________________
Vada ] Ganadharavāda
351 effort on the part ) of Soul and not the kriyā. It is therefore, not proper to take åtmā to be sakriya
Bhagavāna:- If the ātmā is niskriya, the effort cannot exit into it. and hence it is undoubtedly sakriya. What other hétu is to be understood in accepting the a-mūrta effort as a hétu for bodily movements ? If it is said that without the apéksā of another hétu, this effort itself becomes the hétu in the déha-spanda the Soul will also be called the hèlu of these bodily movements. Vhat is the use of intervening praya'ra in such a case
Mondika:--There is some invisible hétu in the movements of deha, but atmå being nışkreya cannot act as hetu in those movenients,
Bhagavāna' ls that invisible ( hétu ) mürta or a-mūrta ? If a-mūrta, why not take ātinā as hétu in the deha parispanda since it is also a-miirtą ? And if that a-arista is mūrta, it is nothing but kārmaņa sarira. How, if that kārmana sarira is used as the hétu of bākya sarira there must be some other hetu for the parispandana of the above-mentioned kār maņa sarira This in turn, will have a third hètu for its parispanda and that a fourth one and so on, until ultimattely there is complete disorder Again, if it is argued at this stage that the movement of an adpişta kārmana sarira is caused by no other hétu than its own svnbhāva so that there may not be any sort of an runstlā, then pirisponda of bahjat sarir as will also be caused by svabhāva, so that there may not be any sense in assuming the Qurista kirmaņ sarira.
Mandzka: -- I don't mind if the parispandu is taken to have been caused by svabhāva.
Bhardvāna: -. But it is not reasonable to helieve like that. The definite type of the prispanda like this is never possible in case of acétand objects, because tha: which is indipendent of any other kétu is either everlasting or absolutely transitory.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
