________________
33
(1785) if it be argued: "What wrong is there if (the other world is there) just naturally as the effect, jar, etc. befitting the cause emerges just naturally?"
(1786) Could this Nature be a thing or non-causality or an attribute of a thing? If a thing, it does not exist because it is not perceived like a sky-flower.
(1787) If it is said to be existent even though it is never perceived, then why is not karma said to be existent ? Whatever accounts for its existence, can account for the existence of karman also..
(1788) Or 'Svabhava' may be (another) name for karman. Let it be. What wrong is there? Or how is it that this Svabhava remains eternally similar (always similar)?
(1789-90) Is it corporeal or non-corporeal? If it is corporeal, it cannot always be similar, because of modification, like milk. If it be non-corporeal, it cannot be the cause of the body, because of absence of causal apparatus. O Sudharman, if it is non-corporeal (it cannot be the cause) as the effect is corporeal and it cannot be non-corporeal as there are the sensations of pleasure, etc.
(1791) If 'by nature' ('naturally') means 'without a cause', even then how could there be similarity? Would not dissimilarity occur without a cause, or (even) the end of worldly life be uncaused? (Certainly it would).
(1792) Or if Svabhava be the attribute of a thing, even that will not be eternally similar, since the modes of a thing - origination, persistence, destruction -are various.
(1793) Or what wrong is there if Svabhava is the attribute-modification of karman which is of the nature of matter, and if it is the variegated cause of the world?
(1794) Or Sudharman, every thing at every moment is born in respect of certain modes, perishes in respect of certain modes and persists in the same form in respect of certain modes.
5
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
