Lesya – Colouring of the Soul
According to the Jain theory of karma, the karmic matter imparts a colour (leśyā) to the soul, depending on the mental activities behind an action. The coloring of the soul is explained through the analogy of crystal, that acquires the color of the matter associated with it. In the same way, the soul also reflects the qualities of taste, smell and touch of associated karmic matter, although it is usually the colour that is referred to when discussing the leśyās.[35] Uttarādhyayana-sūtra 34.3 speaks of six main categories of leśyā represented by six colours: black, blue, grey, yellow, red and white. The black, blue and grey are inauspicious leśyā, leading to the soul being born into misfortunes. The yellow, red and white are auspicious leśyās, that lead to the soul being born into good fortune. Uttarādhyayana-sūtra describes the mental disposition of persons having black and white leśyās.
The Jain texts further illustrate the effects of leśyās on the mental dispositions of a soul, using an example of the reactions of six travellers on seeing a fruit-bearing tree. They see a tree laden with fruits and begin to think of getting those fruits: one of them suggests uprooting the entire tree and eating the fruit; the second one suggests cutting the trunk of the tree; the third one suggests simply cutting the branches; the fourth one suggests cutting the twigs and sparing the branches and the tree; the fifth one suggests plucking only the fruits; the sixth one suggests picking up only the fruits that have fallen down. The thoughts, words and bodily activities of each of these six travellers are different based on their mental dispositions and are respectively illustrative of the six leśyās. At one extreme, the person with the black leśyā, having evil disposition, thinks of uprooting the whole tree even though he wants to eat only one fruit. At the other extreme, the person with the white leśyā, having a pure disposition, thinks of picking up the fallen fruit, in order to spare the tree.
Role of deeds and intent
The role of intent is one of the most important and definitive elements of the karma theory, in all its traditions. In Jainism, intent is important but not an essential precondition of sin or wrong conduct. Evil intent forms only one of the modes of committing sin. Any action committed, knowingly or unknowingly, has karmic repercussions. In certain philosophies, like Buddhism, a person is guilty of violence only if he had an intention to commit violence. On the other hand, according to Jains, if an act produces violence, then the person is guilty of it, whether or not he had an intention to commit it.
John Koller explains the role of intent in Jainism with the example of a monk, who unknowingly offered poisoned food to his brethren. According to the Jain view, the monk is guilty of a violent act if the other monks die because they eat the poisoned food; but according to the Buddhist view he would not be guilty. The crucial difference between the two views is that the Buddhist view excuses the act, categorizing it as non-intentional, since he was not aware that the food was poisoned; whereas the Jain view holds the monk to have been responsible, due to his ignorance and carelessness. Jains argue that the monk’s very ignorance and carelessness constitute an intent to do violence and hence entail his guilt. So the absence of intent does not absolve a person from the karmic consequences of guilt either, according to the Jain analysis.
Intent is a function of kaṣāya, which refers to negative emotions and negative qualities of mental (or deliberative) action. The presence of intent acts as an aggravating factor, increasing the vibrations of the soul, which results in the soul absorbing more karma. This is explained by Tattvārthasūtra 6.7: “[The] intentional act produces a strong karmic bondage and [the] unintentional produces weak, shortlived karmic bondage.” Similarly, the physical act is also not a necessary condition for karma to bind to the soul: the existence of intent alone is sufficient. This is explained by Kundakunda (1st Century CE) in Samayasāra 262–263: “The intent to kill, to steal, to be unchaste and to acquire property, whether these offences are actually carried or not, leads to bondage of evil karmas.” Jainism thus places an equal emphasis on the physical act as well as intent for binding of karmas.
Origins and influence
Although the doctrine of karma is central to all Indian religions, it is difficult to say when and where in India the concept of karma originated. In Jainism, it is assumed its development took place in an era from which the literary documents are not available, since the basics of this doctrine were present and concluded even in the earliest documents of Jains. Acaranga Sutra and Sutrakritanga, contain a general outline of the doctrines of karma and reincarnation. The roots of this doctrine in Jainism might be in the teachings of Parsva, who is said to have lived about two hundred fifty years before Mahavira The Jain conception of karma—as something material that encumbers the soul—has an archaic nature which justifies the hypothesis that it goes back to 8th or 9th century BCE.
The present form of the doctrine seems to be unchanged at least since the time of Bhadrabahu (c. 300 BCE) who is respected by both the sects. This is supported by the fact that both Svetambara and Digambara sects agree on the basic doctrine, giving indication that it reached in its present form before the schism took place. Bhadrabahu is usually seen as the last leader of united Jain sangh. Detailed codification of types of karma and their effects were attested by Umasvati who is regarded by both Digambara and Svetambara as one of theirs.
..To be continued in Part 8
Feature Image Credit: wikipedia.org
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.
