Jethalal S. Zaveri
Prof. Muni Mahendra Kumar
vavahārassa darῑsaṇamuvadeso vaṇṇido jiṇavarehiṃ.
jῑvā ede savve ajjhavasāṇādao bhāvā.. 8
rāyā hu ṇiggado tti ya eso balasamudayassa ādeso.
vavahāreṇa du vuccadi tatthekko ṇiggado rāyā.. 9
emeva ya vavahāro ajjhavasāṇādiaṇṇabhāvāṇaṃ.
jῑvo tti kado sutte tatthekko ṇicchido jῑvo.. 10
(Ede savve) All these (ajjhavasāṇādāo bhāvā) emotional affections (jῑva) are psychological (i.e. determined by the soul)-(jiṇavarehiṃ uvadeso vaṇṇido) this is proclaimed by the omniscient Jinendra Deva (vavahārassa darῑsaṇaṃ) from the empirical aspect of the soul.
(Balasamudayassa rāyā khu ṇiggado) On seeing the royal procession of the king's retinue, it is stated that the king has come, (tti ya ādeso vavahāreṇa du vuccadi) and such a statement is made (and understood) conventionally/empirically because (tattha ekko rāyā) in reality there is only one king and he is different from his retinue.
(Emeva ya) similarly, (ajjhavasāṇi aṇṇa bhāveṇaṃ sutte jῑvo tti) the statement in the scriptures that emotional & mental states are psychological [i.e., determined by the soul] (vavahāro kado) is made from the empirical aspect only, (tattha ṇicchido jῑvo ekko) but transcendentally the soul is different from them.
Annotations:
By the above verses, Ācārya Kundakunda hastens to explain the statements regarding soul (jῑva) made in the preceding verses with the help of a simple analogy. It will be recalled that the preceding verses have categorically rejected as false, various conceptions and beliefs which depicted psychologically changes and modifications as soul. The conceptions were made to be absolute and not qualified. Now the author concedes that psychological changes and the like can be compared to the retinue of the king and conventionally the appearance of the retinue heralds the arrival of and presence of the king. However, just as in reality the king himself is a singularity (his royal highness has royal blue blood flowing through his veins) among the multiplicity of retinue, the soul is a singularity and the psychological states in the organism constitute the retinue, and therefore, transcendentally cannot be accepted as the king. However, it is perfectly legitimate to qualify the retinue "as the king" as a popular convention. Thus the popular or conventional view to regard the royal retinue as the king is neither wholly true nor wholly false. A popular view is to be understood as a conventional view only and not as the ultimate truth.
