________________
K. K. Dixit
had already been rounded off. Be that as it may, the concept of good action, though a most conspicuous constituent of the classical Jaina doctrine of karma, makes its appearance in Bhagavatt only in stray passages which must on that very account be declared to be relatively late.
R
The relative antiquity of the Bhagavatt passages dealing with the karmadoctrine is demonstrated on two further gounds, viz., (i) the utter simplicity of the questions raised in many of them, and (ii) the formulation in some of them of certain positions in a form different from their later classical version. Let these be considered by turn (1) Thus good many passages bring to light some aspect of the simple thesis that karmas are of the form of certain physical entities which penetrate a soul from all sides and occupy it thoroughly.24 Similarly, good many passages bring to light some aspects of the simple thesis that a soul which has karmas attached to itself some time experiences the fruit of these karmas and then expels them out,25 A student who is conversant with these problems as they have been dealt with by the classical Jaina authors might be struck by the naivete which characterizes their treatment in the passages in question of Bhagavat, but he has to realize that what he is here face to face is the historically earliest available treatment of these problems. (ii) The same circumstance explains why certain positions which were also formulated by the classical Jaina authors appear in Bhagavatt in a different form, a form usually different only verbally but at times also different materially. For example, here so many passages speak of a karma-type kankşamohaniya26 and only the context explains that what is meant is the karma-type later designated darsanamohaniya. Similarly, one passage distinguishes between the experiencing of pradeśakarma and that of anubhaga-karma and only the context explains that what are meant to be distinguished are the experiencing of the pradeśa-ofkarma and that of the anubhaga-of-karma. Again, it is at times laid down that the pratyaya of karmic bondage is pramada, its nimitta yoga.28 The classical authors do not thus distinguish between the pratyaya of karmic, bondage and its nimitta, for they simply speak of the cause of karmic bondage which are enumurated to be two, four or five; when two they are yoga and kaşaya, when four yoga, kaşaya, mithyatva and avirati when five yoga, kasaya, mithyatva, avirati and pramada. Lastly, a fairly long passage seeks to describe the person who is on the eve of attaining mokşa and as such is getting rid of his accumulated mass of karmas. The description of the performance undertaken by such a person is favourite of the classical authors but the noteworthy point is that the corresponding Bhagavatt description exhibits marked points of variance. Even the commentator notices the discrepancy but has no explanation for the same; the fact of the matter is that the two descriptions are respectively a later stage and an earlier one of the same process of Ideological evolution,
