________________
M. A. Dhaky
obscurities, varbal conceits or virtuousity. The style, though dry, is dynamic, direct and lucid. Some of these qualities are already in evidence in the Sanmati-prakarana of Siddhasena (c. 5th cent. A.D.) as well as in the Mulacăra of Vattakera (c. late 6th cent. A. D.). In fact, strong conceptual (sometimes even verbal) parallelisms between Kundakundācārya's Samaya-prabhṛta on the one hand and Siddhasena's Sanmati-prakarana on the other, do exist as has been demonstrated by Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi
198
6. This is further supported by several elements present in his thinking. However, this being a sizeable subject in itself, I am discussing it in a separate follow up paper. A few salient points to which I would here succinctly hint, but without citing references and without entering into detailed discussion, are as follows: a) Kundakundacarya had massively leaned toward the niscaya-naya or absolutistic standpoint in his Samaya-prabhṛta. This naya, but not its profound implications, was known before, but on its application was not done to the scale. and extent by Siddhasena Diväkara or even Mallavādi. (b) On the basis of the niscayanaya, Kundakundäcärya, in theory, views atman or Self as separate from and independent of the association of pudgala or matter as was done in the Samkhya and the Vedanta systems with the difference that ätman is not looked upon as totally inactive; Self does possess the faculty of knowing, intellecting and creating as well as feeling emotive impluses within. Self is thus not a doer of deeds (karta) and enjoyer of fruits (bhokta), although, from the standpoint of external and practical relatings (vyavara-naya), he may be regarded as a doer and enjoyer because of his emotional involvement which leads to, or colours, his conscious thinking that way, this in fact being his habit to so orient since countless ages and for endless births. Now, the ancient Jaina doctrine of atman as the karta and bhokta has never been interpreted or understood that way by any Jaina scholiast till the pre-medieval times, and that too not before the Kundakundācārya's doctrine was widely known.
The unliberated Self, in Kundakundacārya's concept, thus is always pure and not contaminated by karma-raja as was otherwise believed till late, even in the Digambara sect. The apparent contamination with karma, and its consequent and subsequent fruition are due to the bhäva or inner consciously felt or willed emotional directives of the Self. It is thus illusory. The Self goes on wandering from birth to birth because he has not known what it really is and this is what keeps it in apparent bondage.
The new Vedanta doctrine about atman was already known at least 50 years before Sankarācārya (c. A.D. 780-812), through the kärikäs of his grand preceptor Gaudapada. May be, Kundakundäcārya has seen these and adopted the Vedantic way of looking.at Self, but in a modified way. c) As its corolary as though, Kundakunda
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
