Jain Journal 1990 01

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

Page 16

JANUARY, 1990
79
together in the undifferentiated one Brahman. Mallisena 43 ridicules the Naiyayikas for reducing moksa to a state which is indistinguishable from the pebbles etc. He says that our phenomenal-life is better in which happiness comes at intervals, than in the state of mukti, which is emotionally dead and colourless. But the Jaina clain for attaining state of eternal happiness in the state of moksa faces a serious dilemma. If it is a product (or spiritual sādhana), it is non-eternal, and if it is not such a product, it must be conceeded that either it is constitutional and inherent or impossible to be attained. Hence, bondage and salvation are indistinguishable. So the very conception of Jaina Self and bondage makes the enjoyment of happiness well-nigh impossible. This might be a logical objection, but the Jaina idea of mokşa is one of infinite bliss, which follows from the doctrine of four-fold infinities of the Soul.
(c) Doctrine of Constitutional Freedom and Four-fold Infinities :
The jiva possesses four-infinities (anata catuştaya) inherently, which are obscured by the veil of four ghāti (destructive) karmas. But the Jaina doctrine of constitutional freedom of Soul together with four infinities present a difficulty. If Self is inherently good and essentially perfect how can karma be associated with the Soul. If karma is said to be the cause of bondage, and vice versa then there is fallacy of regressus ad-infinitum. But if karma is beginningless, then how Soul can be essentially perfect. All the doctrines of moksa-sādhanā then seem to be quite meaningless attempt since bondage and mokşa are both phenomenal and not real as Sankhya-kārikā says-"Of certainity, therefore, not any (Spirit) is bound or liberated". 41 It seems then that mokşa is not the product of a new thing but self-realisation. What I feel is that Soul is constitutionally free but it is potential freedom. It cannot be manifest without spiritual discipline. This is in consonance with the Jaina doctrine of satkāryavāda which makes a distinction between the manifest and the unmanifest. Sankhya and Advaita Vedanta hold that moksa is not the attainment of what is unattained but what is already attained (prāptasya prāptih). But where as Sankhya stresses the need of 'discrimination', and Advaita Vedanta emphasises 'identification', the Jainas work out a scheme of 'manifestation'. The logic is simple. If : what is non-existent cannot be produced, 45 hence it follows that the effect is existent even before the operation of the cause.
43 Syadvada-manjari, v. 8. 44 Karika, 63. 45 Introduction to Samayasara (ed, A. Chakravarti), p. CLV. II