________________
130
INDIAN LOGIC
yielding its appropriate fruit even if one possessed of right understanding accumulates no fresh karma; to this is added that even such a one ought to perform the obligatory religious rituals - both daily and occasional - so as to avoid a future disaster even while not resorting to a prohibited act or to a religious ritual aimed at a particular desired result." Really, this is Kumārila's own understanding of the matter but on Jayanta's showing it amounts to denying the possibility of moksa inasmuch as such a past karma is well possible which in order to yield its appropriate fruit should require hundreds of future births while it is impossible that ro fresh karmas be accumulated in the course of these so many births. As for the present opponent's objection urged against the fourth alternative Jayanta answers it as follows : "You say that if in the state of moksa a past karma exists all right then there is no guarantee that this karma will never come to acquire the needed accessories and hence yield its fruit. But on this logic you might as well say that if in the state of moksa a soul exists all right then there is no guarantee that this soul will never come to acquire the needed, accessories and start a worldly career once more. As a matter of fact, desire, aversion, etc. (born of wrong understanding) are the needed accessories in the case of a past karma and they will never be available to a released soul.”19 Lastly, Jayanta takes exception to the present opponent pleading that on the latter's view the means of moksa is right understanding coupled with religious ritual; thus the former argues as follows: "What a religious ritual yields must be temporary in duration while moksa is something everlasting. Really, mokṣa means a soul existing in its pristine state and such a state cannot be brought about by any religious ritual. Even with a view to avoiding a future disaster a religious ritual is not necessary, for a saṁnyāsin is expressly called upon to give up all religious ritual. So, what happens is that those not in possession of right understanding are possibly aided in acquiring it through the performance of a religious ritual."20 Really, in arguing that moksa is not something brought about because mokṣa means a soul existing in its pristine state Jayanta is talking like the Vedāntist who argues that moksa is not something brought about because bondage is something illusory. Jayanta's simple argument ought to be that since right understanding is sufficient to bring about mokṣa it is wrong to insist that moksa is brought about by right understanding assisted
