Disclaimer: This translation does not guarantee complete accuracy, please confirm with the original page text.
-816 § 742]
Chapter Eight
[297
8.739. It has been said that there are eight types of *Mūla Prakriti Bandha*. Now, we will discuss *Uttara Prakriti Bandha*. There are five, nine, two, twenty-eight, four, forty-two, two, and five types of *Uttara Prakriti Bandha* respectively. ||5||
8.740. Doubt: Should we consider the second term here, which would imply that there are so many types of the second *Uttara Prakriti Bandha*? Solution: We should not consider the second term, because it is established by the principle of *Pāriśeṣya*. The eight types of *Mūla Prakriti Bandha* have already been mentioned. Therefore, by the principle of *Pāriśeṣya*, these are the types of *Uttara Prakriti Bandha*. The word "types" is related to the numbers five, etc., in order. Thus, there are five types of *Jñānāvaraṇa*, nine types of *Darśanāvaraṇa*, two types of *Vedaniya*, twenty-eight types of *Mohaniya*, four types of *Āyu*, forty-two types of *Nāma*, two types of *Gotra*, and five types of *Antarāya*.
8.741. If *Jñānāvaraṇa* karma is of five types, then we should know about it. Therefore, the next sūtra says:
*Matijñāna*, *Śruta-jñāna*, *Avadhi-jñāna*, *Manaḥ-paryaya-jñāna*, and *Kevala-jñāna* are the five *Jñānāvaraṇa* karmas that cover these five types of knowledge. ||6||
8.742. The types of knowledge like *mati*, etc., have been explained. There are different types of *āvaraṇa* that cover them, therefore, we should know about the five *Uttara Prakriti* of *Jñānāvaraṇa* karma. Doubt: Does an *abhavya* being have the power of *Manaḥ-paryaya-jñāna* and *Kevala-jñāna*? If it does, then it would not be an *abhavya*. If it does not, then the concept of these two *āvaraṇa* karmas would be pointless. Solution: There is no fault because of the *ādeśa* (command) statement. According to the *dravya-ārthika* (substance-oriented) *naya*, an *abhavya* being has the power of *Manaḥ-paryaya-jñāna* and *Kevala-jñāna*, but according to the *paryāya-ārthika* (attribute-oriented) *naya*, it does not have that power. If this is the case, then the distinction between *bhavya* and *abhavya* would not be valid, because both would have the power. However, the presence or absence of power does not