by Helen M. Johnson | 1931 | 742,503 words
This page describes Sermon on samya which is the fifteenth part of chapter VI of the English translation of the Shri Mallinatha-caritra, contained within the “Trishashti Shalaka Purusha Caritra”: a massive Jain narrative relgious text composed by Hemacandra in the 12th century. Shri Mallinatha in jainism is one of the 63 illustrious beings or worthy persons.
“The boundless ocean of worldly existence grows of itself very much from love, et cetera, like the ocean from the day of full moon. The dirt of love and hate is destroyed at once for men who plunge into the water of tranquillity which produces great joy. Men who have adopted tranquillity destroy karma in half a moment which they would not destroy by severe penance in crores of births. The monk, who has complete understanding of the soul comprehended, divides karma and the soul, which are joined, by the splinter of tranquillity. When the destruction of the darkness of love, et cetera has been made by the rays of tranquillity, yogis see the true nature of the supreme soul in themselves.
By the power of the monk who possesses tranquillity even for his own sake, creatures who have always been hostile to each other become affectionate. Tranquillity is said to exist on the part of one whose mind is not confused by intelligent and unintelligent behavior intent upon the condition of being loved or not loved. It is the highest tranquillity when the state of mind is unaltered if the hands are anointed with sandal or cut with a knife. He is immersed in tranquillity whose mind does not distinguish between a friend who praises and one blind with anger who reviles.
Nothing is sacrificed; no prayers are whispered; nothing is given; emancipation is bought without money, indeed, by tranquillity alone. Enough of love, et cetera attracted with effort, made to suffer, served. Tranquillity, which is to be won without effort, gentle, producing bliss, must be followed. Heaven and emancipation may be denied by rejecting invisible objects. Even an atheist does not deny the delight of tranquillity which is visible. Is there bewilderment at the nectar popular in poetical works? The nectar that is visible, look you! the elixir of tranquillity, must be drunk. Even the monks, who are averse to the flavors of things to be eaten, to be licked, to be sucked, to be drunk, frequently drink the nectar of tranquillity voluntarily. He is lord of tranquillity to whom a serpent falling on his neck is not a matter for displeasure, nor a wreath a matter of pleasure. There is nothing abstruse and no other summary of a teacher. Tranquillity alone is the cure for the disease of existence for those of simple, pure intelligence. There are very cruel acts of yogis with suppressed passions since they destroy the categories of love, et cetera, with the went on of tranquillity. Let this supreme power of tranquillity be admitted: its drinkers reach an immortal abode in half a minute. Hail to powerful tranquillity. If it is present, the three jewels bear fruit; if absent, they do not bear fruit. Even in a multitude of calamities, even when death is present, there is no better expedient suited to that time than tranquillity. Therefore, tranquillity, the only seed of the tree of emancipation, giving wonderful delight here, must be striven for by the one seeking victory over love and hate.”
From that sermon the six other kings became mendicants, and then Kumbha and others became laymen. There were twenty-eight gaṇabhṛts, Bhiṣaj and others, and at the end of the Blessed One’s sermon the gaṇabhṛt delivered a sermon. On the next day in the same grove Lord Malli broke her fast with rice-pudding from King Viśvasena. The gods, Indra and the others, and the kings, Kumbha and the others, bowed at Malli’s feet and went to their respective abodes.
Footnotes and references:
Lehya, such as syrup; cūṣya, such as sugar-cane.
The printed text reads: na gūḍhaṃ kiṃcanāvāryamuṣṭiḥ kācinna vāparā. This seems to me very unsatisfactory. If °āvāryamuṣṭi is taken to be ‘concealing fist,’ i.e., something like an ‘iron curtain,’ I can not see the point to aparā. In the com. to Yogaśāstra 4. 54 there is a quotation (?) of these ślokas. Here °ācāryamuṣṭih..... cāparā is the text. While c or v in MSS can have little weight one way or the other, I think this reading is better, though two Indian Sanskritists prefer the Triṣaṣṭi0 text reading. If °āvāryamuṣṭi is retained, I would prefer to take it as avāryamuṣṭi, ‘irresistible fist.’ My Triṣaṣṭi0 MSS could be either; but one MS of the Yogaśāstra which I consulted has °ācārya° unmistakably. I would interpret ācāryamuṣṭi as upadeśasaṃkṣepa. Sāmya is the sum and substance of teaching and there is no other. This exaggeration occurs in many of the sermons with reference to the subject-matter of a particular sermon.
I think pāpinaḥ should undoubtedly be corrected to pāyinaḥ, though the Yogaśāstra in the passage mentioned above also reads pāpinaḥ. The MSS of the Yoga0 and the Triṣaṣṭi0 are no help. It might be p or y in them all. Throughout the sermon samatva has been treated as a liquid and I think the context clearly requires pāyinaḥ. The icchati of the text is unintelligible. My MSS have the impossible ivrate. I owe the correction to iyrate to Muni Puṇyavijayaji. This is supported by the Yogaśāstra, ibid.