________________
...[384]...
in the exposition contained in Saṭkhanḍāgama is not found employed in the corresponding exposition contained in Prajñāpanā. And even the comparison of the items expounded in the one with those expounded in the other suggests the same thing. Prajñāpanā treatment of this topic is not subtle and deep. It does not enumerate four types of bandha, viz. prakṛti-bandha, etc. in due order, nor does it explain all the four. It explains only the three types of bandha, viz. prakṛti-bandha, anubhavabandha and sthiti-bandha and that too not in a proper order. It does not at all contain the discussion about the pradeśa-bandha. The crystallised and subtle stage as well as terminology of the Karma speculation which we come across in the later works written by Svetambara and Digambara theoreticians are not present in the Prajñāpana version of Karma speculation. For instance, Prajñāpană considers rāga (attachment) and dvesa (aversion) alone to be the cause of Karmic bondage (1670). Though this view is recognised by all the Jaina theoreticians, the discussion about the causes of Karmic bondage has been conducted, by both Svetambara and Digambara theoreticians of later days, in quite a different manner and on altogether a different plane. This fact is beyond controversy. The Prajñāpanã account does not mention yoga (activity) which is really one of the causes of Karmic bondage. This account does not contain the discussion about karmapradeśa.5 Hence it is but natural that it could not mention yoga which is the cause of pradeśa-bandha. This proves beyond doubt that the Prajñāpanā account represents the old stage of Karma speculation. Prajñāpana exposition of anubhāva-bandha (1679) also points to its antiquity.
Prajñāpanā very often (1665, 1687, 1754, 1769, 1775, 1787) enumerates the eight basic types of Karma. And these types are enumerated again and again at the beginning of the discussions of the concerned items. From this we can legitimately infer that the twentythird chapter and succeeding ones devoted to the Karma speculation were originally written as separate independent tracts and that they have been collected in Prajnapanã. A closer study reveals that the two sections of 23rd chapter are in fact an earlier and a later draft of the solution of the same problem. First section belongs to the ancient period of time and represents the primary stage of the speculation whereas the second section
4. For the 16 anuyogadvāras of vedană refer to Satkhaṇḍāgama, Book X, p. 1 For the niksepas of karma refer to Book XIII, p. 38.
5. The adjectives, viz. baddha (bound), spṛṣṭa and sañcita (accumulated), etc. are given to karmas (1679). But there does not occur the discussion about pradeśa-bandha. Only prakṛti-bandha, sthiti-bandha and anubhāvabandha are dealt with.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
