________________
Shedding of Karma (Nirjarā)
89
To elaborate various kinds of dispositions, Ācārya Amstacandra in Ātmakhyāti writes that these four aspects - virtue, vice, food, and liquid food – are just some examples. One may write 16 similar stanzas by using aspects such as anger, greed, sensual pleasure, etc. in place of virtue or sin or food or liquid food.
From these stanzas one can also infer that even if a person does not possess a particular thing but if he has a desire for that thing, then in the spiritual sense he is the possessor of that thing because he intends to possess the same.
Earlier while discussing stanzas 207-209, we have seen that an enlightened being may appear to possess house, money, etc., but still Ācārya Kundakunda has used the word ‘non-possessor' for him. Why? An enlightened being recognizes himself a soul (a knower) and does not become owner of the physical body and the so called temporary possessions of the physical body. The actions of his personality including the feelings of pain and pleasure, vocal actions, mental contemplation, etc. are not recognized by an enlightened being as his own actions, because he identifies himself a soul.
The same reasoning may be helpful here in assimilating this point that an enlightened being may appear to be making choice for his food, but here Ācārya Kundakunda says that he, as a soul, does not have any desire for the food, he as a soul is simply the knower of the act of eating the food. Question: An enlightened person and an unenlightened person
both are eating same food on the same table. What difference does it make if one is called as the non-possessor of the food
and another as the possessor of the food? Answer: In worldly life such titles may not be helpful or
unhelpful. Spiritually, there is a large difference between the two. The difference between the two persons gets reflected in
