________________
JAIN PHILOSOPHY OF REALITY.... : 77
ekāntavāda in Sanmati Tarka:
Sukha-dukkhasampaogoņa jujjaye piccavāya pakkhammi/ Eghantuccheyammi ya suha-dukkuhaviyappanamajuttam// Kammam joganimittam bajjhai bandha-tthie kasāyavasā/ Apariņaucchinnesu ya baridha-ttthikraņam ņatthi// Bandhammi apūrante samsārabhavoghadarsanar mojjham
Bardham va viņā mokkhasuhapatthaņāṇatthi mokkho ya/36 It means that the person who accepts absolute eternal nature of a reality, there will be no possibility of virtuous or sinful acts. Then how can there be rebirth as fruits (of the same), O Lord! Whom you do not guide cannot establish bondage or liberation.
Punyapāpakriyā na syāt pretyabhāvaḥ phalam kutaḥ)
Bandhamokṣau ca teşāṁ na yeşāṁ tvam nāsi nāyakaḥ/f7 Devanandī says, the dhrauvya nature or nitya is that which is the cause of recognition. The remembrance that 'this is the same thing I saw yesterday' is recognition. That does not occur accidentally. That which is the cause of such a statement is its intrinsic nature (tadbhāva). Tadbhāva is its existence, condition or mode. A thing is seen as having the same nature with which it was seen formerly. So it is recognized in the form, "This is the same as that'. If it be considered that the old thing has completely disappeared and that an entirely new thing came into existence, then there can be no remembrance. And worldly relations based on it would be disturbed. Therefore, the indestructibility of the essential nature of a substance is determined as permanence. But it should be taken from one point of view. If it be permanent from all points of view, then there can be no change at all. And, in that case, transmigration as well as the way to salvation, would become meaningless. Transmigration of the soul as a man, a hell-being and so on the liberation, the end of transmigration, is discussed by Arya Samantabhadra as transgressions occurring due to the acceptance of absolute momentary nature of Sat. He says,
