Agam 05 Ang 05 Study Of Bhagvati Vyakhya Prajnapti Sutra

Author(s): Suzuko Ohira
Publisher: Prakrit Text Society Ahmedabad

Page 214

482
483
484
184
refers to 1.1.18), because he transgresses dharma by way of committing himsa to living beings. The opposite result is said to ensue to a monk who takes permitted food. I.9.78 and 79 are referred to in VII.8.297 for its total content.
Slista-gadha bandhas occur, besides these texts, in VI.1.228 (cf. E-2), XVI.4.571 (cf. E-4) and XVI.3.619 above wherein these are placed in the class of dravya bandha. From this it appears that 'slista-gadha types of bondage denote the physical modes of binding things either loosely or tightly. In the context of karma theory, these are thus understood as the loose-tight types of karmic bondage which effect nirjara easily or with difficulty.
There is no doubt that iryapathika bandha and samparayika bandha originated from iryapatha kriya and samparayika kriya, which are distinguished by the absence and presence of kaşayas on the part of the agents. And slista-gadha bandhas must have been primarily considered as the loose-tight modes of karmic bondage corresponding to iryapathika-samparayika bandhas which pertain to the types of agents as such. Note VI.1.228 (cf. E-2) where the same simile used for iryapathika bandha in III.3.152 (cf. D-la) occurs for 'slista bandha. It thus seems that these two couplets of bondage evolved to explain the same phenomenon by expressing its different aspects. Bandha couplet of iryapathikasamparayika remained to be discussed in the context of karma theory, while bandha couplet of 'slista-gadha soon came to be widely taken up in the context of bandha in general. We place all these texts above in the final canonical stage.
We have previously mentioned that the well-known four types of karma bandha by prakṛti-sthiti-anubhava-pradésa were formulated in the post-Prajnapana period. We have observed above that I.1.18 brings in these fourfold types of bandha for discussion.
I.4.40 emphatically declares by appealing to the authority of arhats that no being can achieve salvation without experiencing the fruits of bad karma (papa karma) wrought by himself. Because karma is said to be as of two kinds, i.e.,. pradesa karma and anubhava karma, of which the former is inevitably experienced, and some of the latter are experienced but some are not. Pradésa karma must mean the pradesas of karma, and anubhava karma the anubhava of karma." Prades a karma and anubhava karma are expressed here in the context of vedana, but not in the context of bandha. This leads us to assume that pradesa bandha and anubhava bandha originally evolved in the context of vedana, because from our empirical experience of sensations it is easy and natural to have an idea that the space and intensity of karma can be experienced. The theorization of these two divisions in the category of karma bandha was then made on the rational level that whatever divisions thought