________________
Vada ] Gañadharavada
• 419 : क्रियाणां कारणतो देहादीनां च कार्यभावात् । कर्म मदभिहितमिति च प्रतिपद्यस्व त्वमग्निभूतिरिव ॥३७१॥ (१९१९)
तदेव देहादीनां क्रियाणामपि च शुभा-ऽशुभत्वात् । . प्रतिपद्यस्व पुण्य-पापे स्वभावतो भिन्नजातीये ॥ ३७२ ॥(१९२०) Atyantamanupalabdho’pyatha sako’sti nästi kim karma Hetur-va tadastitve yo nanu karmano'pi sa eva ll 366 11 ( 1914 ) Karmaṇo vabhidbānam bhavet svabhava iti bhavatu ko dosah ? | Pratiniyatákārād na ca sa karta ghatasyeva ll 367 || ( 1915 ) Mūrto’mūrto vā sako yadi mūrtastato’bhidhānato bhinnah | Karmeti svabbaya iti ca yadi va’mūrto na kartā tatah 1136811 (1916) Dehānām vyomeva, yuktā kāryāditaśca mūrtimaţță 1 Atha sa nişkārāṇatā tataḥ kharasringādayo bhavantu 136911 (1917) Atha vastunaḥ sa dharmaḥ pariņāmastatah sa karma-jîvayoḥ 1 Punge-tarābhidhānaḥ kāraṇa kāryānumeyaḥ sa 11 370 01 ( 1918) Kriyānām kāranato de hádînām ca kāryabhāvāt ! Karma madabhibitamiti ca pratipadyasva tvamagnibhūtiriva 11371|| Tadeva dehādînām kriyānāmapi ca śubhā’-subhatyāt i Pratipadyasva punya-pāpe svabhāvato bhinnajātiye 1137211 (1920)]
Trans.-366-372 If it is extremely non-perceptible, why is it called svabhāva and not Karma? The hetu that works in the existence of svabhāva, works in case of Karma also. Or, what harm is there in taking svabhāva as the synonym of karma ? And since it has a definite shape like ghata, it cannot be a doer just as sky is not (the doer of ) bodies. ( For ), the corporeal nature is justified on account of (its) being karya etc. Now, if that (svabhāva ) were causelessness ( itself ), non-existent (objects like ) kharaśrnga etc, would come into existence. If it is ( taken as ) the property of a ( definite ) object, then it would turn out to be the effect of Karma and jîva, and would be inferred as punya and papa by
