________________
•; 352 :: Jinabhadra Gani's
[The sixth effort ( on the part ) of Soul and not the kriyā. It is, therefore, not proper to take ātmā to be sukriya.
Bhagavān:--If the ātmā is niskriya, the effort cannot exist into it, and hence it is undoubtodly sakriya. What other hetu is to be understood in accepting the a-mūrta effort as a hetu for bodily movements ? If it is said that without the apeksā of another hetu, this effort itself becomes the hetu in the deha-spanda the Soul will also be called the hetu of these bodily movements. What is the use of intervening prayatna in such a case ?
Mandikai-There is some invisible hetu in the movements of deha, but ātma being nişkriya cannot act as hetu in those movements.
Bhagavān:--Is that invisible ( hetu ) mūrta or a-mūrta ? If a-mūrta, why not take ātmā as hetu in the deha parispanda since it is also a-mūrta ? And if that a-drista is mūrta, it is nothing but kármana sarira. Now, if that kārmana sarara is used as the hetu of bāhya sarara, there must be some other hetu for the parispandana of the above-mentioned kārmana sarara This in turn, will have a third hetu for its partspanda and that a fourth one and so on until ultimately there is complete disorder. Again, if it is argued at this stage that the movement of an adrısta kārmanci sarîra is caused by no other hetu than its own svabhāva so that there may not be any sort of anavasthā, then parispanda of bāhya sareras will also be caused by stabhāva so that there may not be any sense in assuming the adrişta kārmaņa sarîra.
Mandika:—I dont mind if the parispanda is taken to have been caused by svabhāva.
Bhagavān:-But it is not reasonable to believe like that. The definite type of the parispanda like this is never possible in case of acetana objects, because that which is indipendent of any other hetu is either everlasting or absolutely transitory.
