________________
अध्याय-२
The three characteristics mentioned in the sūtra are inherent in and unique to the soul (jīva), not found in other substances. Why are these considered inherent in the soul? These do not depend on rise (udaya), subsidence (upaśama), destruction (kşaya) or destruction-cumsubsidence (kşayopaśama) of karmas. The soul-principle (jīvatva) is soul-consciousness (caitanya). The soul that will attain right faith (samyagdarśana), etc., is called 'bhavya'-endowed with the capacity for liberation. Or, it is endowed with bhavyatua. And the soul that will not attain right faith, and so on, is called 'abhavya'- not endowed with the capacity for liberation. Or, it is endowed with abhavyatua. These three- jīvatva, bhavyatva and abhavyatua - are the inherent qualities of the soul. Should not the other qualities like existence – astitva, permanence – nityatva, and having space-points - pradeśavattua, be mentioned along with these three qualities? No. These have been included by the particle ‘ca' in the sūtra. If so, the number three is contradicted. No. The distinctive (asādhāraṇa) characteristics which are inherent in the soul are three only. Qualities like existence (astitva) are common (sādhāraṇa) characteristics as these apply to the souls (jīva) as well as the non-souls (ajīva). So these are included separately by the particle 'ca'. Since the soul is incorporeal or non-material (amūrta), how do the dispositions of subsidence - aupaśamika - etc., apply to it? These dispositions have reference to the bondage of karmas. How can there be bondage of karmic matter with the incorporeal soul? It is possible because the soul is incorporeal or non-material (amūrta) only from a certain point of view; it is not true that the soul is non-material (amūrta) from all points of view. From the point of view of its modes (paryāya) in bondage, owing to the influence of karmas, it is corporeal (mūrta) in the embodied state. From the point of view of its pure nature, the soul is incorporeal (amūrta). It is further contended that if the soul becomes one with the body because of the influence of karmas then it cannot be considered separate from the body. It is not so. Though the soul is one with the body in the embodied state, it is
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
69
