Jaina Karmaology

Author(s): N L Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith

Page 89

84
1. The five types of knowledges like sensory etc. have already been described in the first chapter (aph. 1.9 - 31).
2.Q. Let there be the shorter rendering of this aphorism by adding etc. to the first term such as 'Matya-dinam' only. The other types of knowledge besides the sensory one will be included through the word 'etc.' It will make a shorter aphorism too.
A. This is not correct. If this type of rendering is there, that will mean only one type of obscuration for all the types of knowledges. This is not desirable. The term obscuration applies to each of the five types of knowledge making up the five types of obscurations of the knowledge-obscuring karma like sensory knowledge-obscuring, vocable knowledge-obscuring and the like.
3.Q. It has been said that there are five sub-species of knowledgeobscuring karma (in aphorism 8.5). Similarly, the five kinds of knowledge have also been mentioned here (as well as in aph. 1.9). Thus, the plural number in aphorism will imply the five obscurings related with five types of knowledges respectively.
A. This is not correct. The plural number will mean that each of the knowledges has five kinds of obscurations (which will mean 5x5-25 types of knowledge-obscuring karma). This is not desirable. The use of singular number, however, indicates the desirable meaning of relating one numeral (say five etc.) with one primary species (say, knowledge-obscuring karma etc.).
4.Q. It has to be enquired whether the sensory knowledge etc. whose obscurings take place, are existent or non-existent. If they are existent, they are self-sustaining. How they could be obscured? If they are nonexistent, how there could be their obscuration? The non-existent entity is like the hare's horns which can not be obscured.
5.A. There is no defect here. The canons tell us that there could be obscuration of entities observed to be existent in some respects and non-existent in some respects. The sensory knowledges etc. are substantively existent and, therefore, there is their obscuration. However, they may be non-existent with respect to specific modal aspects. If they are taken as absolutely existent, there may not be their destruction-cum-subsidence. Alternatively, if they are taken as absolutely non-existent, still there will not be their destruction-cumsubsidence because of their non-existence.
It is the existents only whose obscurationis observed like the obscuring of the sky by the cluster of clouds. Similarly, how there could