________________
The opponent might remark that to say this is to deny the merit of such scriptural injunctions as laid down. under the heading of Jural Seventies (Charan siltarı) which have been imperatively enjoined both on the monks and the laity. Does not this denial stand its an indirect evidence to prove that moksha results from the wise discharging of duties as laid down in the Jural Ethics? Complete deliverence from the veil and covering therefore, we hold, is the result, though not the effect, of our wisely working along the lines of Jural Ethics which is imparatively enjoined on every man. Otherwise none would have ever been inclined in any wall work along the lines of Jural Ethics.
To say this rejoind the Jains is to state that 'mokska is the result of our being true in thought and deed to the injuctions of Jural Ethics and on that account it cannot be said to be the effect of our doing something. But what does this your statement mean? Mere euphonic difference in the words: result and effect which are synonymous in sense and significance does not always make out the difference in respect of their imports.
613
