________________
JANUARY, 1975
87
In a Jaina text known as Vyākhyā-prajñapti Sutra there is a dialogue between Lord Mahavira and Gautama. Gautama asked Mahavira about the nature of the soul, and Mahavira answered: āyāe samāiye: the nature of the soul is Samatva. Gautama again asked, What is the ulitmate end of the soul ? Mahavira replied, āyāe sāmaissa atthe : the ultimate end of the soul is also Samatva.
This view of Mahavira that the real nature of the soul is Samatva is further supported by Acaraya Kunda-kunda. Kunda-kunda in his famous work known as Samaya-sāra, deal with the nature of the soul. In the whole of Jaina literature he is the only person who used the word Samaya in the sense of Ātman or Jiva. So far as I know, no commentator of Samaya-sāra has given any answer to the question as to why Kunda-kunda has used the word “Samaya' for ‘Jiva' or soul. To my mind the answer is: the word Samaya is a prakrit version of Sanskritsamah yah, which means one who has the quality of Samatva. Samayasāra can also be defined in the same fashion. We can say, one who possesses Samatva as his essential nature is to be called Samaya-sära (samatvam yasya säram tat samaya-sāram). Acarya Kunda-kunda also equated the word 'Samaya' with 'Svabhāva' or essential nature. He used the words Sva-samaya and Para-samaya. Sva-samaya means inner characteristics. (Svabhāva-laksana) and Para-samaya means resultant characteristics (Fibhāva-lakṣaṇa). Further, Sva-samaya has been explained as an ultimate end. In this way, according to Kunda-kunda, also the nature and ultimate end of soul is Samatva. Not only this, but according to the Jaina ethics the way through which this ultimate end can be achieved is also Samatva which is known in Prakrit as samāiya or samähi. In this way the three basic presuppositions of Jaina ethics, the moral agent (Sādhaka), the ultimate end (Sadhya) and the path through which this ultimate end can be achieved (Sadhanā-märga), are equated by the term Samatva. In Jaina ethics ends and means do not exist as some thing external to the moral agent ; they are part and parcel of his own nature. They are potentially present in him. Then somebody may ask, what is the difference between a Siddha and a Sadhaka ? My answer to this question is that the difference between a Siddha and a Sadhaka is not a qualitative one but is only quantitative. It is the difference between the capability and actuality. By means of Sādhanã we only exhibit that what is potentially present in us. In other words, we can say that the whole process of Sadhanā is the changing of capability into actuality. According to Jainism if Samatva is not our real potential nature then we cannot achieve it by means of Sādhanā. And Sadhanā is nothing but the practice of Samatva. The three-fold path of Right knowledge, Right attitude or belief, and Right conduct, solely depends on the concept of
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
