________________
Karma Philosophy
283
ing karma (ucca-gotra-karma).
Condemning others, praising oneself, turning a blind eye towards even the existing merits of others, displaying even the non-existing merits in oneself, pride of family—these are the causes of the bondage of the lowstatus-determining karma (nīca-gotra-karma).
To cause obstruction to others engaged in the task of donation, reception, enjoyment, etc., is the cause of the bondage of obstructive karma (antarāya-karma).
This enumeration of the causes of the bondage of the different karmatypes is not exhaustive, but only suggestive or indicatory.
At this juncture, there arises the following question: In the case of each type of karma, a different set of causes-of-bondage has been mentioned. Hence the question arises: Causes-of-bondage like jealousy in respect of knowledge have been enumerated in connection with the karma-type like knowledge-obscuring karma. Does such a cause-of-bondage binds down just one karma-type like knowledge-obscuring karma or is it able to bind down other karma-types as well? If a cause-of-bondage enumerated in connection with one karma-type can bind down other karma-types as well, then it is futile to mention different causes-of-bondage for the different karma-types; for now it turns out that a cause-of-bondage already appropriate to one karma-type is operative in connection with another karmatype as well. And if a cause-of-bondage enumerated in connection with one karma-type binds down just this karma-type and no other, then there ensues conflict with a particular scriptural rule. For there is a scriptural rule to the effect that generally speaking all the karma-types minus the ayus-karma—that is seven karma-types in all-are bound down simultaneously. Following this rule one must admit that at the time when there is a bondage of the knowledge-obscuring karma, there is also a simultaneous bondage of the six karma-types vedaniya, etc. Thus so far as causeof-bondage is concerned there is available at one time just that which is appropriate to one particular karma-type; but on the other hand, there is bondage at this particular time also of the other karma-types not standing in conflict with this particular one. That is to say, the alternative that a particular cause-of-bondage causes the bondage of just one particular karma-type stands cancelled by the scriptural rule in question. What, then, is the purpose behind enumerating separate causes-of-bondage for the separate karma-types?
The answer is as follows: The separate mention of causes-of-bondage
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
