Studies In Umasvati And His Tattvartha Sutra

Author(s): G C Tripathi, Ashokkumar Singh
Publisher: Bhogilal Laherchand Institute of Indology

Page 61

Umāsvāti on the Quality of Sukha 51 of all forms of suffering? The kevalin has surely gained omniscience, but that does not mean the quality of avyābādha has been realized as well. As long as the two varieties of the vedaniya karma are coming into fruition (vipakodaya), it cannot be said that the totality of duḥkha has been brought to an end. Yasovijaya presents his arguments in a syllogistic formula: it is not possible for the kevalin to have sukha of the kṣāyika nature because such sukha is attained only by the destruction of its adversary, vedanīya karma. In the kevalin, vedaniya karma, which is incompatible with kṣāyika sukha, is continuously coming to rise (udaya). Therefore, the sukha of the kevalin is not identical with that of the siddha.30
As for the Digambara, with the destruction (kṣaya) of mohaniya, the vedanīya itself is rendered powerless and hence the kevalin has realized kṣāyika sukha. Yaśovijaya contends that the scriptures enumerate eight (and not seven) karmas, which respectively obstruct eight qualities of the soul. He cites the following authority: 'With the destruction of moha, there is the realization of kṣāyika samyaktva and caritra, while with the destruction of vedaniya karma and antarāya karma, infinite sukha, are realized, respectively. '31 It is not proper therefore to declare the disappearance of one kind of duḥka (of vedaniya) on the ground that the other kind of duḥkha (born of mohaniya) has been eliminated!32
Yaśovijaya also takes note of those who seem to voice a similar view on the authority of such Svetambara texts as the Avasyaka Niryukti, verses 571 and 572, where it is said that for the Tirthankara, there is the rise of only the most exalted sātā-vedaniya karma and extremely slight rise of the painful (asātā) ones, similar to a mere drop of lemon juice in a large quantity of milk, and therefore it does not produce suffering.33 He argues that it is not proper on the basis of this scripture to deny altogether an asātā to the Jina. In support of his argument he quotes the well-known rule from the Tattvärthasūtra that the