Karmtattva - Book Summary | JainGPT

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Karmatattva" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, focusing on the essence of the introduction and the author's perspective:

Book Title: Karmtattva Author: Sukhlal Sanghavi Publisher: Z_Darshan_aur_Chintan_Part_1_2_002661.pdf (Part of Z_Darshan_aur_Chintan, Volume 1, Part 2)

Core Argument and Author's Perspective:

Sukhlal Sanghavi begins by stating his deep and long-standing connection with Jain karmic texts and their Hindi translations. This personal connection compels him to offer an introductory statement for the current translation of "Karmatattva." He emphasizes the importance of viewing Jain karmic philosophy not just through the lens of its ancient, sacred traditions but also through a critical, historical perspective, especially in the modern era of print and widespread readership beyond the Jain community.

Traditional Jain View of Karmatattva:

Origin: Both the Shvetambara and Digambara traditions trace their karmic scriptures back to the Agrahyaniya Purva, the second of the fourteen Purvas, which is part of the twelfth Anga (Drishtivada).
Divine Revelation: Both traditions firmly believe that the entire Anga and Purva literature is a direct manifestation of Lord Mahavir's omniscient speech. Therefore, all existing Jain karmic literature, whether in word or spirit, is considered a condensed essence of Mahavir's teachings.
Anadi (Beginningless): Furthermore, the sacred knowledge of Angas and Purvas is considered to be not only from Mahavir but also from previous Tirthankaras, making it essentially beginningless in its essence. While beginningless, this knowledge gains newness and relevance through each succeeding Tirthankara.
Enduring Faith: This communal belief in the divine origin and enduring nature of these teachings is deeply held by the followers of Jainism, akin to the Mimamsakas' belief in the anadi (beginningless) nature of the Vedas.

The Shift to a Historical Perspective:

Sanghavi argues that while the traditional, faith-based approach is important, the historical perspective is now crucial for several reasons:

Modern Education: Jain karmic texts are increasingly being included in college curricula, environments that are inherently non-sectarian.
Wider Audience: Printed works reach beyond the Jain community to a broader, often non-Jain readership. Publishers and scholars aim for this wider dissemination, and non-Jain readers will not necessarily accept sectarian beliefs without historical validation.
Scholarly Engagement: International scholars, like German scholar Glassenap (author of "Jainism"), have translated and researched Jain scriptures, further necessitating a historical approach for wider understanding and acceptance.

Historical Evolution of Karmatattva Concepts:

Sanghavi then outlines a historical progression of thought regarding karmatattva (the principle of karma):

Early Materialism (Charvaka): An ancient school of thought, the Charvakas, rejected any pursuit beyond worldly enjoyment and material gain. They did not believe in karma that led to rebirth or afterlife, as their focus was solely on this life.
Rebirth and Afterlife Believers: Alongside the Charvakas, thinkers existed who believed in rebirth and multiple worlds (heavya, kanishtha loka). They accepted karma as the necessary causal link for these phenomena. They considered themselves "believers in afterlife" and "believers in karma," asserting that without karma, the cycle of transmigration and the connection between this world and the next could not be explained.
Two Main Branches of Karma-Believers:
- The "Pravartak Dharma" (Propagating/Active Dharma) Path: This branch believed karma leads to rebirth and afterlife, but to achieve a better birth and a higher afterlife (heaven), superior karma is required. This group advocated for Dharma, Artha, and Kama as the primary pursuits, with no separate emphasis on Moksha (liberation). Their teachings are associated with the Brahminical path, Mimamsakas, and Karmakandis. They saw virtue in socially accepted conduct and vice in condemned actions, supporting social order. Dharma and Adharma (good and bad karma) were seen as punya and papa, and adrushta (unseen forces), driving the cycle of births and deaths, which was considered inescapable, though one could aim for better outcomes through dharma.
- The "Nivartak Dharma" (Withdrawing/Passive Dharma) Path: This branch also believed karma causes rebirth but considered all karma, whether good or bad, to be ultimately detrimental and to be renounced. They proposed a fourth, independent pursuit: Moksha. Their ultimate goal was liberation from the cycle of rebirth. They argued that the true cause of karma is not social norms but ignorance (ajnan) and attachment/aversion (raga-dvesha). Any socially approved action rooted in ignorance and attachment leads to Adharma. For them, the distinction between punya and papa is superficial; fundamentally, all karma arising from ignorance and attachment is Adharma and to be shunned. This path was individualistic, focused on self-development, and led to the understanding that the eradication of karma and the attainment of Moksha were possible. They identified the means to achieve this as right knowledge (samyak jnana) against ignorance and restraint (samyam) against attachment/aversion, with other practices like penance, meditation, and devotion serving as aids to these primary means.

Key Philosophical Schools within Nivartak Dharma:

Sanghavi identifies three main philosophical streams within the Nivartak Dharma:

Parmanu Vadi (Atomists): This school, which later evolved into Nyaya-Vaisheshika philosophy, was supportive of Moksha but less antagonistic towards the Pravartak Dharma compared to the other two.
Pradhana Vadi (Pradhana/Prakriti Theorists): This school, which developed into Samkhya-Yoga philosophy, considered all karma to be detrimental and thus rejected the ritualistic karma of the Pravartak Dharma. Vedanta and the path of Sannyasa later emerged, influenced by the philosophy and renunciation ideals of this school.
Parinami Parmanu Vadi with Pradhana Shadow (Transforming Atomists with the Influence of Pradhana): This school, which became known as Jain and Nigrantha philosophy, was also strongly opposed to the Pravartak Dharma. Buddhism is described as a later, independent development arising from a mixture of the second and third schools, also being vehemently opposed to the Pravartak Dharma.

Common Goal of Nivartakists:

Regardless of their specific philosophical underpinnings, the common objective of all Nivartakists was to destroy the root of karma and attain a state from which one would never return to the cycle of birth and death.

Development of Jain Karmic Thought:

Sanghavi posits that while the exact origins are unclear, Jain philosophical traditions, particularly in the realm of karmic science, were well-established even before the time of Lord Parshvanatha. The thinkers who dedicated themselves to this study were known as "karmashastrajna" (karmic scholars), and their knowledge was known as the "Agrahyaniya Purva" and "Karmapravada Purva."

Comparison with Other Systems:

Jainism meticulously studied the causes of karma and methods of its eradication.
The Jain approach to understanding the nature of karma was unique. Unlike Vaisheshika (atomists) who saw karma as a property of the conscious soul (chetanadharma) and Samkhya-Yoga (Pradhana theorists) who saw it as a property of the insentient mind/intellect (jada-dharma), Jain thinkers considered karma to be a result of the interaction between both the conscious soul and insentient matter (atoms). They viewed the soul as capable of expansion and contraction, susceptible to the changes (vikara) that karma represents, and capable of becoming one with insentient atoms.
While Vaisheshika believed karma was inseparable from the conscious soul, and Samkhya believed it was inseparable from nature (Prakriti), Jainism saw karma as a manifestation involving both. They distinguished between bhava karma (mental/emotional karma) and dravya karma (material karma).

Conclusion:

Sanghavi concludes by highlighting the extraordinary depth, systematic nature, and intricate details of Jain karmic philosophy. He notes the significant commonalities and underlying unity with other systems like Samkhya-Yoga and Buddhism, especially in their karmic discussions. This shared heritage points to a period of extensive intellectual exchange among these schools, particularly when the Nivartak traditions were closer to each other. The enduring legacy of Jain karmic science, with its detailed classifications, causal analyses, and subtle distinctions, underscores its ancient origins and profound contribution to the understanding of karma.