Verse 8.6 - The five kinds of knowledge-obscuring karma (jñānāvaraṇa)

Sanskrit text, Unicode transliteration and English translation of Tattvartha sūtra 8.6:

मतिश्रुतावधिमनःपर्ययकेवलानाम् ॥ ८.६ ॥

matiśrutāvadhimanaḥparyayakevalānām || 8.6 ||

The five kinds of knowledge-covering (jñānāvaraṇa) karma are those which obscure 1) sensory-knowledge (matijñāna), 2) scriptural-knowledge (śrutajñāna), 3) clairvoyance (avadhijñāna), 4) telepathy (manaḥparyaya-jñāna) and 5) omniscience (kevalajñāna). (6)

Hindi Anvayarth:

अन्वयार्थ: [मतिश्रुतावधिमनःपर्ययकेवलानाम्] मतिज्ञानावरण, श्रुतज्ञानावरण, अवधिज्ञानावरण, मनःपर्ययज्ञानावरण और केवलज्ञानावरण, ये ज्ञानावरण कर्म के पाँच भेद हैं।

Anvayartha: [matishrutavadhimanahparyayakevalanam] matijnanavarana, shrutajnanavarana, avadhijnanavarana, manahparyayajnanavarana aura kevalajnanavarana, ye jnanavarana karma ke pamca bheda haim |

Explanation in English from Ācārya Pūjyapāda’s Sarvārthasiddhi:

What are the five kinds of knowledge-obscuring (jñānāvaraṇa) karma?

The kinds of knowledge such as sensory-knowledge (matijñāna) have been explained. Those which cover these are the five subdivisions of knowledge-obscuring (jñānāvaraṇa) karmas. A question is raised. Is the soul of an ‘abhavya’ (one who is incapable of attaining liberation) endowed with the capacity for telepathy (manaḥparyayajñāna) and omniscience (kevalajñāna)? If the answer is in the affirmative, he is not an ‘abhavya’. If it is in the negative, it is unnecessary to invent the two karmas, namely, telepathy-obscuring and omniscience-obscuring. The answer is that from the point of view of the substance–dravyārthika naya–the faculties of telepathy and perfect-knowledge are present in the ‘abhavya’. From the point of view of the modes–paryāyārthika naya–the faculties of telepathy and perfect-knowledge, are not present in the ‘abhavya’. If it is so, the distinction between ‘bhavya’ and ‘abhavya’ is improper as both have the inherent capacity of telepathy and perfect-knowledge. No. The distinction between ‘bhavya’ and ‘abhavya’ is not based on the presence or absence of the capacities. In that case how is the distinction made? The distinction is made on the basis whether there would be manifestation or not of these capacities. That individual is a ‘bhavya’ in whom there will be manifestation of right faith, right knowledge and right conduct. He, in whom there will be no such manifestation, is an ‘abhavya’. Illustration is given of ‘kanakapāṣāṇa’ and ‘andhapāṣāṇa’. Both inherently have gold; from the former it is possible to extract gold through processing but from the latter it is not possible to do so.^[1]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Acarya Samantabhadra has provided another illustration: “These, purity (śuddhi) and impurity (aśuddhi), are two kinds of power akin to the cookability (pākya) or the non-cookability (apākya) of a cereal (viz. beans like uḍada and mūṅga). The manifestation of purity (in a soul) has a beginning while the manifestation of impurity is beginningless. And, being (the soul’s) own-nature (svabhāva), it is not open to logical argument (tarka).” (see ‘Āptamīmāṃsā’, verse 100.)