Jain World
Sub-Categories of Passions

The doubt regarding the existence of the soul

Dont Despair: Remember Soul
The Second Ganadhara
The Third Ganadhara
The Fourth Ganadhara
  The Fifth Ganadhara
  The Sixth Ganadhara
  The Seventh Ganadhara
  The Eighth Ganadhara
  The Ninth Ganadhara
  The Tenth Ganadhara
  The Eleventh Ganadhara


Shri Amar Muni


The Bhagavan said to Achalbhrata, the ninth Brahmin indian writing (pg 125 angie)

Whatever exists is purusa (soul). On account of this statement you have entertained a doubt regarding the existence of punya (good fortune) and papa (misfortune).

There are five alternative opinions regarding punya and papa

1. Only punya (good fortune) exists; not misfortune (papa),

2. Only papa exists, not punya

3. Punya and papa remain only mixed giving mixed joys and sorrows.

4. They remain independent and give separate fruits like joys and sorrows.

5. There is nothing like punya or papa, it means neither punya nor papa exists, and joys and sorrows arise naturally.

Of these in the first alternative the question arises; "when only punya exists, how can the soul suffer sorrow?" The answer to this question is: As in the case of an agreeing diet joys appear when punya is ascendant, and sorrows appear when it declines; whereas in the second alternative as in the case of eating unwholesome diet, when misfortune increases, sorrow also increases; and when misfortune declines, sorrow also decreases and joy takes its place. In both the alternatives, after punya and papa being completely destroyed to extreme extent, moksa salvation is attained. In the third alternative if the amount of punya increases it is called only punya. In the same manner, on account of the increase of the amount of only papa the opposite thing happens that it is called papa In the fourth alternative, joy and sorrow are not experienced at the same time. Here punya and papa are to be present as separate causes for the emergence of independent effects namely joy or sorrow. In the fifth alternative, "the air blows horizontally," `the fire flame go upwards, "thorns are sharp and straight' just as all this is their nature, similarly without punya and papa, joy and sorrow appear on account of the nature of the strangeness of `Samsar'.

The first, the second, the third, and fifth alternatives are wrong. Only the fourth one is logical, the others being illogical.

If the world is strange i.e. strange happenings are only due to nature, what is the meaning of nature? Is it the substance? Is it causelessness? Is it the quality of the substance? (This is according to what is said in the section entitled "The Second Ganadar".) The summary is this. We have to believe in punya and papa as the causative qualities of the substance themselves with a form.

The proof of the existence of the independent punya and papa by two kinds of inference

(a) The inference by the cause: Like the effects of the seeds of grains of wheat and maize, the effects of the peculiar causes namely benevolence (charity) and violence, ought to be peculiar and particular. And,

(b) The inference by the effect: Two children possess such peculiar qualities as beauty and ugliness, though their parents are the same. Behind this there ought to be different causes namely punya and papa.

From these two inferences the existence of punya and papa is proved.

(c) Even the basic cause is in consonance with the effect. The cause of a gold vessel is gold; and the cause of a copper vessel is copper. In the same manner the cause of joys is punya karma (good fortune); and the cause of sorrow is papa karma (bad fortune). You have to believe that such different effects have differenct causes.

Why are not `Punya' and `Papa' formless?

Question: Since joy and sorrow are the moulds and modifications of the formless soul, they are formless; similarly will not the causes of these joys and sorrows namely punya and papa be proved formless?

Answer: The cause is not always be all dharmas (natures) completely consonant with the effect,nor is it completely incongrous with the effect; the cause becomes only congruent with the effect or the effect becomes congruent with the cause. If the cause and effect becomes congruent by all the sharmas (natures) which possess different natures how is it that `one is the cause and another is the effect' and there is a difficulty in saying that they are absolutely different in all aspects. If in one, there is vastutva-dharma, then in the other, there would appear avastutva-dharma, which is always different from it. In other words then only avastu will be proved to exist. Then how can there be the relationship of cause and effect between vastu (real) and avastu (unreal)?

Not only cause and effect, but all the substances in this world are similar and different and congruent and incongruent with its effect. Yet, specially the principal cause is said to be congruent with its effect. This means that this effect is the (swaparyaya) self-modification of the cause; and (parparyaya) non-self modification of another cause and effect. These swaparyaya and parparyaya of cause become similar and dissimilar to and congruent and incongruent with this cause. In the current topic, the union of the jiva and punya is the cause. Its effect `joy' is its "self-modification" and just as joy is called auspicious and good, similarly punya also. This is congruence. There is no rule that `if joy is formless its cause also should be formless', because congruency is not total but it is only partial.

(a) Food etc. is the cause of pleasure, but where is it formless. It has form. In the same manner karma also has a form.

Question: Then you should believe that only food, flowers and sandal paste etc. are the cause of pleasures; where is the need to believe in karma?

Answer: Very well, but the question is, "in some places and times the external things like food etc. are the same, yet there is differene in pleasure; why?" You shall have to say that this difference is caused only by different karmas.

(b) And karma has a form, because karma is the cause of the body which has a form, and cause of the accumulation of bodily strength. Just as oil which has a form strengthens a pot which has a form.

(c) Karma has a form, because it is nourished by flowers sandal paste etc. which have form.

Joy Is Formless: The body has a form. Karmas are the causes.

1. What is the form of karma?

Question: The body etc. have form, and joy, sorrow, anger, pride etc. are formless. When that is so, how can this rule be deduced that cause is always formless or cause always has a form?

Answer The congruent cause for the effect, viz. joy etc. is not karma, but the Jiva. This of course is formless. In other words we have surely found here for a formless effect a formless cause. Now to speak of karma, since karma being a non-congruent cause, there is no difficulty in its being "with a form" like medicines increasing intelligence. Thus "swabhavavad" the theory of nature has been refuted, and the 'karmavad' the theory of karma has been proved.

2. Now, the refutation of the theory that either 'only punya exists', or only papa exists.

3. By the increase of punya, let there be increase of joy likewise, by the decrease of punya let there be decrease of joy but how can there be excessive sorrow? This can only happen on account of the excess of papa

The body gets strength on account of nourshing food. If there is a decrease in the nourishing food, the strength in the body decreases, this is resonable; but how does disease and agony occur? This is the reasonable consequence of increase in the unwholesome and harmful food which spoils health.