Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 3

Author(s): R P Poddar
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 50

ŠAMATVA YOGA
psychological state, yet it has some impact on our social and individual adjustment.
41
Concept of Samatva in Jainism
In a Jain text known as Vyākhyā Prajñapti Sutra ( व्याख्या प्रज्ञप्ति सूत्र ) there is a conversation between Lord Mahavira and Gautama. Gautama asks Mahavira: "What is the nature of soul"? Mahavira answers, "The nature of soul is samatva (A)" Gautama again asks, "What is the ultimate end of soul ?", to which Mahavira replies; "The ultimate end of soul is also samatva ( आयाए सामाइस्स अट्ठे ).
He
This view that the real nature of soul is samatva is further supported by Acharya Kundakunda. Kundakunda in his famous work known as Samaya sara, in which Jain Philosophy reaches its culmination, deals with the nature of soul. In the whole of Jain literature he is the only person who used the word samaya or samayasara instead of Atman or Jiva. I think the Acharya has purposely used this word for atman. So far as I know, no commentator of Samavasara has raised the question as to why Kundakund has used the word samaya for Jiva or soul. I think the word 'samaya' may be a Prakrit version of Sanskrit word :: which means one who has the quality of samatva. Further, the word samydsara can also be defined in the similar fashion. It can be concluded, therefore, that one who possesses samatva as his essential nature is called samaya-sara ( समत्वं यस्य सारं तत् समयसारं ). Acharya Kundakunda also equated the word 'samaya' with svabhava or essential nature. used the words sva-samaya and para-samaya. sva-samaya means inner characteristics and para-samaya means resultant characteristics. Further, svasamaya has been explained as an ultimate end. In this way, according to Kundakunda too the nature and ultimate end of soul is samatua. Further more according to the Jain Ethics the way through which this ultimate end can be achieved is also samatva which is known in Prakrit as samǎiya (I) or samahi (f). In this way, the three basic presuppositions of Jain Ethics, the moral agent (), the ultimate end (H) and the path through which this ultimate end can be achieved (f), are equated with the term samatua. In Jain Ethics, end and means do not exist as same thing external to the moral agent, they are part and parcel of his own nature and are potentially present in him. Somebody may ask : "What is the difference between a siddha and a sadhak"? My humble answer to this question is that the difference between a siddha and sadhak is not qualitative but quantitative in nature. It is a difference between capability and actuality. By means of sadhana, we can exhibit only what is potentially present in us. That is to say, the whole process of sadhana is the changing of