________________
95
If from the existence of bodies, etc., the existence of their cause, viz. karma is established, it follows, someone might feel inclined to say, that like the effect, body, the cause, karma too must be corporeal. Mahāvīra says that in that case his task becomes very easy for then the opponent would be accepting what be usually has to take great pains to prove. It stands to reason that karma should be corporeal, for its effect (body, etc.) is corporeal, as in the case of paramāņus or atoms, the cause of the corporeal jar. If the effect is incorporeal, the cause also is such, e.g. the soul which is the cause of knowledge. It may be noted that by 'cause' is meant the material or the constituent cause (samavāyi-karana); hence it cannot be argued that pleasure and pain are effects of karma and they being incorporeal it follows that karma too is incorporeal. It is the soul that is the samavāyi-kā laņa and it is incorporeal as pleasure and pain are; while karma, like the other factors--food, drink etc. - is but the instrumental cause. It can be seen that there is no difficulty whatsoever in accepting the rule that like causes (samavāyi-kārana) produce like effects (1625). There are many other inferences demonstrating the corporeal nature of karma:A few are given by way of illustration:
(i) Karma is corporeal, because in relation to it there is the
experience of pleasure, etc.. That in relation to which there is the experience of pleasure, etc., is observed to be corporeal, e. g. edible food. And in relation to what is non-corporeal, there is no experience of pleasure, etc.; e. g. in relation to ether there is no such experience. And pleasure, etc. is experienced in relation to karma,
Therefore karma is corporeal. (ii) That in relation to which there is the rise of feeling
is observed to be corporeal; e. g. fire. And there is the rise of feeling in relation to karma, Therefore karma is corporeal.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
