Sambodhi 1977 Vol 06

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

Page 67

Rajas and Karman
61
explanations of the term rayamala, given by the Avašykacūrni the meaning assigned to the term 'raya' (rajas) is not uniform, as in explanation (1) it means karmaprayogya, in explanation (2) it means badhyamana karmans, in explanation (3) it means baddha karmans and in explanation (4) it means iryāpathika karmans. But in the explanation given by Agastyasimha a uniform meaning is assigned to the term 'raya'. It means badhyamāna (āsravakālina) karmans, According to Agastyasimha 'mala' means either baddha or sprsta crnikācita karmans. But all these explanations do not seem correct. It is kaņāyas (i.c. klesas) that should be taken as the meaning of the term 'mala'. Onc may compare the compound word 'vilūyarayamala' with 'vidhūtaklesarjasaņ' (Yagobhāsya 2.26). And the term 'raya' in the compound rayamala should be taken to mean all karmans. Explanations of fraya' (rajas) given in the Uttaradhyan acūrni and Pāiyatīkā corroborate our view. One would be tempted to explain rayanala as 'rajainsi eva malāh. But this canrot be taken as a correct explanation. Morcover, this explanation comes in conflict with the old tradition. In old tradition the term 'mala' is used for klesas. In the Abhidharmasamiccaya a sūtra is quoted. 15 It is 'virajo vitamalam dharmeşu dharmacak şurudapādi.' This cicarly points out that the terms 'rajas' and 'mala' should be taken in different senses. The author of the Abhindharmasamiccaya says : dharmak şantibhiḥ virajah, dharmajñānaiḥ vitamalam. 16 I have no sources to study the meaning assigned by the Buddhists to these two terms used side by side in one sentence. But this sūtra quotation and its explanation at least prove that the compound ‘rayamala' should be taken as dvandva-samāsa and not as karmadhāryayasamāsa. And the Jaina commentators are right in considering it to be a dvandva-samāsa. But they seem to be wrong in assigning the meanings to the two padas of the compound. The question remains to be answered is : why have they not explained the term mala in the sense of kaşāya which is so apparent and patent? Is this the result of their undue emphasis on the material karmans? They are talking too much of the material karmans, relegating the kaşāyas which cause the material karmans in the background. This is quite in contrast to what the Buddhists have done.
As we have already noted, the karmic matter (Ekarmans) of the Jainas E is nothing but rajas substance of the Särkahya-Yogas. In the Sankhya-Yoga
system tamas substance is posited besides rajas substance and it is regarded as a veil (ävarana) covering samyag dịşti or vidyā or amoha; tamas causes mithyā drsti or avidyā or moha. But according to Jainism mohanjya-karman causes mithyā drsti or moha and works as a veil obscuring samyag drști. This suggests that for the Jainas tamas is not an independent substance but simply a variety of karman (=rajas). Jaira ātman is nothing but citta. But Jaina 15-16 Abhidharmasamuccaya, p. 67.