ तिविहो एसुवओगो ९४,९५ जो चेव कुणई सो ३४७ ण वि सकाइ चित्तु ४०६ तेयाई अवराहे जो जो जम्हि गुणो १०३ णवि होदि अप्पमत्तो ६ तेसि पुणोवि य जो ण करेदि
२३१ ण सयं बद्धो कम्मे १२१ तेसिं हेदू भणिदा जो ण कुणइ अवराहे ३०२ णाज्झवसाणं णाणं ४०२ जो ण मरदि ण २५८ णाणं सम्मादिट्टि ४०४
दसणणाणचरित्तं किं जो दु कलुसोवओगो १३३ णाणं सव्वे भावे
३६६, जो दु ण करेदि २३०
३६७,३६८ णाणगुणेण विहीणा २०५
दसणणाणचरित्तं जं जोधेहिं कदे जुद्ध १०६ णाणमधम्मो ण हवदि
१७२ ३९९
दसणणाणचरित्ताणि जो पस्सदि अप्पाणं १४,१५ णाणम्या भावाओ १२८
दवियं जं उप्पज्जइ जो पुण णिरवराहो ३०५ णाणस्स दंसणस्स य
३०८ जो मण्णादि जीवेमि २५० णाणस्स पडिणिबद्धं
दव्वगुणस्स य आदा १०४ जो मण्णदि हिंसामि २४७ णाणावरणादीयस्स
दवे उवभुज्जंते १९४ जो मरदि जो य
णाणी रागप्पजहो २५७
दिदी सयंपि णाणं ३२० जो मोहं तु ३२ णादूण आसवाणं ७२
दुक्खिदसुहिदे जीवे २६६ जो वेददि वेदिज्जदि २१६ णिदियसंथुयवयणाणि ३७३
दुक्खिदसुहिदे सत्ते २६० जो समयपाहुडमिणं णिच्चं पच्चक्खाणं
दोण्हवि णयाण भणिदं १४३
३८७ जो सव्वसंगमुक्को
णिच्छयण यस्स एवं जो सिद्धभत्तिजुत्तो २३३ णियमा कम्मपरिणदं १२०
धम्माधम्मं च तहा २६९ जो सुयणाणं सव्वं णिव्वेयसमावण्णो
धम्मो णाणं ण हवइ जो सो दु णेहभावो २४०,२४५ णेव य जोवट्ठाणा जो हि सुदेणभि
णो ठिदिबंधटाणा जो हवइ असम्मूढो २३२
पंथे मस्संतं पस्सि
पक्के फलम्मि पडिदे [ण] तं एयत्तविभत्तं
पज्जत्तापज्जत्ता जे ण कुदोवि विप्पण्णो ३१० तं खलु जीवणिबद्धं १३६ पडिकमणं पडिसरणं ३०६ पत्थि दु आसवबंधो १६६ तं जाण जोगउदयं १३४ पण्णाए वित्तवो जो २९७, णत्थि मम को वि३६ तं णिच्छये ण
२९८,२९९ णत्थि मम धम्म ३७ तत्थभवे जीवाणं
६१ परमबाहिरा जे १५४ णदु होई मोक्खमग्गो ४०९ तम्हा उ जु विसुद्धो ४०७ परमम्मिय अठिदो ण मुणइ पयडिम ३१७ तम्हा ण कोवि जीवो३३७,३३९ परमट्टो खलु समओ १५१ णयरम्मि वणिदे ३० तम्हा ण मेति णिच्चा ३२७ परमप्पाणं कुम्वदि ण य रायदोसमोहं
तम्हा दु कुसीलेहि १४७ परमप्पाणमकुव्वी
४१५
१८८
८३
३१८
३९८
१५२
९३

Page #369

240
परमाणुमित्तियं पि
पाखंडिलगे व
पाखंडिय लिंगाणिव
पुढवी पिंडस माणा
पुरिसो जह कोवि
पुरुसि च्छिया हिलासी
पोग्गलकम्म कोहो
पोग्गलकम्मं मिच्छं
पोग्गलकम्मं रागो
पोग्गलदव्वं सद्दत्त
[फ]
फासो गाणं ण हवइ
[ब]
बंधाणं च सहावं बंधुवभगणिमित्तं बुद्धी ववसाओवि
[भ]
भावो रागादिजुदो भुज्जतस्स वि विवि भूदत्येणाभिगदा
[म]
मज्भं परिग्गहो मारेमि जीवावेमि
मिच्छत्तं अविरमणं
मिच्छत्तं जइ पयडी
मिच्छत्तं पुण दुबिहं मोक्खं असद्दहंतो मोहे अप्पा

२०१
४१३
४०८
१६९
२२४
३३६
१२३
८८
१९९
३७४
३९६
२९३
२१७
२७१
१६७
२२०
१३
२०८
२६१
१६४
३२८
८७
२७४
४१२
SAMAYASARA
मणिच्छ
मोहम्मदा
[<]
रत्तो बंधदि कम्मं
१५० रागहिय दोसम्हिय २८१, २८३
२८१
३७१
१७७
४७
३९२
रागे च से च
रागो दोसो मोहो जी
रागो दोसो मोहो य
राया हु णिग्गदो
रूवं गाणं ण हवइ
[ ल ]
लोयसमणाण मेवं लोयस कुणs विहू
[ व ]
वंदित्तु सवसिद्धे
वष्णो णाणं ण हवइ वत्थस्स सेदभावो
वत्थं पडुच्च जं
वदणियमाणि धरता
वदसमिदिगुत्तोओ
ववहारणओ भासदि
ववहार भासिएण
ववहारस्स दरिसण
ववहारस्स दु आदा
वहारिओ पुण
१५६
६८
ववहारेण दु आदा ववहारेण दु एदे
३२२
३२१
१
३९३
१५७, १५८
१५९
२६५
१५३
२७३
२७
३२४
४६
८४
४१४
९८
५६

वारेणुवदिसदि ववहारोऽभूदत्यो विज्जार हमारूढो
वेदतो कम्मफलं अप्पाणं वेदतो कम्मफलं मये वेदतो कम्मफलं सुहिदो ३८९
३८८
[ स ]
संतिवि निरुवभोज्जा
संसिद्धिरासिद्धं
सत्यं गाणं ण हवइ
सहदि य पत्तेद
सद्दी जाणं ण हवइ सद्धं तू वियाणंतो सम्मत्तपडिणिबद्ध सम्म सणणाणं
सम्मादिट्टी जीवा
दो
सव्वे करेइ जीवो
सब्वे पुन्वबिद्धा
सामण्णपच्चया खलु
सुपरिचिदाणुभूदा
सुद्धो सुद्धा सो
सेवंती विण सेवंतो
सोवणियं पि णियलं
सो सव्वणाणदरिसी
[ ६ ]
अभावे नियमा
हेदू चदुविप्पो होण णिरुवभोज्जा
७
११
२३६
३८७
१७४
३०४
३९०
२७५
३९१
१८६
१६१
१४४
२२८
२४
२६८
१७३
१०९
४
१२
१९७
१४६
१६०
१९१
१७८
१७५

Page #370
Te C Ch