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.

4. It is all right if a jiva gets a small or less comfortable or less auspicious body by the decrease of punya, but how did such heavy and inauspicious bodies as those of elephants or large fish or of the inhabitants of hell appear? If there is only a small quantity of gold, we may get a small vessel but it is of gold; not of clay.

5. In this manner, the difficulty arises in the case of those who believe only in papa By the increase of papa sorrows may increase, and by its decrease sorrows may decrease; but how can pleasure increase? A small degree of sin may be the cause of sorrow, but not of joy. Let poison be of a small quanity, it cannot increase the health of the body.

The belief that punya and papa are combined is false

6. There is no karma like a combined punya and papa, because there is no cause that can create such a karma. As the cause of karma, we can consider the auspicious or inauspicious mental, physical and vocal yoga activities. Mithyatva etc. is contained in the inauspicious yoga. But at a time yoga of only one kind, either an auspicious one or an inauspicious one is present, and by this only one kind of bondage either of punya or of papa takes place.

Dravya-Yoga: Bhava-Yoga; Dravya Bhava-Yoga is not mixed

Question: Do we not see the mixed auspicious and inauspicious yogas? For example, a thought or preaching of rendering charity arose,. but over-passing the scriptural method and scriptural formality; or worshipping the paramatma but not according to scriptural method. Are not these respectively auspicious and inauspicious Manoyoga, vag-yoga and kaya-yoga (mental, vocal and physical activities).

Answer: No. Yoga is of two kinds: Dravya-Yoga and Bhava-Yoga The 'Dravya' means helpful substances causing yoga and the activities of the mind, the voice, and the body. These are the dravya-yoga The Adhyavasaya (good or bad sentiments) which is the nature of yoga is the Bhava-Yoga According to the vyavahara-naya (normal vision) there can be a fusion i.e., a mixture of the auspicious and the inauspicious ones in the dravya-yoga; but not according to the nischaya-naya (subtle vision). Because in the Bhava-Yoga there is no such fusion mixture i.e. combination of auspicious and inauspicious sentiments (Adhyavasaya). Whereas here there can be only auspicious or inauspicious adhyvasaya. There can never be such an Adhyavasaya which is of both auspicious and inauspicious nature at the same time. In the scriptures (Agamas) are shown two auspicious meditations viz., dharma- dhyana and shukla-dhydna; and the auspicious lesyas (mental states viz., Tejo lesya, padma lesya and shukla lesya). Two inauspicious meditations arta-dhyana and raudra-dhyana, and three inauspicious lesyas (mental states) krisna-lesya nil- lesya and kapot-lesya, are also described but no auspicious and inauspicious combined meditation or lesya is mentioned. Even after the meditation, lesya prevails. The Bhava-yoga is made up of lesya and meditation. It is not in the form of both auspicious and inauspicious together. Therefore no bondage in the form of combined punya and papa occurs.

There are no mixed karmas in samkraman of karmas. Samkraman means intermingling of old karmas into the newly being bound karmas of the same type. Just old ashata vedniya karma being intermingled in the newly being bound shata vedniya karma and getting in the form of shata vedniya karma

Question: In the karma that is auspicious and the karma that is inauspicious, there is a samkram (internal entry and intermingling). Is this intermingling not combind karma?

Answer: An auspicious karma arises from an auspicious sentiment. The previously accumulated inauspicious karmas become mingled with auspicious karma of the same sort being earned at present. In the same manner, previous auspicious karmas are mingled with present inauspicious karmas.

Question: In mithyatva mohaniya karma what is the system?

Answer: After the bondage of mithyatva karma if there occurs a pure sentiment, then this mithyatva karma gets divided into three groups. One of them is a pure group namely samyakatva- samkit mohaniya. This is pure group of Samyakatva Mohaniya. Now if jiva further again enters mithyatva, that samyakatva mohaniya gets transformed into mithyatva. In this manner, samkraman does not happen between the main basic karma prakritis just as vedniya karma is not transformed into mohaniya karma but it happens between their subordinate forms: just as from shata Vedaniya karma into 'ashate vedaniya' karma, excepting 'Aayushya karma Between darshan moha and charitra-moha karmas also 'samkraman does not happen. Now you see that with the newly bound auspicious karmas like shata Vedniya, the previously bound inauspicious karmas like ashatta vedaniya karma (Karma that create disease, agony) mingle or with the newly bound inauspicious karmas, the previous auspicious ones mingle mutually. This appears to be a mishra-karma like auspicious and inauspicious both, but after mingling there remains only one auspicious or inauspicious form, not both. The karma that mingles disappears; and the karma, with which it is mingled, remains in its form. For example when ashata form arises; it means ashata becomes shata. Therefore, there is no karma which is a fusion of punya and papa

The summary is this: punya and papa are independent karmas. If they could combine, only excessive happiness for heavenly beings and only excessive pain for the inhabitants of hell would not occur. Therefore, as the independent causes of these two are separate abundances - abundance of happiness and abundance of sorrow. So separate punya and papa are proved.

7. Moreover in this world we see three varieties good, evil and different from these two, namely neutral. But the presence of good or evil is not the absence of each other. Just as sweet, bitter and tasteless relish; it is not only that the absence of good is evil and the absence of evil is good but the absence of sweetness is tastelessnes also not sheer bitterness. Bitterness is an independent taste. If disease abates, health appears, but not the difference in state like strength. To get this strength separate medicine must be taken. In the absence of 'durjanata (ignobility) there might be sajjanata, gentleness (nobility) but not a lofty kind of nobility. One who commits serious sins earns only papa, but does not earn even a grain of punya In this manner, even one who executes a sublime deed earns a very great punya; but it is not the state that one also earns a little of papa In the same way one who commits horrible ignoble actions and evil actions, auspicious sentiments and inauspicious sentiments etc., are not the absent forms of each other, but they are independent entities. Hence their effects punya and papa also are proved to be independent.

Some necessary directions regarding punya & papa

A karma that gives good fruit like good colour, taste, smell touch, etc., is a punyakarma, and one that gives a bad fruit, is papakarma. These karmas are made up of subtle material particles named karman vargana. Therefore, they are also subtle not gross. They are also not like minute atoms, but they are in bulks.

How karma bulks stick to the soul?

They stick to the soul which is smeared with attachments and hatred, like dust sticking to the body smeared with oil. The karman particles stick to the soul, except in the middle part, which is utterly pure, containing eight minute parts called 'ruchak pradesas'. The karman particles stick to the entire soul except that soul's pure area, and except the sky occupied by it. The soul and karmas possess such mutual relation that the soul which is the support for karmas, by means of its own good or evil sentiments can originate karmas good or evil. At the same time, these four things, the nature, the duration, the intensity in fruit, and the bulk of karmas are determined. The effects differ according to differences in the 'ashraya', refuge. For example it is observed that the same water falling from sky results in the form of milk in cows, and poison in snakes. Or the same food, according to the ability to digest results (becomes converted) into flavour, blood etc. or into excretion, urine and cough. In the same manner, an auspicious or inauspicious sentiment (feeling) converts the karman particles respectively into independent good or evil karmas.

According to the 'tatvarth shastra', there are 46 karma prakritis (forms) of punya good karmas which comprise samakir-mohaniya' 'hasya, 'rati, 'pumved' in addition to 42 punya karmas like shata vedni shubha-ayushya nam-gotra (All the remaining eleven are in the form of papa karmas inauspicious karmas). Subh karma has 46 forms according to the tatvarth-shastra They include samakit mohanlya, hasya rati and pumveda in addition to 42 forms according to karma- grantha comprising shatavedaniya, shubh ayushya, shubhnam, shubhagotrta, etc. It makes a total of 46. According to the karma grantha, samkita mohaniya, hasya, rati and pumveda these four are inauspicious karmas, because they cause the jiva to think contrary and to resort to mithyatva Of these smakita mohaniya makes the jiva commit errors like doubt in about the form of tattvas, in the words of the omniscient and at the basic level it is the mithyatva karma-particle made up of karman pudgal. Hence it is the form of inauspicious karma.

This explanation given by the Bhagavan Mahavirdeo brought enlightenment of truth to Achalbhrata. He too accepted the diksa at the feet of the Bhagavan along with his 300 pupils.