________________
226 Harmless Souls distinguishing between them?134 The point is clearly to devalue śubha-upayoga in the (potential[?]) śramana's mind, and to stress that liberation can only be achieved through śuddha-upayoga. This is given full emphasis in gāthās 1:77 and 1:78.
Gāthā 1:77 reads:
He, who does not think that there is no difference between merit and demerit, wanders about in terrible, unbounded samsāra, covered in delusion.
In other words, punya and pāpa, associated with śubha- and aśubha-upayoga, are both characterised as totally samsāric. (Note the emphasis again on knowledge and delusion as the liberating and binding factors.)
In contrast to this, the condition of the aśuddhaupayogin (= the ideal śramaņa) is described in the next gāthā [1:78]:
He who, understanding the nature of things, does not experience attachment or aversion towards objects, his manifestation of consciousness being pure, destroys the suffering which arises from embodiment.
To put this in the terms of the present argument, here Kundakunda is criticising the inner-condition of the laity, probably for a śramaņic or potentially śramaņic audience. That it is indeed the laity he associates with aśuddhaupayoga is evident from Pravacanasāra 1:69, where the ātman which is characterised by śubha-upayoga is described in terms of activities associated with lay vrata:
The self which is attached to the worship of gods, ascetics and teachers, to giving, to good morals, and to fasting, etc., is a self
134 See TD on Pravac. 1:72.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
