Sambodhi 1973 Vol 02

Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 34

K, K. Dixit
The classical Jaina authors like Umāsvāti speak of asrava, samvara and nirjară as three types of ctbical activities – the first supposed to cause karmic bondage, the second supposed to prevent karmic bondage, the third supposed to purge out the karmas carlier bound down. This usage is unknown to the Bhagavatīsūtra which only in a general manner speaks of good and evil acts - the former supposed to loosen karmic bondage, the latter supposed to strengthen it. Thus so far as the simple ethicul classification of acts into good ones and evil oncs is concerned the Bhaguwatisutra just carries forward the tradition of the old texts Acaränga I Srutash dha and Satraktänga 1 Srutaskandha; what it newly introduces 15 the coacept of karmic bondage supposed to be loosened by good acts and to be strengthened by the evil ones. It is only in a stray dialogue that the Bhga:atisara somewhat approaches the usage of the latter-day theore. tician, Thus there the question is raised as to what is the result of sam yana (= restrain) and tapas (=penance); and the answer forthcoming is that the result of the former is anāsraua (= absence of asrava), that of the latter vyavadana (= purification). By way of answering the same question - and answering it in the same way - the latter-day theoretician would use the word sumpara instead of anāsrava and nirjara instead of vyavdana, and the fact that the Bhagavatīsūtra does not resort to this latter-day usage tends to support the surmise that this latter-day usage had not yet become standardized. And as just bioted, even the dialogue in question is a stray dialogue of its type in the Bhagavatısūtra.
The classical Jaina authors like Umāsvāti speak of two type of asrava, a good one and an evil one - the former causing the bondage of good karmas (i. e, karmas yielding desirable fruits), the latter causing the bondage of evil karmas (i. e. karmas yielding undesirable fruits). But this usage is unknown to the Bhagavattsūtra which would only concede that good acts cause the loosening of karmic bondage, the evil ones the strengthening of the same. Certainly, there are narratives where it is described how as a result of his good acts a person received a desirable next birth and how as a result of his evil acts he received an undesirable one and it was out of considerations like these that the doctrine of good and evil karmas was subsequently formulated. But the point is that in its genuinely old discusslons pertaining to the doctrine of karma the Bhagavafisātra seldom concedes the possibillty of there being a thing like good karma; it can at the most say that desirable fruits will be reaped if no karmas are bound downnot that desirable fruits will be reaped if good karmas are bound down.
of considerations lit acts he received an u desirable next birth stone cully furioulated. Buthan the doctrioe of ond one and it was a