Jain Journal 1981 01

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 36

110
JAIN JOURNAL
called bhvākarma, pravítti (action) like sacrifice, etc., as yoga (activity) of the Jainas, and apūrva as dravyakarma respectively. Moreover, according to the Mimansakas, apūrva is an independent entity. So it seems proper that apūrva should be accepted in the place of dravyakarma. Although dravyakarma is not non-corporeal ; nevertheless it is intangible to the sense just as apūrva is.
Kumarila also does not make any earnestness in regard to this apūrva. He has supported it in order to prove the fruit of sacrifice, but he himself has caused the production of the fruit of action without apūrva. He says that the fruit is produced by action as subtle power or capacity. The production of any effect does not take place all of a sudden. It becomes manifest as gross form, after becoming finest, finer and fine as power of capacity. Just as curd is not formed instantly on the mixture of acidic thing in milk, it becomes manifest clearly as curd at a particular time, having passsd through the stages of many kinds of fine forms, just so the fruits of scarificial actions, such as, heaven, etc., being born in subtle form, become manifest as gross form in the cooking (maturity) of time later on.45
Acharya Sankara has refuted the conception of this apūrva of the Minamsakas or the conception of subtle power or capacity and has proved that God gives the fruit according to action. He has supported the view that the attainment of fruit is not possible from action but from God.46
The gist of the above discussion on the nature of karma is this that there is no objection of any philosopher in regard to bhāvakarma. In the opinion of all philosophers rāga (attachment), dveşa (aversion) and moha (delusion) are bhāvakarma or they are the causes of karma. That which is called dravyakarma by the Jainas is called karma by other philosophers. Samskāra (force or impression), vāsanā (desire), avijñapti (unmanifested matter), māyā (illusion) and apūrva (energy) are the different names of it. It has been observed that there is no particular dispute with regard to an entity, although there is the difference of opinions of the philosophers on this point whether karma is material substance or quality or essential character (dharma) or any other independent substance.47
45 yagadeva phalam taddhi saktidvarena siddhyati suksmasaktyatmakam va tat
phalamevopajayate/Tantravartika, p.395, vide Nyayavataravartikavritti, p.118. 46 SBha, on BS., 3. 2. 38-41. 47 See Aptamimansa, Sri Dalsukh Malvania, pp. 95-110.