________________
Vada ]
Gañadharavada
• 107 :
can bear a visible fruit ( ditthāneganta phala ); so even the commentator has somehow to explain it as referring only to the bad actions like krsi etc.
We hold that by savva kiriyā we should take only the bad actions like cultivation of land, trade, etc. The purpose of the verse is to explain how all bad actions bear invariably a bad fruit which is invisible ( adittha ) and how even the visible fruits which these bad actions bear and which the agent intentionally aims at, are uncertain and therefore the result of the man's adrsta, the invisible karma. The visible action which a man does e. g., krsi bears two kinds of fruits invisible and visible, both of which are dependent upon the man's adrsta ( aditthānubhāvena ). Since we find most people suffering and since we find that none does any bad action even e. g. krsi with the intention that the result be bad and invisible i. e.. that he may be unhappy in his next life as a result of krsi, we must conclude that all bad actions like krsi give invariably an adrsta invisible bad result.
Thus, in our opinion the proper conclusion (padivajja) from the whole of v. 1622 is the first half of v. 1623. The latter half of v. 1623 is only an additional remark. The commentator .connects the first half of v. 1623 with first half of v. 1622 and the latter half of the former, with the latter half of the latter. As the latter half of v. 1622 refers only to adrsta anista, it cannot be connected with the latter half of v. 1623 'which refers only to the drsta phala and traces it to adrsta karmas. Tr. ]
Or, of what avail is this trouble? • Karma' is a.foregone conclusion. By what argument? He replies :अहवा फलाउ कम्मं कज्जत्तणओ पसाहियं पुवं । परमाणवो घडस्स व किरियाण तयं फल भिन्नं ॥७६॥ (१६२४) Ahavā phalāu kammam kajjattanao pasāhiyam puvvam i Paramāņavo ghadassa va kiriyāna tayam phalam bhinnam 1176 (1624)