________________
abhavya denies the existence of such souls while the bhavya acknowledge it. In other words, Kundakunda understands the abhavya as a non-Jain follower, and the bhavya as a follower of the Jina. It should be noted here that he does not intend to say that there are some persons or souls which cannot be liberated: a man may deny another's ability to do something, even when he himself may be able to do so, but Kundakunda established that we can purify our own souls by ourselves. He argued that if the self cannot become pure or impure by itself, then karmic transmigration must be impossible for all of lifeprinciples.
In the reality of the Jaina doctrine, transmigration occurs for every soul. Logically speaking, all souls, including those of the non-Jainas, can reach the pure state of final liberation through their own efforts or behavior ( that is to say, by their karma -- using it in the broader sense of the word). No gods, or Gods, can decide the future for the individual. Kundakunda wants to say that there are two kinds of persons or souls, one is good and admits the tirthankaras, while the other is bad and denies them. For those who acknowledge the former, they we can liberate ourselves and have perfect knowledge. Some schools of Indian thought, such as the Miassakas, deny the existence of the omniscient. On the other hand, the Jain tradition to which Kundakunda belongs progressively maintains that there exist omniscient persons in this universe. 10 In discussing this topic Kundakunda never used the methodology of inference, but stressed his position as opinion. There is the suggestion that such tendencies in arguement may have been common to the Jaina philosophers of his days. Of course, he must have noticed his opponents and their doctrine, but he seldom tries to persuade them, and therefore, no need of inference,
Bhavya and Abhavya in Umāsvāti
Jain Education International
10 For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
