________________
14
problem of cause in various ways. This exposition is very important as it contains different views about the nature of a cause, expressed in different systems of Indian philosophy (ga. 2570-2543). The matter in hand is in fact to give an answer to the question as to why a Tirthankara preaches the Samay ika and as to why the ganadharas listen to and accept those preachings. The answer is as follows: Lord Mahavira bad bound the tirthankaragotranamakarma which he could experience and destroy by delivering sermons without any sense of drudgery. Taus to destroy a particular kırma he delivers discourses. And by listening to them one can attain the auspicious knowledge. This is the reason why ganadharas and others listened to his discourses (preachings) (2594-2601).
In the Pratyayad vāra after having discussed the various senses in which the term 'pratyaya' is employed we are told that there are three pratyayas (causes) of the knowledge of the Samayika - the self, the teacher and the Scriptures. For a Tirthanakara the knowlege of the Samayika is self-caused (atmapratyaya). It is so because he has the direct realization of the nature of the self, that is, of the fact that he is an omniscient person. That is why he has not to rely on any other person for the knowledge. But for others all the three severally serve as the cause of the knowledge of the Samayika. They being not possessed of omniscience have to depend on either the teacher or the scriptures. Thus for the ganadharas (the chief disciples of a Tirthankara) the knowledge of the Samayika is not self-caused (atma pratyaya). They entered into discussion with Lord Mahavira and got their doubts remeved and thus they acquired the knowledge of the Samayika, having relied on the teacher (2612-2616).
In the Lakṣaṇadvāra (gā. 2617-2650) twelve different ways of defining a thing are pointed out. And the Bhāṣya explains them. Form or structure possessed by all the murta dravyas (i.e. substances having physical qualities) in common is considered to be their defining characteristic. That common characteristic out of so many like existence, being a substance, etc. possessed by amurta siddhas (i.e. by liberated souls devoid of physical qualities), to which we direct our attention, will be looked upon by us as their defining characteristic. If we apply simply the term 'Siddha' to all of them then we shall be regarded as formulating the definition of a siddha without directing our attention to any common quality (existence, etc.) possessed by Siddhas (2628-2624). Again, it is estabilshed that origination and destruction are also the characteriz. ing features of a thing (2635-2642). It is suggested that five internal states (bhava) of a soul, viz. aupaśamikabhava (state due to subsidence
