Illuminator of Jaina Tenets

Author(s): Tulsi Acharya
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati

Page 16

xiv
INTRODUCTION
kara. In the Ratnagotravibhāga, it is said “Even as the disease is to be known, the cause of disease is to be avoided, health is to be attained, and medicine is to be tried, exactly so the suffering is to be known, the cause of suffering is to be removed, emancipation is to be realized, and the path of emancipation is to be practised."
The seven tattvas of Jainism can similarly be divided into four groups, namely, jīva-ajīva, ásrava-bandha, samvara-nirjarā, and mokşa. Here the first group stands for the saṁsāra consisting of the interaction between jīva (sentient principle) and ajīva (non-sentient principle), the second represents the basic cause of samsára, the third explains the way of disentanglement from transmigration in saṁsāra, and the fourth stands for emancipation from suffering.
The above-mentioned fourfold division of the spiritual science in the different schools of Indian philosophy clearly demonstrates that there was a common undercurrent of metaphysical thinking in Indian thought.
Of the seven tattvas, the asrava (influx) stands for the innate predispositions, instincts, habits, tendencies, and passions that determine the personality of the soul and are responsible for its good and bad behaviour. It is an inheritance of the past life, and also the creator of a new life in the future. The resultant of asrava is 'bandha (bondage). The asravas find expression in our thought, word, and deed that lead to bandha. The antidotes to āstava and bandha are sarvara and nirjarā. Samvara is inhibition of instincts and impulses. The nirjarā is total uprooting of the instincts and impulses. The result of saṁvara and nirjarā is mokşa (emancipation).
Almost all Indian philosophers are mostly agreed about the first two tattvas, namely, saṁsāra and samsāra-hetu There are, however, different opinions regarding the nature of mokşa (emancipation) and the moksopāya (the path leading to mokşa). These topics have been discussed by eminent scholars in their accounts of Indian philosophy, and therefore we do not feel any need to discuss them here.
пее.
1 IV. 52:
vyādhir jñeyo vyādhihetuḥ praheyaḥ svästhyam prāpyan bheşajam sevyam evam/ duhk ham hetus tannirodho'tha margo jñeyam heyah sparsitavyo nişevyah 11