The Karmaprakrti
The Karmaprakrti gives,
in 475 Gathas, the detailed account of a portion of the karman doctrine.
It was compiled by Sivasarmasuri, who indicates as his source the chapter
of the Agrayaniyapurva of the Drstivada called "Karmaprakrti". The KP has
often been commented upon. The most celebrated commentary is the Tika by
Malayagiri; besides that, there exist a Vrtti by Yasovijaya, who lived in
the 17th century, an anonymous Curni, and a Tippana by Nemicandra.2
The relations of the
karman works to one another and to other books of Jain literature are
still in need of thorough examination, which, is must be admitted, can
only be made possible when other works of this description will yet have
been published. That Devendra was acquainted with the Karmaprakrti and the
Pancasamgraha is been from Kg. II 144a:
"Devendrasurina likhitam
karmaprakrti-pancasamgraha-brhacchataka-disastrebhyah". Concerning his
dependence on the commentaries of Malayagiri nothing for the moment can be
said: there are, however, in many different places literal reminiscences
of the writing of the latter; but as both have made use of still older
authors, it cannot be decided to what extent he leans upon him, or how far
both go back to a common source.
Candramahattara and
Sivasarman indicate as their source the twelfth Anga, the Drstivada, 3 an
indication which is also found in other parts of the Jain literature 1*.
As the Purvas are said to have been, partially at least, in existence up
till the year 1000 after Vira 2, the karman doctrine must have been, at
the latest, completely developed at that time. The question now arises,
whether this very complicated doctrine had already existed before that
time or not, i.e. whether it is the product of a comparatively recent
speculation, or had been already in its essential points contained in the
sacred writings. A final judgment regarding this can only be arrived at
through a comparison of the ideas developed in the karman works with those
of the entire cannon. I have not made such an examination. Nevertheless,
as far as I could see, the most important karman doctrines are contained
actually in the Siddhanta, of which any one can easily convince himself,
if he but superficially consults the Sthananga-Sutra, Bhagavati Sutra,
Aupapatika-Sutra 3 and Uttaradhyayana-Sutra 4. Many of the passages
concerning karman appearing in these works contain only generalities;
many, however give so many details that through them we may arrive at the
result that already at the time of the canon the karman was developed in a
high degree. That not only the principal points but many details of the
karman theory are contained in the Angas and Upangas 5 is proved by the
numerous passages from the sacred writings which are quoted by the
commentators and which often refer to quite things.
Further, the fact that
the karman writings go beyond that which has been laid down in the canon,
but do not contradict it, follows already from the reason that they have
not invoked upon themselves the reproach of heterodoxy. For, with a
religious community that zealously guards the purity of their doctrine, as
do the Jains, any important deviation would not have remained unreproved.
As with the canon, so also all karman works are in accord in all things of
prime importance; in some details, however, wherein the sacred writing
does not make any distinct declaration and leaves free rein to
speculation, they differ from one another to the extent that in some
details two or more views are exposed. There are two schools in particular
who are opposing one another on many by-issue 1: the Agamikas and the
karmagranthikas. The former, the chief exponent of whom is Malayagiri,
derive their ideas from a tradition which is dependent upon the Purvas.
The Karmagranthikas and their spokesman Devendrasuri, however, lean on the
authority of older works on the karman, portions of which are even to-day
in existence in Jain monastic libraries, but about which, nevertheless,
nothing distinct is as yet known. For this attempt at a first complete,
although not exhaustive, account of the karman doctrine, works of the two
schools have been used. This could be done without hesitation, because the
differences between the two schools are quite unimportant in regard to the
system as a whole, and in a preponderating majority are of an altogether
trifling nature; in their proper place there will be pointed out the most
conspicuous of these differences.
The leading works, on
which this account is based are the six Karmagranthas, in addition to
which the two other works have been consulted for comparison and for
supplementary material; the ideas reproduced by us are therefore, within
certain limitations, practically in their entirety of Devendrasuri. The
Karmagranthas recommended themselves before all other writings in so far
as they demonstrate the karman doctrine in the clearest manner, and
because of their most methodical arrangement. For similar reasons they
appear to be those most highly estimated by the present-day Jains, as is
proved by their frequent occurrence in manuscripts and in translations
into the vernacular languages.
In order to afford the
uninitiated an insight also into the essential principles and arrangement
of the Karmagranthas, I append the following observations relating to
them, commencing with a Survey of the contents of the Karmagranthas.2
Email this page 
Philosophy
