________________
Rajas and karman
karman' in the sense of rajas substance, Do their classifications of karmans into krta-upacita, drstadharmavedaniya-upapadyavedaniya-aparaparyāyaved. anıya suggest the usage of karman in the sense of rajas substance ? Do their fourfold karmans, viz. krsna, sukla etc. betray the use of karman in this sense ? Does their conception of avijňapti point to their acceptance of material karman (rajas)? Has the second nidāna saņskāra any affinity to the material karman (rajas)? Does their karmāgaya or anusaya resemble material karman (rajas)? Does their conception of klešāvāraṇa and jñeyāvaraña correspond to Yoga conception of klesa-karnāvaraņa ? However, one feels that Buddhism in its zeal for the ethical aspect of karman has neglected the metaphysical aspect of karman. But this metaphysical aspect of karman is implied in the ethical aspect of karman.
Their implied metaphysical position is as follows: For them citta (=sattva) is ātman, There is no entity over and above citta. Their citta is sattva substance alone. It is not constituted of the three substances, viz. sattva, rajas and tamas. They do not accept tanas substance besides rajas. Substance tamas may be at the most a variety of rajas.
What is implicit in Buddhism is explicit in Jainism. Jainas are well knowo for their view that karmans are material. They believe that as a result of the threefold activity, viz. bodily, vocal and mental, the material particles called karmans get bound to soul (-ātman=citta). It is very interesting to note that in the Uttarādhyayana-Sūtra, one of the oldest Āgamas, the term used for the material karmic atoms is 'rajas'. This clearly suggests the identity of material karman with rajas substance. The following are the instances in point:
(1) rayain khavejja purekadaim — 21.18 (2) kahim sinao va rayam jahäsi? 12.45 (3) dussāhadam dhanam hiccā bahum samciņiyā rayam -7.8 (4) tavassi viriyain laddhum samvuçe niddhuộc rayam - 3.11 (5) vihuņāhi rayam pure kadam, samayam goyama ma pamāyae--10.3
A half-verse of Dasāsutakkhamdha (5.27), viz. "āuyaın veyanijjam ca, chittā bhavai nirae' is one more instance of the use of 'rajas' in the sense of material karmaps.lo
These references clearly point out that the term, 'rajas' here means rajas substance transformed into karmans. The term 'rajas' has the technical sense and not the ordinary sense, viz. dust. This rajas and the rajas guna (i.e. substance) of the Sankhya-Yoga are identical. The Uttarādhyayanacūrņ: explains the term rajas occurring in the above-quoted instances as follows: 'rajah 10 Note also the following phrases occurring in the Sthânăngasutra (5.2); 'rayam
vamanti'. 'rayam äijjamti'.