________________
Bonding of Karma (Bandha)
169
specific monk then that food is considered as the Uddesika food for that monk. On the other hand, if he/she has cooked the food without any specific monk (or monks) in his/her mind then that food is not considered as Uddesika food for that monk (or monks).
(iv) The Jain religion attaches high importance to non-violence and non-toxicity in accepting anything worth eating. Nonvegetarian food and eggs are not allowed. Even many vegetarian items such as onion, garlic, etc. are also forbidden. In scriptures, one may also find the concept of different expiry periods of different food items in different seasons. Thus the relative point of view takes care of health and physical non-violence in the best possible way.
Now we come to the main theme of these stanzas. In the previous stanzas it has been mentioned that one who becomes doer of Apratikramana and Apratyākhyāna is not an enlightened soul. An enlightened soul does not become doer of Apratikramana and Apratyākhyāna. At this point, one may be interested in knowing more about Apratikramana and Apratyākhyāna through some examples. Acārya Kundakunda takes an example of food and says in these stanzas that an enlightened being does not become doer of Apratikramana or Apratyākhyāna related with food. He also provides a logic that an enlightened being (Jñāni) knows that food is Pudgala (matter), i.e., it is different from the soul and, therefore, he as a soul is neither owner nor doer of food.
Question: This is the last stanza of the chapter on Bonding of Karma. Therefore, this question pertains to the theme of the whole chapter. The real point of view does not accept any Karmika bonding with soul, then what is the significance of writing so many stanzas on Karmika bonding?
Answer: One may ask similar question for some other chapters also. The answer would be almost the same and it would be as
