________________
K. K. Dixit
the second person touched by the enmity of the first person (purusavaiten sprstah).16 Now the modern anthropologists tell us of the primitive Deanla who believe that when a person commits a crime agaist another person this crime hounds the first person as long as it does not bring upon him an appropriate disaster. And in all probability such a belief was prevalent among that circle of Indian populace which was accustumed to the phrase 'touched by the enmity of so and so. This in turn became the starting point for the Jaina authors developiog their doctrine of karma which in its essense is but a refined verson of the belief in question. The first step in this connection must have been to speak of the technical concept "kriya' instead of the popular concept vaira'. Then the idea must have occurred to those Jainas that if kriya is to touch a person it must be something tangible, and thus came into existence the concept of hriya treated as a physical entity. Soon, however, kriya quâ a physical entity came to be desiggated karma and one began to speak of a person comrniting a karma (karma karoti) or a person being touched by a karina (karmana sprstah) Lastly, the search was made for an active voice usage expressing the same idea as "karmana sprstah', and the phrase "karma badhnali' (biods down a karma) was the outcome.
Here we reach the stage represented by the classical Jaina authors who in this connection exclusively employed the pbrase karma badhnati'. But the noteworthy thing is that iu Bhagavati the phrase "karma badhnatı' is a relatively rare occurrence; for here the moral usual phrase is karma (or kriyam) karoti (or prakaroti), occasionally karmaņa (or kriyaya) sprstah.?All this makes it sufficientiy clear that in Bhagavatı what we are here having before our eyes are the beginnings of the specific Jaina version of the doctrine of karma-of which version there was little trace in the oldest texts. Not that these texts do not speak of one's evil acts involving on in the whirlpool of transmigration, but they are innocent of the notion that these one's evil acts give rise to the karmic physical particles which remain attached to one's soul as long as one has not reaped the due consequence of these acts. It is this notion that is adumbrated in Bhagavart and it is this that constitutes the kernel of the Jaiga karma-doctrine.
The Jaioa karma-doctrine in its classical version posits eight types of karmas, each having more or less numerous sub-types. Of the elght types four are exclusively evil but four are equally divided into good and evil sub-types. The classical authors also lay down about the different good and evil types and sub-types of karmas as to which of them are earned as a result of what good and evil acts. In Bhagavatı too there Is one dialogue (reminiscent of Tattvārtha 6.11-25) which details these good and evil acts18 and there is one dialogue 20 which offers two simple
