________________
218
SVASTI – Essays in Honour of Prof. Hampa Nagarajaiah
already made the suggestion that the way in which Jainas elaborated their ideas about karma had a role to play in this. These ideas about an inactive soul were not completely abandoned, however. Kundakunda's ideas of the true nature of the self, I propose, have to be understood as attempts to introduce, perhaps reintroduce, them into Jainism, not, of course, in their original and primitive form, but adjusted to Jaina doctrine as it had taken shape in the meantime. Recall, at this point, that the notion of a totally inactive soul or self, where it is accepted, is inseparable from the belief in rebirth and karmic retribution. More precisely, knowledge of the true, inactive, nature of the self is always presented as an essential step toward the ultimate goal of liberation. The implication of this fact is that the way in which karmic retribution is conceived is closely connected with the way the self is thought of. Briefly put, the self is free from all those features that are responsible for rebirth and karmic retribution. For most currents of thought in ancient India, these features cover all acts carried out by a person. It goes without saying that, if others were to believe that only certain acts, not all of them, lead to karmic retribution, they are free to postulate the existence of a self that is only free from those specific acts, not necessarily free from all of them. In other words, they may believe in a self whose activity is limited to such acts as do not bring about karmic retribution. This, I submit, is the position of Kundakunda in his Samayasāra. His main point is similar to the one that finds clearest expression in Sāmkhya and related texts, viz., that an essential step on the road to liberation is the realization that one's self is different from activity that leads to karmic retribution. The ripening of the fruit arising from karma does not belong to the self, we read in verse 208, for the self is different from it. The Jinas, verse 210 adds, have pointed out that there are many such ripenings, but these are not my own natures: I am only a knower by nature. However, he who still has if ever so little attachment or other faults left, does not know his self, however learned he may be (211). The similarity between Sāmkhya and the thought propounded by Kundakunda is undeniable. The similarity is however only superficial, and there are important differences. As a matter of fact, Sāmkhya is mentioned and criticized in the Samayasāra. What is more, the teaching of the Bhagavadgītā is criticized, too, be it implicitly. Let us begin with the latter.
Verse 335 states that one becomes liberated when one gives up the fruit of one's deeds. This is close to the main teaching of the Bhagavadgītā. However, the then following verse 336 adds an important specification. The ignorant person, it states, since he resides in the own nature (svabhāva) of Prakrti, experiences the fruit of his deeds; he who possesses knowledge, on the other hand, knows the fruit of his deeds
