Book Jainism in Buddhist Literature Author Dr. Hiralal Jain

(2) Ajive or Pudgala (matter): Nature of Karmas

The mundane soul attract the karmas and then they stand towards each other in relationship of phenonenal conjunction. Therelation, according to Jainism, is beginningless and continues till one attains salvation. Soul and Karmas can be dissociated as they ate two separate entities.

Pali Literature cantains some valuable references to the jaina doctrine of Karma. Triyoga is themost significant aspect of Jaina ethics in that it explains the origin of karmas and their attachment to the soul through the three means of word, deed, and theought.This is also called the tridanda Karma61. The Buddha also recognises the tridanda Karma but in a spme&wtjat dofferent way. It is well known fow the Buddha generally gave new meanings to old philosophical and ethical terms and taught new doctrines based on them. The famous triyoga ortridanda doctrine was originally a Jaina dogma. The Buddha himself has ascribed it ro Nigantha Nataputta before refuting it. He asks a Nigantha named Dighatapassi in Nalanda as how many kinds of wrong doing bring about about evil effects according to the teaching of Nigantha Nataputta? Dighatapassi in Nalanda as how many kinds of wrong doings bring about evil effects according to the teaching of Nigantha Nataputta/ Dighatapassi replied that the Kayadanda is most heinous 62

Here, danda means duccarita or wrong behaviour in body, speech and thought, which brongs nmisery and distress to the muldane soul. The Buddha recognised kayakanmma, Vacikamma and Manokamma in place of kayadanda, vacidanda andmanodanda. The Dispute between the Buddha and the Jainas on the use of Kamma and Danda is apparently due to the distinct connotation the term Karma has to each system. To the Buddhist it signifies volitional action while to the Jaina it is the endproduct of action which clings on to the soul in a material form. Both Danda and Kamma bave the same meaning in Jainism. The use of the word Danda in the sense of Kamma can be seen in the Thanange (3. 126)

The more important difference of opinion between the Buddha and Nigantha Nataputta relates to the relative ethical sigmificance of deed, word or thought? The Buddha says that the nost heinous is thought (manoodanda) while Nigantha Nataputta is said to have held deed (kayadanda) to be the worst.

The reference in Upali Sutta of the Manodanda. Nikaya to the disput gives the impression that the Niganthas did not realise the inportance of the mind or manodanda. It is reslly not so and it needs further clarification. Nigantha Nataputta did not, at any stage, envisage dodily action which is devid of intention and volition.Involuntary acts-such as miatakes and accidents do not fall within the purview of Kayadanda. Only such action as is preceded by thought is Kayadanda and the true significance of Nigantha Nataputta's attitude to three-fold action can be conveyed when kayadanda is translated and understood not as mere bodily action but as "thought converted into action."

Acarya Kundakunda condemned asceticism, if it is unaccompanied by intention (bhava). The guilt or otherwise of an action depends on the nature and intensity of thougth and intention. If one is ever thinking of causing harm to another, he is guilty of malicious thought even though he does not actually cause any injury, while another, who, with no intention of causing any injury, becomes unconsciously the instrument of injury, should not be morally held responsible for that act. For instance, a burglar who fails in robbing after attemping to do so, is to be punished as a felon; and a surgeon, even though his patient may die during an operation skillfully performed with all attention, is not held responsible for such a deat⁶³. Butif any wrong is intentionally committed, he is, of course, more responsible and blamable for such "wrong" than he who merely harbours malicious thought but does not actually cause any injury:

Avidhayapi hi himsa himsaphalabhajanam bhavatyekah.

Krtva' pyaparo himsa himsa himsaphalabhajanam na ayat⁶⁴.

Thus in Jainism the Kayadanda is worse than either Manodanda or Vacidanda. The Buddha indicated the same idea but defined its characteristics in a different manner. This is one area where the two do not really disagree, Jainism, like Buddhism, is a religion that gives inportance to intention before an ethical judgement is made of any action.

Another reference in thes connection is found in the Anguttara Nikaya where Nigantha Nataputta is designated Kriyavadi (activist),while the Buddha is said to be both kriyavadi and akriyavadi. An episode relates fow siha, the General of Licchavis, asked for permission to meet the Buddha, and how Nigantha Nataputta did not allow him to do so saying that the Buddha taught the akriyavada. However, Siha decided to meer the Buddha and verified at once whether he is akriyavadi. In response to this question the Buddha said that he is both Kriyavadi and akriyavadi. He is akriyavadi in the sense that he taught beings how to abstain from evil actions, and he is kriyavadi in the sense that he taught them how to perform good deeds. The Buddha's reply is as follows:-

"There is a way in which one might say of me that the ascetic Gotama bolds the principle of non-action, teaches the doctrine of non-action, and by this leads his disciples; and there is a way in which one might rightly say of me that the ascetic Gotama folds the principle of action? I proclaim the non-doing of various kinds of wickes and evil things. And how might one say of me that the ascetic Gotama folds the principle of action? I proclaim the doing of good conduct of body. speech. and thought. I proclaim the doing of various kinds of good thingas ⁶⁵".

The question arises here as to why Nigantha Nataputta criticised the Buddha as an Akriyavadi? And why the buddha gave an answer like this/ the Satrakrtanga includes Buddhists among the Akriyavadins, since they do not accept the existence of soul and hence deny karman as well⁶⁶. Further it describes the types of Akriyavada as follows⁶⁷.

(i) On the dissolution of the five elements, i.e. earth, water, fire, wind, air, living beings cease to exist. On the dissolution fo body the individual ceases to be. Everybody has an individual soul. The soul exists as long as the body exists.

(ii) When a man acts or causes another to act. it is not his soul, which acts or causes to act (Sukr.i.1.1.33).

(iii) There are five elements and the soul is a sixth substance. These six substances are imperishable.

(iv) Pleasure, pain, and final beatitude are not caused by the souls thenselves, but the individual souls experience them.

(v) The world has been created or is governed by the gods. It is produced from chaos. (SuKr. 1.13.5.8).

(vi) The world is boundless and eternal.

All these views ate reduced to four main types that correspond to those associated in the Pali Nikayas with four leading thinkers of the tine, e.g. atheism like that of Ajita. etermalism like that of Katyayana, absolutism like that of Kasyapa and fatalism like that of Gosala.

The types of Kriyavada that do not come up to the standard of Jainism are the following:

(i) The soul of a man who is pure will become free from bed karma on reaching beatitude but in that state it will again become defiled through pleasant excitement ot hatred.

(ii) if a man with the intention of killing a body hurts a gourd mistaking it for a baby, hf will be guilty of murder

But this definition of Satrakrianga is also not altogether an adequate summary of the doctrine of Kriyavada and Akriyqvada, In another place the same work presents the characteristics in a better way. It says: the Kriyavada teaches that the soul exists, acts, and is affected by acts, and this held by the Jainas fn common with the Vaisesikas and Nyaya schools. The akriyavada means a doctrine, according to which the soul dose not act or is not effected by acts. It is held, according to the Jaina view, by the Buddhists in common with the vedanta, Sankhya and Yoga schools⁶⁸. It is,therefore, in the light of the negation of a soul by the Buddha that Nigantha Nataputta called him an Akriyavadin.

Silanka appears to hold that the Buddhists fall into the akriyavada category, for they denied the existence of a soul. But, as a matter of fact, the mere denial of the existence of a soul does not nean that Buddhism should be included into akriyavada. The Buddha believes fully in moral responsibilities and the ethical consequences of both good and bad acts, words, and thoughts. He fully accepted the doctrine of karma which governs the cycles of rebirth. Apparently the Jainas wete not fully aware of these facts of Buddhist ethics. But it is somewthat surprising as the contemporary philosopherly the teachings of Makkhali gosala, a contemporary nohilist, on the ground of akriyavada.

Another reference to the karma doctrine of Nigantha Nataputta is found in the Majjhima Nikaya. According to that the inflow of karmas can be stopped by performing severe penance with right knowledge⁶⁹. The familiarity with the karma theory of Jainas can also be traced in the Mahabodhi Jataka⁷⁰. It is said there that once the Bodhisattve was born in the family of a Brahmana. When he came of age, he renounced the world and became a mendicant and lived at the Himalayas. During the rainy season he caoe down and going on his begging rounds he gradually appproached Benares. there he took up his abode in the royal park, and on the followinbg day he got his meal from the king. Afterwards, the king had a hut of leaves built for him and used to come to pay his respect to the mendicant daily thrice a day. And so twelve years passed.

Now the king had five counsellors who advised him on temporal and spiritual matters. One of then denied the existence of cause (karma). Another believed everything was the act of a Supreme Being. A third professed the doctrine of previous actions.A fourth believed in annihilation at death. Afifth held the Ksatriya doctrine. He who denied the cause taughe the people that existence in this world was purified by rebirte. He who believed in the action of Supreme Being tatght that the world was created by hi,. He who belieced in the consequences of previous acts tayght that sorrfow or joy that befalls man here is the result of some previous action. The beliver in annihilation taught no one passed hence to another world, but that this world is annihilated. He who professed the ksatriya creed taught that one's own interest is to be desired even at the cost of killing one's parents. These men were appointed to sit in judgement in the king's court and being greedy of bribes they dispossessed the rightful owner of property.

out o these, the third counsellor seems to bave represented the thoughts of Migantha Nataputta who preached that all things happenen in life are due to the previous karmas. Such previous karmic matter, though present, begin to operate only when they become mature and then they produce corresponding psychic states through which they bind the self⁷¹.

The Bodhisattva of the Mahabodhi Jataka criticised this theory theory along with other theories belonging to the five counsellors of the king. It is said there that while he accepted the offer of the king to be judge of his court, he became very popular withim a short perid. The five coumsellors got angry with him and tried to convince the king that the Bodhisattve was seeking sovereingty, Hence the king diminished the fonours paid to him and made plans to slay him. The Bodhisattva come to know all these things and went again towards the kimalaya.

The five counsellors in order to prevent him from coming again in the city publicised that the Bodhisattva with the help of the queen wanted to slay the king. As a result, the queen was put to death. Hence the sons became enemies of th king. In the meantine the Bodhisattva came to know this conspiracy and came to the city to save the life of the king. He entered a frontier village and after eating the flesh of a monkey given to him by the inhabitants he begged for its skin. Which he had dried in his hermit's hut. He went then to the city of Benares and had himself seated in the park on the without any response the Bodhisattva began to rub the monkey's skin. The king asked why he was doing so? The codhisattva replied that the monkey was very useful to me but I ate its flesh. The counsellors thought that this man is guilty of taking the life of a monkey. The Boddshisattva, adderssing one by one, denied their charge and criticised therir theories.

The third counsellor's thought that this man is guilty of taking the life of a monkey. The Boddhisattva, addressing one by one, denied their chatge and criticised theories.

The third counsellor's theory which is supposes to have represnted Jainism is criticised as follown:

From former action still both bliss and woe again:

This monkey pays his debt, to wit, tis former sin:

Each act a debt discharged, where then does guilt come in?

If such the creed thou holdst and this be doctrine true,

Then was my action right when I that monkey slew.

couldst thou but only see him sinful is thy creed.

Thou wouldst no longer then with reason blame my deed⁷².

The majjhima Nikaya⁷³ also supports the jaina theory of Karmas. According to the Jaina Agamas, Soul enjoys all sorts of fruits of Karmas done ⁷⁴. As regards the criticism of this theory made by the Buddha, it does not provide any substantial argument. moreover the Mahabodhi jataka is a later development.of the Jataka literature. Ailanka refets to only 500 Jataka stories belonging to the Jatakas ⁷⁵. which shows its nature of development.

In the Anguttara Nikaya76 the same idea is found in traditional doctrional doctrines of inaction (tinimam bhikkhave titthayatanam yani panditehi samanuyunjiyamanam akiriyaya Aanthahanti) They ate as follows:-

(i) There are certain recluses and the Brahmanas who hold the view that "whatever happiness or misery or neutrel feeling is experienced, all that is due to some previous action (yain kim cayajm purisapuggalo patisanvedeti sukham ya dukkham ua adukkhamasukham va sabbm tam pubbekatahetu ti)

(ii) All the pleasure and misery ate due to a Supreme Deity (issaranimmanahetu).

(iii) Others teach that all such pleasure and misery are uncaused and unconditioned (ahetu appaccaya).

Out of these three theories the first is undoubtedly related to the doctrine of Nigantha Nataputta. Criticising this view, the Buddha pointed out that owing to previous actions, men will become murderers, stealers, unchaste, liars, etc, For those who fall back on oast deeds as the essential cause of present action, there is neither desire to do, nor effort to do, nor would they consider it to do this deed or abstain from that deeed. The necessity ofr action of inaction not being foune to exist in truth, the term Samana cannot reasonably be applied to yourselves, since you live in a state of bewildering with faculties unwarded⁷⁷.

Here the argument raised by the Buddha against the first theory is that if all is due to the preevious karmas, then it is not essential to make effort to abstain from them. This conception might have been known to Nigantha Nataputta when he accused the BuddHA as an Akriyavadi (Non-actionist).Acarya Kundakunda=⁷⁸ is of opinion that all the previously bound karmic matters operate onle when they become mature. The Nigantha Nataputta prescribed severe penance with perfect knowledge to destroy the karmas. The Buddha himself, as we have already seen, expresses his satisfaction with regard to the theory⁷⁹.

The Anguttara Nikaya80 Describes the sixbreeds (chalahbhijali) as the different categories of beings,as declared by Puran Kassapa. They are,

(i) Black breed (kanhabhijati pannatta) category includes the mutton-butchers, Jailers, etc.

(ii) blue breed (nilabhijati pannatta) includes the monks who live as though with a thorn in the side and all others who profess the deed and doing so (bhikkhu kantakavittika ye va pana anepi keci kammavada kiriyavada)

(iii) the third is the red breed (lohitabhijati pannatta) the category to which Niganthas belong;

(iv) the fourth is yellow breed (haliddabhijati) which includes the white-robed householders and followers of the Ajivikas;

(v) the fifth is the white breed (sukkabhijati) which includes the Ajivikas.

(iv) the last is the purest white (paramasukkabhijati) in which Purana kassapa is included.

The Buddha hears of this division from Ananda to whom later on he declares the six breeds according to his own conception. Thews six divisions are mainly divided into two divisions, black and white. This division is based on the good and bad karmas of man. The Jainas also have about the same division into six categories, but they are not mentioned in Pali literatute. The Jainas have the particular word Lesya for such division

The Lesyas are different stages of soul influenced by different karmas and activities of mind. They are classified into six naing types, viz. krsna (black), nila (blue), kapota(grey), pita(yellow), padma (pink) and sykla81 (white).These are nothing but the states of beings based on their activities of mind. The krsna is the worst lesya of the first three and the pita is the least puer of the latter three lesyas. According to another division, these six divisions are classified into two divisions, dravyalesya and dhavalesya. This is similar to the classification made by the Buddha and the Yogasastra. ⁸² Since the conception of lesyas is not mentioned in the Pali Canon, we can say that it may have originated later in Jainology as sn imitation of ^Sramana traditions.

The Anguttara Nikaya 83 describes three kinds of yoga (manasa, vacana and kaya) which cause the karmic matter into the soul due to ignorance (avijja). It is said there that at Kapilavatthu, Vappa⁸⁴ a follower of Nigantha Nataputta went to visit Moggalayana. Moggalayana asked Vappa "There is some one here, Vappa, restrained in body, speech and thought owing to the waning of ignorance and the arising of knowledge (kayena, samvuto, vacaya samvuto, manasa samvuto avijjaviraga vijjuppada). He then asked Vappa whether he perceives any cause owing to which the asavas causing pain would flow upon the man at some future time. (passasino tuam vappa, tam thanam yato mdanam purisam dukkavedaniya asava assaveyyun abhisamparayam 'ti) Vappa then replied "sir, I do see such reason. There may be in this casa a certain evil deed whose fruit has not yet ripened. owing to the ^asavas causing pain might flow in wpon that man at some future time

There is no substantial argument, in favt, in this criticism by the Buddha. Yoga attracts the karmic matter towards the soul and connects the same with it. The soul is obscured by such karmic matter since time immemorial. That is the reason why it experiences fruits, good or bad. That is the reason why it experiences fruits, good or bad. The destruchion of Karmas, according to Jainism, depends on the restraint of mind, word, any body. By severe penance one can destroy all the past deeds and prevent the flow of new karmas. ⁸⁶

The Buddha at another place in the Amguttara Nikaya89 says to Visakha that the Niganthas took a vow not to go beyond the East, West, North or the South. This vow saves them from violence at least in the prescribed limitation. This vow saves them from violence at least in the prescribed limitation. The Prosadhopavasa also is said to be a way to destroy the karmas.⁹⁰

Some other ways to make a purified soyl also are recorded in Pali literature. One becomes completely naked with no desire or attachment towards anything in the last stage of ascetism. In this acelakatva he should follow a lot of rules and regulations which have been mentioned in the Pali Canon as weel as in the jaina Agama. These will be discussed in the chapter on Ethics.

Moksa Tattva