________________
196
effect resulting from the meca ka-maņi does not reveal intensity of one of the colours. It may be argued that pāpa-punya as mixed can appear as one, but when there is increase of punyaconstituent and a corresponding decrease of papa-constituent, abundance of pleasure is experienced and when papa-constituent increases and punya-constituent correspondingly decreases, there is the experience of abundance of pain; this can explain the experience of gods and hellish beings etc., even when punya and pāpa are of a mixed form. But this argument is not correct. If punya and pāpa were one in form, when one increases, the other should also increase; but what we find is that when one increases, the other decreases. Hence they must be independent and different entities, as Devadatta and Yajñadatta are different in that the prosperity of one does not affect the other. Thus punya and pāpa are different entities, though there is no objection to their being regarded as of one form (one) in as much they are both of the form of karma. The three alternatives as to punyapápa have been quashed, hence the fourth one alone that punya and pāpa are independent entities holds ground. Hence too Svabhāvavāda is not acceptable, as proved earlier in the discussion with Agnibhūti (1946).
The Vedas do not intend to say that the Puruşa-Brahman alone exists, and nothing external to it; for if there were nothing like punya and pāpa, the injunction regarding the performance of Agnihotra in the case of one desirous of heaven would be meaningless. Moreover, people believe that acts of charity, etc. yield punya and the fruit of injury is papa; this too would have no consistency. Hence the Vedas cannot be interpreted as negating punya and päpa (1947).
When Acalabhrātā's doubt was thus removed by Lord Mahāvīra free from old age and death, he became a monk along with his 300 pupils and followers (1948).
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
