Karmtattva - Book Summary | JainGPT

Here is a comprehensive summary in English of the Jain text "Karmtattva" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, based on the provided pages:

The book "Karmtattva" (The Essence of Karma) by Sukhlal Sanghavi, published under "Jaindharma_no_Pran_002157.pdf," explores the fundamental Jain doctrine of Karma. It emphasizes the long-sightedness of the Karmavadi (one who believes in Karma) as opposed to the short-sightedness of the Charvaka, who only focuses on the present life. The Karmavadi believes that life extends beyond the current existence and that every pleasant or unpleasant, physical or mental outcome has its roots in actions performed in the present or past lives. No action, whether physical, verbal, or mental, is ever lost without producing its result, either in this life or the next. This long-term perspective profoundly impacts individual, familial, social, and global responsibilities and moral obligations, setting it apart from the limited view of the Charvaka.

The Ancient Authority of Scriptures: The text highlights the Jain belief in the primordial nature of scriptures. Both the Shvetambara and Digambara traditions trace their karmic scriptures back to the Agrayaniya Purva, considered the second of the twelve Angas. All these scriptures, including the fourteen Purvas, are considered direct results of Lord Mahavir's omniscient speech. This unbroken lineage signifies that the current karmic literature is, at its core, the essence of Lord Mahavir's teachings, transmitted through tradition. Furthermore, there's a belief that true scriptures are, in essence, primordial (anadi), preceding not only Lord Mahavir but all previous Tirthankaras. While the Anga scriptures are considered to flow continuously, they evolve in form through successive Tirthankaras. Acharya Hemchandra, in his "Pramana-mimamsa," beautifully illustrates this by stating that eternal knowledge, when expounded concisely or extensively, takes on new forms recognized as the works of the expounder, much like the world itself has always been and continues to be. This belief is deeply held and considered literally true by the followers, akin to the Mimansak's belief in the eternity of the Vedas.

The Necessity of Karmatattva (The Essence of Karma): The text then delves into the historical need for the concept of Karma. It posits two main philosophical camps:

The Charvaka (materialist/atheist): This school believed life was limited to the present birth, focused only on worldly pursuits (Dharma, Artha, Kama), and saw no need for a theory of Karma that involved rebirth or an afterlife.
The Reincarnationists/Transmigrators: These thinkers believed in rebirth and the existence of other realms (higher and lower) beyond the visible world. They asserted that Karma is essential to explain the cycle of birth and death and the connection between this world and the next. They considered themselves "lokavadi" (believers in other worlds) and "astika" (believers in God/the hereafter).

Two Main Schools of Karmavadis: Within the Karmavadi (believers in Karma) framework, two primary schools emerged:

The Pravartak-dharmavadi (Initiating-Action-Oriented Dharma): This school believed that Karma leads to rebirth and the afterlife. They emphasized that better Karma is necessary for a better rebirth and a higher afterlife (heaven). They recognized Dharma, Artha, and Kama as the only Purusharthas (goals of human life), with Moksha (liberation) not being a distinct goal. Their view is that Dharma (good Karma) leads to heaven, and Adharma (bad Karma) leads to hell. Dharma-Adharma is synonymous with Punya (merit) and Papa (demerit), driving the cycle of rebirths. While they believed Adharma is bad, Dharma is not necessarily considered bad. This school supported social order, deriving Dharma from socially accepted and prescribed actions, and Adharma from condemned actions. This perspective is associated with the Brahminical path, Mimansaks, and ritualists.
The Nivartak-dharmavadi (Ceasing-Action-Oriented Dharma): This school held a diametrically opposite view. They agreed that Karma causes rebirth and that prescribed actions lead to Dharma and heaven. However, they believed both Dharma and Adharma are ultimately to be discarded. They recognized a fourth distinct Purushartha: Moksha. They asserted that Moksha is the sole aim of life, and all Karmas, whether Punya or Papa, are to be renounced. They believed that the cessation of Karma is possible and desirable. Contrary to the first school, they posited that the root cause of Dharma and Adharma is not social rituals but ignorance (agnan) and attachment-displeasure (raag-dvesh). Even socially accepted actions, if driven by ignorance and attachment-displeasure, lead to Adharma. The distinction between Punya and Papa, from a philosophical standpoint, is ultimately meaningless as both stem from ignorance and attachment-displeasure, making them essentially Adharma. This school was focused on individual development rather than social order.

When this school accepted the cessation of Karma and Moksha as a goal, they also had to consider the causes that eradicate Karma and lead to Moksha. These causes became their Nivartak Dharma. The direction of Pravartak Dharma and Nivartak Dharma is completely opposite. The former aims to establish social order, while the latter seeks the attainment of ultimate, complete happiness, being purely self-directed. Nivartak Dharma is known by names like Sraman, Parivrajak, Tapasvi, and Yogmarg. Since the activity of Karma is due to ignorance and attachment-displeasure, their complete cessation is achieved through Right Knowledge (Samyak Jnana), which counteracts ignorance, and Self-Control (Sanyam), which counteracts attachment-displeasure. Practices like austerity, meditation, and devotion are considered aids to knowledge and self-control.

Thought and Scholars of Karmatattva: The Nivartak-dharmavadis extensively contemplated the nature of Moksha and its means. They also meticulously developed the terminology and definitions of Karma, classifying Karmatattva from the perspective of cause and effect, analyzing the potency of Karma to yield results, considering different timelines for fruition, and examining the interrelationships between Karmas. This led to the development of a sophisticated science of Karma, which continued to evolve with new questions and answers. While different factions within the Nivartak-dharmavadi school held diverse views, their common goal of refuting the Pravartak-dharmavadi perspective fostered intellectual exchange and consensus.

This explains why, despite the growing divergence between philosophical schools (like Nyaya-Vaisheshika, Sankhya-Yoga, Jainism, and Buddhism) in later periods, their karmic literature shows significant similarities in terminology, concepts, and classification, both linguistically and semantically.

The Challenge of Eradicating Karma: A significant challenge for the Moksha-seekers was how to completely destroy the accumulated past Karmas, which are infinite, and the continuous new Karmas being bound. The Moksha-seekers found a clever solution to this problem, as described in both concise and detailed forms in the literature of these self-renouncing philosophies. This suggests active intellectual exchange among them. While these schools remained close for a long time, they eventually diverged. Nevertheless, each school continued its contemplation of Karma. Eventually, a specific group of karmic thinkers emerged within the Nivartak-dharmavadi school, who focused deeply on Karma, making its study and teaching their primary pursuit, much like specialized groups in other subjects. These scholars are known as Karmashastra-anuyogadhar or Karma-siddhanta-neta in Jainism.

Antiquity and Universality of Karmatattva Discussion: While most Moksha-seekers generally agree on the causes of karmic bondage and its remedies, the specific nature of Karma as conceived by these specialized thinkers is important. Schools like Vaisheshika, which believed in atoms, considered Karma to reside in consciousness and be a property of consciousness. The Sankhya-Yoga school, being nature-centric, regarded Karma as residing in the internal organs (antahkaran) and being inert. However, Jain thinkers, who considered both the soul and atoms to be subject to transformation, uniquely viewed Karma as an outcome of both consciousness and inert matter, thus being of a dual nature. According to them, the soul, while conscious, is capable of expansion and contraction like Sankhya's nature-generated antahkaran, allowing for karmic modifications. It can also integrate with inert atoms. Vaisheshika and others saw Karma as distinct from consciousness because it is conscious. Sankhya, however, saw it as a property of nature, thus distinct from inert matter. Jain thinkers, however, believe that Karmatattva manifests as both conscious and inert, which they also refer to as Bhava Karma (affective Karma) and Dravya Karma (material Karma).

This entire process of Karma is ancient, originating from a period of significant intellectual exchange among karmic thinkers. While the exact antiquity is uncertain, the long-standing position of karmic studies within Jain philosophy, the depth of thought, systematic approach, and extraordinary subtle descriptions suggest that Jain karmic science was well-established before the time of Lord Parshvanatha. Scholars of this science were known as Karmashastra-vedattas, and this knowledge was later known as the Agrayaniya Purva and Karmapravada Purva. Historically, the term "Purva" refers to scriptures that existed before Lord Mahavir. These "Pujrvas" undoubtedly existed in some form even before Lord Parshvanatha. While Jain thinkers paid great attention to Karmatattva, Sankhya-Yoga focused more on the path of meditation. Later, when Lord Buddha appeared, he also emphasized meditation. However, all preserved the inherited wisdom of karmic thought. Therefore, despite its extraordinary position in terms of subtlety and detail, Jain karmic science shares significant similarities and fundamental unity with the karmic thought of Sankhya-Yoga, Buddhism, and other philosophies, which is noteworthy for students of karmic science.

Jain and Other Philosophies' Views on God and Karma: Karmavadis believe that various states of life—happiness and sorrow, prosperity and adversity, high and low—are influenced by factors like time, nature, and human effort, with Karma also being a significant cause. However, like other philosophies, the Karma-centric Jain philosophy does not consider God as the cause of these states or the creation of the universe. Other philosophies believe the universe had a beginning and thus associate God with its creation. Nyaya philosophy states that the fruits of good and bad actions are received through God's inspiration. Vaisheshika describes God as the creator of the universe. Yoga philosophy considers God as the overseer through whom nature evolves and the material world expands. Shankaracharya, in his commentary on the Brahmasutras, based on the Upanishads, repeatedly establishes Brahman as the material cause of creation.

However, Jain philosophy does not consider God to be the director of Karma or the bestower of its fruits. This is because the Karmavadi believes that just as the soul is independent in performing Karma, it is also independent in experiencing its fruits. Similarly, Jain philosophy does not consider God as the overseer of creation because, in its belief, the universe is eternal and infinite, having never been created, and being inherently transformative, it does not require God's oversight.

Why is God Not the Creator or Bestower of Karmic Fruits? The text argues that the world has not been newly created; it has always existed, undergoing continuous changes. Some changes are influenced by the efforts of living beings like humans, while others occur spontaneously due to the combination of inert elements and their inherent energies (heat, momentum, etc.). For instance, scattered soil and stones can form hills and mountains, water flows merge to form rivers, and steam condenses into water, and water evaporates into steam. Therefore, there is no need to consider God as the creator of the universe.

Just as a being acts, it receives the fruit through Karma. Karma is inert, and a being does not desire to suffer the consequences of its own bad deeds. However, it is crucial to understand that through the interaction of inert Karma with conscious souls, Karma acquires the power to manifest its good or bad results to the soul at the appointed time. Karmavada does not assert that inert Karma can yield results without the contact of consciousness. It merely states that God's conscious inspiration is not needed for Karma to yield fruits, as all beings are conscious. They develop their intellect according to their actions, and even if they do not desire the fruits of their Karma, they perform actions that lead to the appropriate karmic results. Performing an action is one thing, and not desiring its fruit is another. The mere absence of desire does not stop the fruit of an action from manifesting. Once the ingredients are gathered, the action naturally occurs. For example, if a person stands in the sun, eats hot food, and wishes not to feel thirsty, their thirst cannot be prevented. Proponents of God as creator argue that Karma, inspired by God's will, manifests its fruits in beings. In response, Karmavadis state that when performing an action, the soul's resulting impressions (samskaras) arise in such a way that the performer (the soul) automatically experiences the fruits of their Karma, and Karma itself manifests its results upon them.

The Indivisible Relationship Between Soul and God: The text explores the relationship between the soul and God. Both are conscious. What is the difference then? The difference might be that the soul's powers are veiled, while God's are not. However, when the soul removes its veils, all its powers are fully manifested. Then, what is the disparity between the soul and God? If the disparity arising from incidental Karma is removed, what meaning is left for liberation? The reign of disparity is confined to the cycle of existence (samsara) and does not extend beyond. Therefore, according to Karmavada, it is valid to believe that all liberated souls are God. To assert that there must be only one God based solely on faith is not correct.

The Source of One's Own Suffering: When a person engages in any activity related to this world or the next, they are bound to encounter obstacles. A person must have the conviction that, whether they know it or not, the internal and fundamental cause of their obstacles lies within them. The seed of the tree of obstacles that sprouts on the internal ground must have been sown in that very soil. While external factors like wind and water might play a role in nurturing these obstacles, the individual is not the seed of the obstacle. This conviction steadies human intellectual vision, enabling them to find the root cause of difficulties within themselves, thus preventing them from blaming others or becoming agitated.

Dr. Max Müller's Opinion on the Doctrine of Karma: Dr. Max Müller's views on the doctrine of Karma are highlighted for their excellence. He states that the influence of the doctrine of Karma on human life is immeasurable. If a person knows that the suffering they endure in their current life, even without committing any offenses in this life, is the result of their past karmic actions, they will patiently bear the hardship, like someone settling an old debt. Furthermore, if they also know that endurance can clear past debts and accumulate merit for the future, they will naturally be motivated to follow the path of righteousness. Good or bad, no action is ever lost; this principle of the Dharma Shastras is similar to the law of conservation of energy in physics. The essence of both principles is that nothing is ever lost. Regardless of any doubts about the existence of any religious teaching, it is certain that the doctrine of Karma is the most widely accepted. It has alleviated the suffering of millions and provides the impetus for enduring present difficulties and improving future lives.

Karmashastra as a Part of Metaphysics: Metaphysics aims to study subjects related to the soul. Therefore, before describing the ultimate nature of the soul, it must also explain its practical nature. The question arises: why are the visible states of the soul not its inherent nature? Thus, it is necessary for metaphysics to first explain how the visible form of the soul is supported, and then proceed further. This is precisely what karmashastra accomplishes. By calling all visible states of the soul as karma-generated, it indicates the soul's distinctness from them. From this perspective, karmashastra is a part of metaphysics.

When it is understood that all the aforementioned forms are illusory or ephemeral, the natural curiosity arises: what is the true nature of the soul? Karmashastra states that the soul is the Supreme Soul; the individual soul is God. The merging of the soul into the Supreme Soul means manifesting its inherent Supreme Soul nature, which is veiled by Karma. That the individual soul is a part of the Supreme Soul, from the perspective of karmashastra, means that the knowledge manifested in the soul is merely a fraction of the complete but unmanifest (veiled) moonlight of consciousness. When the veil of Karma is removed, consciousness manifests fully. This is to be understood as achieving the state of Godhood or divinity.

Attributing one's soul to external possessions like wealth or the body, or believing oneself to be identical with the body, is an external perspective. Karmashastra aims to prove this misconception of non-difference as bahirātmabhava (external soul-consciousness) and advises its abandonment. While those whose souls have become entirely consumed by external consciousness might not appreciate the teachings of karmashastra, this does not diminish its validity.

Karmashastra dispels the illusion of non-difference between the body and the soul, revealing the knowledge of their difference (vivekakhyāti). From this point, inner sight opens, revealing the Supreme Soul nature within. To behold and fully experience this Supreme Soul nature is the true state of the soul becoming Shiva (Brahman). Karmashastra, in a unique way, takes on the task of manifesting this Brahman-consciousness. It guides the soul from the illusion of identity with inert matter to the knowledge of their difference, and then leads it towards the higher state of natural non-dual meditation. This is its scope. Concurrently, it also encompasses the primary subject matter of Yoga Shastra. Therefore, it is clear that karmashastra is a mine of many philosophical insights, and therein lies its significance. Many individuals are not interested in it due to the calculation and multitude of karmic natures, but what fault does karmashastra have in this? Just as the ordinary person's vision does not penetrate or find interest in profound and fascinating subjects like mathematics or physics, what fault do these subjects have? The fault lies with the intellect of the understanding. Any subject becomes interesting to a student only when they delve into its depths.

Meaning of the Word "Karma" and Some Synonyms: In Jain scriptures, the word "Karma" has two meanings:

Raga-dveshatmak parinam (Attachment-displeasure-oriented manifestation): This is referred to as Kashaya (affective Karma).
Kaal-utpanna pudgal-vishesh (Material particles produced by time): These are substances attached to the soul due to Kashaya and are called Dravya Karma (material Karma).

For the meaning of "Karma" or related concepts used in Jain philosophy, other traditions use words like Maya, Avidya, Prakriti, Apurva, Vasana, Ashaya, Dharmadharm, Adrishta, Samskara, Daiva, Bhagya, etc. Maya, Avidya, and Prakriti are found in Vedanta and have meanings similar to Jainism's "Bhava Karma." Apurva is found in Mimansa philosophy. Vasana is prominent in Buddhist philosophy but is also used in Vedic philosophy. Dharmadharm, Adrishta, and Samskara are used in other philosophies, particularly Nyaya and Vaisheshika. Words like Daiva, Bhagya, Punya-Papa, etc., are common across many philosophies. All philosophies that are "atmavadi" (believe in the soul) and accept reincarnation must accept Karma to support the doctrine of rebirth.

The Nature of Karma: The activity undertaken by the soul, driven by causes like Mithyatva (false belief), Kashaya, etc., is called "Karma." This definition applies to both Bhava Karma and Dravya Karma. Bhava Karma is an outcome of the soul or life, making the soul its material cause (upadan karta). Dravya Karma, which is a modification of karmic particles, has the soul as its instrumental cause (nimitta). In Bhava Karma, Dravya Karma is instrumental, and in Dravya Karma, Bhava Karma is instrumental. In this way, both have a cause-and-effect relationship, like a seed and a sprout.

The Criterion of Punya and Papa (Merit and Demerit): Commonly, it is believed that performing actions like charity, worship, and service leads to the accumulation of good Karma (Punya), and causing distress to others or acting against their wishes leads to bad Karma (Papa). However, this is not the primary criterion for determining Punya and Papa. A benevolent doctor performing surgery causes the patient pain, and caring parents trying to educate an uncomprehending child against their will can cause the child distress. Yet, this alone does not make the doctor unjust or the parents blameworthy. Conversely, if someone performs charity or worship with the intention of deceiving people or for other base motives, they accumulate Papa instead of Punya. Therefore, the true criterion for accumulating Punya or Papa is not merely the outward action but the intention of the doer. This criterion of Punya-Papa is generally accepted by all because the principle "Yadṛśī bhāvanā yasya siddhirbhavati tādṛśī" (As is the contemplation, so is the achievement) is universally recognized.

True Detachment - When Karma Does Not Bind: Common people assume that by not performing certain actions, they will not be affected by Punya-Papa. Therefore, they abandon those actions, but often their mental activity continues. Consequently, those who desire to remain unaffected by Punya-Papa, despite their desire, cannot free themselves. Therefore, one must consider what true detachment means. Mental disturbance, i.e., Kashaya, is called binding (bandha). Any action that does not involve Kashaya cannot bind the soul. Conversely, if the force of Kashaya is present within, no matter how much one tries externally, they cannot escape bondage. The Vitaraga (free from attachment) remains detached everywhere, like a lotus in water, but the soul afflicted by Kashaya, even with outward show, cannot achieve even a particle of purity. This is why it is said that actions performed without attachment do not bind. This means that true detachment lies in the renunciation of mental agitation. This is the teaching found in karmashastra, and elsewhere it is stated: "Man eva manushyanam karanam bandhamokshayoh" (The mind alone is the cause of bondage and liberation for humans).

The Primordial Nature of Karma: A thoughtful person might ask whether Karma is beginningless or has a beginning. In response, Jain philosophy states that Karma is beginningful (sādi) from the perspective of an individual action and beginningless (anādi) from the perspective of its continuous flow. However, it is impossible to pinpoint when the flow of Karma began. The depth of the past is infinite compared to the future, and the infinite can only be described as beginningless or endless. Therefore, there is no alternative but to call the flow of Karma beginningless. All established philosophies accept the beginningless nature of the karmic flow and the fact that liberated souls do not return to samsara.

Causes of Karmic Bondage: In Jain philosophy, Mithyatva (false belief), Avirati (non-restraint), Kashaya (passions), and Yoga (activity) are considered the causes of karmic bondage. A more concise view combines the last two (Kashaya and Yoga) as causes. Even more concisely, it can be said that Kashaya is the cause of karmic bondage. While there are many types of modifications of consciousness, spiritual scholars have classified them into two main categories: Raga (attachment) and Dvesha (aversion). Causes like Agnan (ignorance) and Mithyajnan (wrong knowledge) are also related to Raga and Dvesha. If the intensity of Raga or Dvesha increases, knowledge starts to change in a contrary manner. Therefore, despite differences in terminology, Jain philosophy has no disagreement with other theistic philosophies regarding the causes of karmic bondage. Nyaya and Vaisheshika consider Mithyajnan as the cause, Yoga considers the non-discrimination between Prakriti and Purusha, Vedanta considers Avidya, and Jainism considers Mithyatva as the cause of Karma. However, it is important to remember that whatever is considered the cause of Karma, if it has the capacity to induce karmic binding (karmaleap), it is due to its association with Raga-Dvesha. As Raga or Dvesha decreases or vanishes, ignorance (Mithyatva) also appears to lessen or disappear. The statement "Na vartate tu" in the Shanti Parva of the Mahabharata also implies that the word "Raga" here refers to Raga-Dvesha.

Remedies for Liberation from Karma: Jain scriptures prescribe three means to achieve the ultimate human endeavor, Moksha: (1) Samyakdarshan (Right Faith/Perception), (2) Samyakjnana (Right Knowledge), and (3) Samyakcharitra (Right Conduct). In some places, knowledge and action are stated as the means to Moksha. In such instances, Darshan is considered as a form of knowledge itself, a specific aspect of knowledge, and not counted separately. However, the question arises: why do Vedic philosophies consider Karma, Jnana, Yoga, and Bhakti as means to Moksha, while Jainism prescribes only three or two means? The explanation is that Samyakcharitra, as stated in Jainism, encompasses both the path of Karma and the path of Yoga. This is because Samyakcharitra includes control of the mind, conquest of the senses, purification of the mind, equanimity, and the means adopted for these. Control of the mind, conquest of the senses, etc., are sattvic yajnas and constitute the Karmamarga. Purification of the mind and the activities undertaken for it constitute the Yogamarga. Thus, Samyakcharitra is a mixture of Karmamarga and Yogamarga. Samyakdarshan is the Bhaktimarga because faith is a key element in devotion, and Samyakdarshan is also in the nature of faith. Samyakjnana is the Jnanmarga. Therefore, the three means to Moksha prescribed in Jain philosophy are a synthesis of all the means mentioned in other philosophies.

The Independent Existence of the Soul and Rebirth: The preceding discussion on Karma is consistent only if the soul is considered a distinct entity from inert matter. The independent existence of the soul can be understood in a way that includes rebirth. Moreover, without assuming the soul's existence after the current body, many questions remain unresolved.

Many people lead honest lives in this birth but remain poor. Conversely, some individuals who despise justice, ethics, and religion are extremely happy in all respects. One can find many instances where someone commits a sin, and someone else suffers the consequences of that offense. One person commits murder, and another is hanged. One person commits theft, and another is caught. From this, it must be considered: will the actions of those whose consequences are not experienced in this life, whether good or bad, be rendered futile? Considering all these factors, it is impossible not to believe that consciousness is an independent entity, and whatever good or bad actions it performs, knowingly or unknowingly, it must experience the fruits thereof. Consequently, it must revolve in the cycle of rebirth. Lord Buddha also believed in rebirth. The staunch atheist German scholar Nietzsche also accepts rebirth as propounded by the cycle of Karma. This acceptance of rebirth is strong evidence for the belief in the independent existence of the soul.

Specialty of Jain Philosophy Regarding Karmatattva: Jain philosophy posits three states for every Karma: binding (bandhyaman), existing (satta), and emerging (udayaman), which are respectively called Bandha, Satta, and Udaya. Other philosophies also describe these states of Karma. They refer to "bandhyaman" Karma as "kriyamana," "satta" Karma as "sanchita," and "udayaman" Karma as "prarabdha." However, Jain scriptures classify Karma into 8 primary types (like Jnanavaraniya, etc.) and 148 sub-types. The explanation provided for the diverse experiential states of the soul in samsara through this classification is unparalleled in any other philosophy. Patanjali Yoga philosophy describes three types of karmic fruition: "jati" (species), "ayu" (lifespan), and "bhog" (experience). However, this description pales in comparison to the detailed analysis of Karma in Jain philosophy.

How is Karma Bound to the Soul? What are its Causes? The text poses numerous intricate questions about Karma, such as: How is Karma bound to the soul? What are its causes? What powers are generated in Karma due to which causes? For how long at most and at least does Karma adhere to the soul? For how long is Karma unable to yield its fruition? Can the predetermined time of fruition be altered? When does one Karma transform into another? How can the intensity or mildness of their binding power change? When can Karma that is destined to yield fruit later be experienced earlier? No matter how powerful Karma may be, how can the soul's pure transformations prevent its fruition? Sometimes, despite hundreds of efforts by the soul, why does Karma not release it without yielding its fruits? How is the soul the doer and enjoyer of Karma? Despite this, in reality, how does the soul not possess the doership and enjoyership of Karma? How does a modification of anuglesh-type result in a subtle layer of dust upon the soul due to its attractive power? How does the soul, by manifesting its inherent strength (virya-shakti), dispel this subtle layer of dust? How does the soul, though inherently pure, appear soiled due to the influence of Karma? And despite thousands of external coverings, how does the soul remain unwavering in its pure form? How does it remove the intensely binding Karmas that were accumulated earlier during its evolution? When the soul becomes eager to behold the Supreme Soul residing within its temple, what occurs between it and the obstructing Karmas? Finally, through what types of transformations does the strong soul weaken powerful Karmas and make its progress unobstructed? What is the nature of the results that assist in the realization of the Supreme Soul residing in the temple of the soul, referred to as "Apuryvakaran" and "Anivrittikaran"? How does the soul, through the chain of its pure transformations, which is like an electric machine, shatter mountains of Karma into pieces? Furthermore, why do Karmas that are temporarily suppressed sometimes resurface and push the progressing soul down? From the perspective of binding and fruition, which Karmas are mutually opposed? Under which conditions is the binding of Karma inevitable, and under which is it uncertain? To what extent is the fruition of Karma determined, and to what extent is it uncertain? With what kind of attractive force does the incorporeal kingdom of Karma, attached to the soul, attract pudgals, and through this, how does it create the formation of the body, mind, subtle body, etc.? These and many other questions related to Karma are answered logically, extensively, and lucidly only in Jain karmic scriptures, and not in the literature of any other philosophy. This is the specialty of Jain philosophy regarding Karmatattva.