Reading section 7

In this quotation the word "sin" (_kasháya_) is used to include the other three causes of bondage as well as that properly so termed. Váchakáchárya has thus enumerated the causes of bondage: "The causes of bondage are false intuition, non-indifference, carelessness, and sin."

(_a_) "False intuition" is twofold,--either innate from one's natural character, as when one disbelieves Jaina doctrines from the influence of former evil actions, irrespectively of another's teaching,--or derived, when learned by another's teaching.

(_b_) "Non-indifference" is the non-restraint of the five senses, and the internal organ from the set of six, earth, &c.

(_c_) "Carelessness" (_pramáda_) is a want of effort to practise the five kinds of _samiti_, _gupti_, &c.

(_d_) "Sin" consists of anger, &c. Here we must make the distinction that the four things, false intuition, &c., cause those kinds of bondage called _sthiti_ and _anubháva_; _yoga_ [or _ásrava_] causes those kinds called _prakriti_ and _pradesa_.

"Bondage" is fourfold, as has been said: "_Prakriti_, _sthiti_, _anubháva_, and _pradesa_ are its four kinds."

1. _Prakriti_ means "the natural qualities," as bitterness or sweetness in the vimba plant or molasses. This may be subdivided into eight _múla-prakritis_.[77]

Thus obstructions (_ávarana_)[78] cloud the knowledge and intuition, as a cloud obscures the sun or a shade the lamp. This is (_a_) _jnánávarana_, or (_b_) _darsanávarana_. (_c_) An object recognised as simultaneously existing or non-existing produces mingled pleasure and pain, as licking honey from a sword's edge,--this is _vedaníya_. (_d_) A delusion (_mohaníya_) in intuition produces want of faith in the Jaina categories, like association with the wicked; delusion in conduct produces want of self-restraint, like intoxication. (_e_) _Áyus_ produces the bond of body, like a snare.[79] (_f_) _Náman_, or "the name," produces various individual appellations, as a painter paints his different pictures. (_g_) _Gotra_ produces the idea of noble and ignoble, as the potter fashions his pots. (_h_) _Antaráya_ produces obstacles to liberality, &c., as the treasurer hinders the king by considerations of economy.

Thus is the _prakriti-bandha_ eightfold, being denominated as the eight _múla-prakritis_, with subdivisions according to the different actions of the various subject-matter.

And thus has Umáswáti-váchakáchárya[80] declared: "The first kind of _bandha_ consists of obstructions of the knowledge and the intuition, _vedaníya_, _mohaníya_, _áyus_, _náman_, _gotra_, and _antaráya_;" and he has also reckoned up the respective subdivisions of each as five, nine, twenty-eight, four, two, forty, two, and fifteen. All this has been explained at full length in the _Vidyánanda_ and other works, and here is omitted through fear of prolixity.

2. _Sthiti._ As the milk of the goat, cow, buffalo, &c., have continued unswerving from their sweet nature for so long a period, so the first three _múla-prakritis_, _jnánávarana_, &c., and the last, _antaráya_, have not swerved from their respective natures even through the period described in the words, "_sthiti_ lasts beyonds crores of crores of periods of time measured by thirty _ságaropamas_."[81] This continuance is _sthiti_.

3. _Anubháva._ As in the milk of goats, cows, buffaloes, &c., there exists, by its rich or poor nature, a special capacity for producing[82] its several effects, so in the different material bodies produced by our actions there exists a special capacity (_anubháva_) for producing their respective effects.

4. _Pradesa._ The _bandha_ called _pradesa_ is the entrance into the different parts of the soul by the masses, made up of an endless number of parts, of the various bodies which are developed by the consequences of actions.

_Samvara_ is the stopping of _ásrava_--that by which the influence of past actions (_karman_) is stopped from entering into the soul. It is divided into _gupti_, _samiti_, &c. _Gupti_ is the withdrawal of the soul from that "impulse" (_yoga_) which causes mundane existence,--it is threefold, as relating to body, speech, or mind. _Samiti_ is the acting so as to avoid injury to all living beings. This is divided into five kinds, as _íryá_,[83] _bháshá_, &c., as has been explained by Hemachandra.

1. "In a public highway, kissed by the sun's rays, to walk circumspectly so as to avoid injuring living beings, this the good call _íryá_.

2. "Let him practise[84] a measured utterance in his intercourse with all people; this is called _bháshá-samiti_, dear to the restrainers of speech.

3. "The food which the sage takes, ever free from the forty-two faults which may accrue to alms, is called the _eshaná-samiti_.[85]

4. "Carefully looking at it and carefully seating himself upon it, let him take a seat, &c., set it down, and meditate,--this is called the _ádána-samiti_.

5. "That the good man should carefully perform his bodily evacuations in a spot free from all living creatures,[86]--this is the _utsarga-samiti_.[87] Hence _samvara_ has been etymologically analysed as that which closes (_sam_ + _vrinoti_) the door of the stream of _ásrava_,[88] as has been said by the learned, '_Ásrava_ is the cause of mundane existence, _samvara_ is the cause of liberation;[89] this is the Árhat doctrine in a handful; all else is only the amplification of this.'"

_Nirjará_ is the causing the fruit of past actions to decay by self-mortification, &c.; it destroys by the body the merit and demerit of all the previously performed actions, and the resulting happiness and misery; "self-mortification" means the plucking out of the hair, &c. This _nirjará_ is twofold,[90] "temporary" (_yathákála_) and ancillary (_aupakramanika_). It is "temporary" as when a desire is dormant in consequence of the action having produced its fruit, and at that particular time, from this completion of the object aimed at, _nirjará_ arises, being caused by the consumption of the desire, &c. But when, by the force of asceticism, the sage turns all actions into means for attaining his end (liberation), this is the _nirjará_ of actions. Thus it has been said: "From the decaying of the actions which are the seeds of mundane existence, _nirjará_ arises, which is twofold, _sakámá_ and _akámá_. That called _sakámá_ belongs to ascetics, the _akámá_ to other embodied spirits."[91]

_Moksha._ Since at the moment of its attainment there is an entire absence of all future actions, as all the causes of bondage (false perception, &c.) are stopped,[92] and since all past actions are abolished in the presence of the causes of _nirjará_, there arises the absolute release from all actions,--this is _moksha_; as it has been said: "_Moksha_ is the absolute release from all actions by the decay (_nirjará_) of the causes of bondage and of existence."

Then the soul rises upward to the end of the world. As a potter's wheel, whirled by the stick and hands, moves on even after these have stopped, until the impulse is exhausted, so the previous repeated contemplations of the embodied soul for the attainment of _moksha_ exert their influence even after they have ceased, and bear the soul onward to the end of the world; or, as the gourd, encased with clay, sinks in the water, but rises to the surface when freed from its encumbrance, so the soul, delivered from works, rises upward by its isolation,[93] from the bursting of its bonds like the elastic seed of the castor-oil plant, or by its own native tendency like the flame.

"Bondage" is the condition of being unseparated, with a mutual interpenetration of parts [between the soul and the body]; _sanga_ is merely mutual contact. This has been declared as follows:--

"[Liberation] is unhindered, from the continuance of former impulses, from the absence of _sanga_, from the cutting of all bonds, and from the natural development of the soul's own powers of motion, like the potter's wheel, the gourd with its clay removed, the seed of the castor-oil plant, or the flame of fire."

Hence they recite a sloka:--

"However often they go away, the planets return, the sun, moon, and the rest;

"But never to this day have returned any who have gone to Álokákása."

Others hold _moksha_ to be the abiding in the highest regions, the soul being absorbed in bliss, with its knowledge unhindered and itself untainted by any pain or impression thereof.

Others hold nine _tattwas_, adding "merit" and "demerit" to the foregoing seven,--these two being the causes of pleasure and pain. This has been declared in the _Siddhánta_, "_Jíva_, _ajíva_, _punya_, _pápa_, _ásrava_, _samvara_, _nirjarana_, _bandha_, and _moksha_, are the nine _tattwas_." As our object is only a summary, we desist here.

Here the Jainas everywhere introduce their favourite logic called the _sapta-bhangí-naya_,[94] or the system of the seven paralogisms, "may be, it is," "may be, it is not," "may be, it is and it is not," "may be, it is not predicable," "may be, it is, and yet not predicable," "may be, it is not, and not predicable," "may be, it is and it is not, and not predicable." All this Anantavírya has thus laid down:--

1. "When you wish to establish a thing, the proper course is to say 'may be, it is;' when you wish to deny it, 'may be, it is not.'

2. "When you desire to establish each in turn, let your procedure likewise embrace both; when you wish to establish both at once, let it be declared 'indescribable' from the impossibility to describe it.

3. "The fifth process is enjoined when you wish to establish the first as well as its indescribableness; when the second as well as its indescribableness, the occasion for the sixth process arises.

4. "The seventh is required when all three characters are to be employed simultaneously."

_Syát_, "may be," is here an indeclinable particle in the form of a part of a verb, used to convey the idea of indeterminateness; as it has been said--

"This particle _syát_ is in the form of a verb, but, from its being connected with the sense, it denotes indeterminateness in sentences, and has a qualifying effect on the implied meaning."

If, again, the word _syát_ denoted determinateness, then it would be needless in the phrase, "may be, it is;" but since it really denotes indeterminateness, "may be, it is," means "it is somehow;" _syát_, "may be," conveys the meaning of "somehow," _kathamchit_; and so it is not really useless. As one has said--

"The doctrine of the _syád-váda_ arises from our everywhere rejecting the idea of the absolute;[95] it depends on the _sapta-bhangí-naya_, and it lays down the distinction between what is to be avoided and to be accepted."

If a thing absolutely exists, it exists altogether, always, everywhere, and with everybody, and no one at any time or place would ever make an effort to obtain or avoid it, as it would be absurd to treat what is already present as an object to be obtained or avoided. But if it be relative (or indefinite), the wise will concede that at certain times and in certain places any one may seek or avoid it. Moreover, suppose that the question to be asked is this: "Is _being_ or _non-being_ the real nature of the thing?" The real nature of the thing cannot be _being_, for then you could not properly use the phrase, "It is a pot" (_ghatósti_), as the two words "is" and "pot" would be tautological; nor ought you to say, "It is not a pot," as the words thus used would imply a direct contradiction; and the same argument is to be used in other questions.[96] As it has been declared--

"It must not be said 'It is a pot,' since the word 'pot' implies 'is;'

"Nor may you say 'it is not a pot,' for existence and non-existence are mutually exclusive," &c.

The whole is thus to be summed up. Four classes of our opponents severally hold the doctrine of existence, non-existence, existence and non-existence successively, and the doctrine that everything is inexplicable (_anirvachaníyatá_);[97] three other classes hold one or other of the three first theories combined with the fourth.[98] Now, when they meet us with the scornful questions, "Does the thing exist?" &c., we have an answer always possible, "It exists in a certain way," &c., and our opponents are all abashed to silence, and victory accrues to the holder of the _Syád-váda_, which ascertains the entire meaning of all things. Thus said the teacher in the _Syádváda-mañjarí_--

"A thing of an entirely indeterminate nature is the object only of the omniscient; a thing partly determined is held to be the true object of scientific investigation.[99] When our reasonings based on one point proceed in the revealed way, it is called the revealed _Syád-váda_, which ascertains the entire meaning of all things."

"All other systems are full of jealousy from their mutual propositions and counter-propositions; it is only the doctrine of the Arhat which with no partiality equally favours all sects."

The Jaina doctrine has thus been summed up by Jinadatta-súri--

"The hindrances belonging to vigour, enjoyment, sensual pleasure, giving and receiving,--sleep, fear, ignorance, aversion, laughter, liking, disliking, love, hatred, want of indifference, desire, sorrow, deceit, these are the eighteen 'faults' (_dosha_) according to our system.[100] The divine Jina is our Guru, who declares the true knowledge of the _tattwas_. The path[101] of emancipation consists of knowledge, intuition, and conduct. There are two means of proof (_pramána_) in the _Syád-váda_ doctrine,--sense-perception and inference. All consists of the eternal and the non-eternal; there are nine or seven _tattwas_. The _jíva_, the _ajíva_, merit and demerit, _ásrava_, _samvara_, _bandha_, _nirjará_, _mukti_,--we will now explain each. _Jíva_ is defined as intelligence; _ajíva_ is all other than it; merit means bodies which arise from good actions, demerit the opposite; _ásrava_ is the bondage of actions,[102] _nirjará_ is the unloosing thereof; _moksha_ arises from the destruction of the eight forms of _karman_ or "action". But by some teachers "merit" is included in _samvara_,[103] and "demerit" in _ásrava_.

"Of the soul which has attained the four infinite things[104] and is hidden from the world, and whose eight actions are abolished, absolute liberation is declared by Jina. The Swetámbaras are the destroyers of all defilement, they live by alms,[105] they pluck out their hair, they practise patience, they avoid all association, and are called the Jaina _Sádhus_. The Digambaras pluck out their hair, they carry peacocks' tails in their hands, they drink from their hands, and they eat upright in the giver's house,--these are the second class of the Jaina Rishis.

"A woman attains not the highest knowledge, she enters not Mukti,--so say the Digambaras; but there is a great division on this point between them and the Swetámbaras."[106]

E. B. C.

FOOTNOTES:

[Footnote 40: _Vivasanas_, "without garments."]

[Footnote 41: "The Buddhists are also called _Muktakachchhas_, alluding to a peculiarity of dress, apparently a habit of wearing the hem of the lower garment untucked."--_Colebrooke._]

[Footnote 42: In p. 26, line 3, read _Syád-vádinám_.]

[Footnote 43: I propose to read in p. 26, line 5, _infra_, _gráhyasya_ for _agráhyasya_.]

[Footnote 44: As these terms necessarily relate to the perceiver.]

[Footnote 45: I correct the reading _tasyágrahanam_ to _tasyá grahanam_ (_tasyá_ being _jadatáyáh_).]

[Footnote 46: _I.e._, if you say that the _avayava_ may be not seen though the _avayavin_ is seen, then I may say that the post is the _avayavin_, and the unperceived three worlds its _avayava_!]

[Footnote 47: I read _arhatsvarúpam arhachchandra_ in p. 27, line 3, _infra_.]

[Footnote 48: The following passage occurs in some part of Kumárila's writings in an argument against the Jainas. It is curious that in the Sánkara-digvijaya, chap. lv., it is mentioned that Kumárila had a little relenting towards the Jainas at the end of his life. He repented of having so cruelly persecuted them, and acknowledged that there was some truth in their teaching. _Jainagurumukhát kaschid vidyáleso játah._]

[Footnote 49: Kumárila tries to prove that no such being can exist, as his existence is not established by any one of the five recognised proofs,--the sixth, _abháva_, being negative, is, of course, not applicable. I understand the last sloka as showing the inapplicability of "presumption" or _arthá-patti_. A Jaina would say, "If the Arhat were not omniscient, his words would not be true and authoritative, but we see that they are, therefore he is omniscient." He answers by retorting that the same argument might be used of Buddha by a Buddhist; and as the Jaina himself would disallow it in that case, it cannot be convincing in his own.]