________________
365
366
Jain Education International
145
commit arambha, samrambha and samarambha kriyas. It goes on to say that a monk who does not vibrate can perform antakriya at the end. The reason forthcoming is that a disciplined monk who performs iryapatha kriya binds karma at the first moment, experiences it at the second moment and purges it out at the third moment, inasmuch as a bundle of hay burns as soon as it is thrown into fire, drops of water on red hot iron dry up instantly, and a boat with a hundred holes can float when the holes are closed. Iryapatha kriya is thus performed by a sayoga kevali but not by an ayoga kevali who does not vibrate any more. It is said in the preceding sutra 150 that kriya committed is followed by vedana but not vice versa, which amounts to saying that asrava is followed by bandha and vedana but not vice versa. Then sutra 151 reads that ascetics' kriya is caused by pramada-pratyaya and yoga-nimitta. The author like Umasvati does not distinguish pratyaya and nimitta here. The succeeding sutra 153 talks about the duration of pramattasamyama and apramattasam yama on the basis of a single soul and many souls. These sutras 150-53 constitute the Manditaputra story in continuation of the previous sutra 149.
From this it is clear that iryapatha kriya was formulated to explain the mechanism of karma bandha-vedana-nirjara of a sayoga kevali who is free from kasayas. An ayoga kevali, who no longer vibrates and is to be liberated immediately, has no cause to commit any kriya to invite karma. Samparayika kriya was formulated as its antithesis. VI.8.340-41 employ the terms iryapathika karma and samparayika karma (cf. E-3b-6). This problem is too important to be neglected in the context of asrava-bandha-vedana-nirjara, which curiously enough is hardly touched upon in the Prajnapana of which Ch. I is acquainted with badara and suksma samparayikas. This problem is closely related to the types of bandha called 'slista-gadha, which are again scarcely mentioned in the Prajnapana but are touched upon in the Uttara IIIX belonging to the fifth canonical stage. Also we should note that even Umasvati falls short of correctly handling the concept of iryapatha in the context of asrava-bandhamoksa in his T.S. VI and X, which is duly improved in the Sarvarthasiddhi. All this makes us infer that the problem of iryapatha-samparayika kriyas evolved in the context of the karma theory probably during the fourth and the early fifth canonical stages. We place III.3.150-53 in the same period.
VI.1.266 reads that a monk, who carelessly (anauttam) moves, stands, sits, sleeps, or accepts and sets things down, such as a robe and an alms bowl, performs samparayika kriya because his kasayas are not rooted out. This text is referred to in X.2.395, which explains that a monk whose attention is distracted by the things around him while proceeding on his alms tour, performs samparayika kriya. The reverse content of VII.1.266 is said in VII.7.288 to be applicable to a monk who performs iryapatha kriya. XVI.8.638 asserts, by referring to VII.7.288, that a monk who happens to kill a chick, a small quail or a small insect (kulinga) on the way while carefully walking by way of watching the
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
