________________
Indriyas, Karma and Lesya
Acarya Sankara has refuted the conception of this Apurva of the MImamsakas or the conception of subtle power or capacity and has proved this thing that God gives the fruit according to action. He has supported the view that the attainment of fruit is not possible from action but from God.1
The gist of the above discussion on the nature of Karma is this that there is no objection of any philosopher in regard to Bhāvakarma. In the opinion of all philosophers rāga (attachment), dveṣa (aversion) and moha (delusion) as Bhāvakarma or they are the causes of Karma. That which is called Dravyakarma by the Jainas is called Karma by other philosophers. Samskāra (force or impression), Vasana (desire), Avijñapti (unmanifested matter), Māyā (illusion) and Apūrva (energy) are the different names of it. It has been observed that there is no particular dispute with regard to the entity, although there is the difference of opinions of the philosophers on this point whether Karma is material substance or quality or essential character (dharma) or any other independent substance.2
97
Kinds of Karma
The divisions of Karma into punya and papa (virtue and vice), kuśala and akusala (good and bad), subha and aśubha (auspicious and inauspicious), dharma and adharma (merit and demerit) are acceptable to all Indian systems of thought. At the initial stage of speculation about Karma there appears to be two divisions of it, viz. punya and papa (virtue and vice) or subha and aśubha (auspicious and inauspicious). All Indian systems of thought have accepted these two kinds of Karmapunya and papa as bondage and determined their respective 1. SBha. on BS., 3. 2. 38-41.
2. Atmamimāmsā, Sri Dalsukh Malvania, pp. 95-110
3. Bṛhadaraṇyaka, 3. 1. 13; Praśnopanisad, 3.7; Pañcamakarmagrantha from 15; TS., 8. 21; Samkhyakārikā 44; Visuddhimagga, 17. 88; Yogasūtra, 2. 14; Yogabhāṣya, 2. 12; Nyayamañjarī, p. 472; PPBhā., pp. 637, 643
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
