Harmless Soul

Author(s): W J Johnson, Dayanand Bhargav
Publisher: Motilal Banarasidas

Page 90

76 Harmless Souls
In this way, what was once an anti-householder doctrine becomes one which accommodates and compromises with the householder's way of life. In other words, parigraha and aparigraha have been redefined as attitudes, inner states; therefore it is possible, at least in theory, to retain possessions without necessarily incurring bondage. With the right attitude (non-attachment), possessions do not necessarily lead to himsā and bondage.
Nevertheless, Jaina monks and nuns, by definition nonhouseholders, continue to concentrate on behaviour: their attitude to the external world is significant predominantly in so far as it governs the way in which they behave in that world. Thus, in practice, for the ascetic, attitude remains a contributory rather than a necessary factor in liberation or bondage, in the same way that kaṣāya was in the earliest doctrine. (But as with kaṣāya, that of course makes it is no less demanding of the most careful attention.)
It can be seen from this that the later doctrine, which accommodates the householder, is never completely integrated with the earlier one. And as we have shown, there are instances in the Tattvärtha Sutra where the latter pushes through the surface of the former to bring about an apparent inconsistency. To take a relevant example, at Tattvärtha Sutra 9:6 śauca (purity) is named as one of the constituents or types of that 'dharma which, in turn, is one of the causes of samvara (the stoppage of karmic influx). Commenting on this, the Sarvārthasiddhi specifically defines sauca as 'complete freedom from greed'.74 As has been made clear above, greed (parigraha / lobha) was considered by the earliest surviving canonical sources as one of the two worst sins; moreover, it was considered to be the defining characteristic of the householder's way of life. It is greed which causes a person to undertake
prakarṣaprāptalobhan nivṛttiḥ saucam - SS on TS 9:6.
74