________________
145
same in the two cases. There is no reason why they should be looked upon only as similar and not as dissimilar (1783-4). ..
One may feel like saying that the other-worldly existence can occur just naturally even when there is no karman just as the effect, jar, befitting the cause, lump of earth, emerges just naturally, without any karman. The other-worldly existence in the form of a series of similar births of creatures will emerge just naturally. There can be nothing wrong in this. But one should bear in mind that even the jar is not produced just naturally; it requires the agent, the causal apparatus etc. so here too the agent soul stands in need of some instrument for the effect in the form of body, etc. of the other-worldly existence, and that should be distinct from the agent and the effect as the causal apparatus wheel, etc., is distinct from the potter and the jar. The causal apparatus that the soul requires for bringing into effect body, etc. is karman. It cannot be argued that jar, etc. may have agents like the potter, etc. because they are directly perceived; but the effect, body, etc. will come into existence just naturally like the modifications, clouds, etc. and hence karman cannot be establised. One should bear in mind that body, etc. cannot come into existence naturally since they have a beginning and a definite shape, like the jar. And as to the similarity of the other-worldly existence which is admitted on the basis of the law that the effect is always consistent with the cause', that too would have to be abandoned if Svabhāya-vāda be accepted on the basis of the example of the modifications of clouds, etc. for the modifications of clouds are utterly distinct from the substance which is their cause (1785).
Again what is this Syabhāva (one's Nature)?* Is it a thing or non-causality or attribute of a thing? It cannot be a thing as it is not perceived, like sky-flower. And if Svabhāva is accepted as existent even when it is not-perceived then karman
* Svabhāva has been discussed in Gathā 1643. In fact, the commentator has refuted Syabhāva in his comm. on Gāthā 1643, keeping in view Gäthās 1786–1793. See the summary of the comm. of Gátha 1643, 19
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
