Date of Kundakundacharya

Author(s): M A Dhaky
Publisher: Z_Aspect_of_Jainology_Part_3_Pundit_Dalsukh_Malvaniya_012017.pdf

Page 12

198
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 Mülācāra of Vattakera (c. late 6th cent, A. D.). In fact, strong conceptual (sometimes even verbal) parallelisms between Kundakundācārya's Samaya-prābhịta on the one hand and Siddhasena's Sanmati-prakarana on the other, do exist as has been demonstrated by Pt. Sukhlal Sanghvi 69
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) Kundakundācarya had massively leaned toward the niscaya-naya or absolutistic standpoint in his Samaya-prābhṛta. This naya, but not its profound implications, was known before, but on its application was not done to the scale and extent by Siddhasena Divākara or even Mallavādi. (b)On the basis of the niscayanaya, Kundakundācārya, in theory, views ātman or Self as separate from and independent of the association of pudgala or matter as was done in the Sāmkhya and the Vedānta systems with the difference that ātman 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 (kartā) and enjoyer of fruits (bhoktā), although, from the standpoint of external and practical relatings (vyavāra-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 ātman as the kartā and bhoktā 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 Kundakundācārya'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 bhāva 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 Vedānta doctrine about atman was already known at least 50 years before Sankarācārya (c. A.D. 780-812), through the kärikās of his grand preceptor Gaudapāda. May be, Kundakundācārya has seen these and adopted the Vedāntic way of looking at Self, but in a modified way. c).As its corolary as though, Kundakunda