Stations of Negligence (प्रमादस्थान)

अच्छंतकालस्स समूलगस्स, सव्वस्स दुक्खस्स उ जो पमोक्खो ।
तं भासओ मे पडिपुण्णचित्ता, सुणेह एगंतिहयं हियत्थं ॥३२.१॥

O noble beings! Listen with complete, concentrated attention to this singular beneficial teaching I am about to declare — the means for complete liberation from all suffering along with its roots, which has continued since beginningless time.

Lord Mahāvīra opens this chapter by calling the aspirant to full attention. The teaching he is about to give is not partial advice — it addresses the complete liberation from all suffering at its root. The word egantihayam means "singularly beneficial" — pointing beyond relative goods to the one path that leads unconditionally to liberation.

The simple version: Pay complete attention — what follows is the one teaching that cuts suffering at its root.

णाणस्स सव्वस्स पगासणाए, अण्णाण मोहस्स विवज्जणाए ।
रागस्स दोसस्स य संखएणं, एगंत सोक्खं समुवेइ मोक्खं ॥३२.२॥

Through the complete illumination of knowledge, through the abandonment of ignorance and delusion, and through the utter destruction of attachment and aversion — one attains liberation: the singular supreme bliss.

Three causes of liberation are given: (1) full illumination of knowledge — jñāna that reveals the nature of the self and reality; (2) abandonment of ignorance and moha — the root misperception that confuses self with non-self; (3) complete destruction of rāga and dvesha — the twin engines of karma accumulation. When all three are accomplished, moksha — ekānta-sukha, singular bliss — is attained.

The simple version: Knowledge + no-delusion + no-attachment/aversion = Liberation.

तस्सेसमग्गो गुरुविद्ध-सेवा, विवज्जणा बाल-जणस्स दूरा ।
सज्झाय-एगंत-णिसेवणा य, सुतत्थ-संचिंतणया धिढ़ई य ॥३२.३॥

The path to this liberation is: service to wise and elderly gurus; keeping far from the company of the ignorant; solitary, consistent scriptural study; and firm, constant contemplation of the meaning of scripture.

Four pillars of the path: (1) guru-sēvā — serving knowledgeable, senior teachers; this transmits lineage wisdom directly. (2) bāla-jana vivajjanā — distancing from the ignorant, whose worldly thinking corrupts the spiritual atmosphere. (3) svādhyāya ekānta-niṣēvanā — solitary, consistent study of scripture. (4) suta-artha-saṃcintanā — deep, persistent contemplation of what has been studied. Together they build the unshakeable conviction needed for liberation.

The simple version: Four foundations: serve wise teachers, avoid the ignorant, study alone, contemplate deeply.

आहारमिच्छे मियमेसिणजोग्गं, सहायमिच्छे णिउणत्थबुद्धिं ।
णिकेयमिच्छेज्ज विवेगजोग्गं, समाहिकामे समणे तवस्सी ॥३२.४॥

A tapasvi monk seeking samādhi should seek properly measured and appropriate food, a sharp-minded and capable companion, and a suitable secluded dwelling place.

Three requisites for a monk oriented toward samādhi: (1) measured, clean food — neither too much nor defiled, so the body does not distract the practice; (2) a wise, discerning companion — one who helps the practice rather than hindering it; (3) a secluded, suitable dwelling — free from disturbances. These three support the monk's inner life.

The simple version: A monk seeking inner peace needs measured food, a wise companion, and a solitary dwelling.

ण वा लभेज्ज णिउणं सहायं, गुणाहियं वा गुणओ समं वा ।
एक्को वि पावाइ विवज्जयंतो, विहरेज्ज कामेसु असज्जमाणो ॥३२.५॥

If a suitable companion of higher or equal virtues cannot be found, one should wander alone, abandoning sin and remaining completely unattached to sense pleasures.

When an ideal companion is unavailable, solitary wandering is better than bad company. The condition is clear: one must actively avoid sins (pāvāi vivajjayanto) and remain unattached to sense pleasures (kāmesu asajjamāno). The monk's inner strength must substitute for external support. This is ekala-vihāra — a recognized and honored mode of the Jain monastic path.

The simple version: No suitable companion? Wander alone — but never wander into sin or sense attachment.

जहा य अंडप्पभवा बालागा, अंड बालागप्पभवं जहा य ।
एमेव मोहायणं खु तण्हा, मोहं च तण्हायणं वयंति ॥३२.६॥

Just as cranes are born from eggs and eggs arise from cranes — so too, delusion is the birthplace of craving and craving is the birthplace of delusion; they perpetually generate each other.

This sutra presents the primordial feedback loop of suffering. Moha (delusion) generates tṛṣṇā (craving): delusion misidentifies the self with the world and thus desires what the world offers. Craving in turn feeds moha: chasing objects keeps one in the delusion that they can satisfy. Like eggs and birds, neither came first. The cycle is beginningless — which is why only a radical break (samyak-jñāna) can end it.

The simple version: Delusion breeds craving; craving breeds delusion. An ancient loop — only true knowledge breaks it.

रागो दोसो वि य कम्मीयं, कम्मं च मोहप्पभवं वयंति ।
कम्मं च जाईमरणस्स मूलं, दुक्खं च जाईमरणं वयंति ॥३२.७॥

Attachment and aversion are karma's seed; karma arises from delusion. Karma is the root of birth and death; birth and death are suffering — so the wise declare.

The causal chain is made explicit: moha → rāga-dvesha → karma → janma-maraṇa → dukha. Delusion is the seed; attachment and aversion are its flowering into karmic action; karma determines the cycle of births; births constitute suffering. There is no shortcut: the chain must be broken at its root — delusion — by right knowledge.

The simple version: Delusion → Attachment/Aversion → Karma → Birth-Death → Suffering. Break the chain at its root.

दुक्खं हयं जस्स ण होइ मोहो, मोहो हओ जस्स ण होइ तण्हा ।
तण्हा हया जस्स ण होइ लोहो, लोहो हओ जस्स ण किंचणाइ ॥३२.८॥

Suffering is destroyed for one without delusion; delusion is destroyed for one without craving; craving is destroyed for one without greed; greed is destroyed for one with no possessiveness — nothing to cling to.

The chain of liberation runs exactly backward through the chain of bondage. Each liberation is conditional: no possessiveness → no greed; no greed → no craving; no craving → no delusion; no delusion → no suffering. This is why Jain practice emphasizes aparigraha (non-possessiveness) so fundamentally — it is the first domino that, when removed, dismantles the entire architecture of suffering.

The simple version: Non-possessiveness destroys greed; no greed destroys craving; no craving destroys delusion; no delusion destroys suffering.

रागं च दोसं च तहेव मोहं, उद्धत्तु कामेण समूल-जालं ।
जे जे उवाया पडिवज्जयव्वा, ते कित्तइस्सामि अहाणुपुव्विं ॥३२.९॥

To completely uproot — roots and all — the entire web of attachment, aversion, and delusion, I will now enumerate in order all the means to be adopted.

Having diagnosed the disease in sutras 6–8, Lord Mahāvīra now promises the cure. The phrase samūla-jālaṃ (the root-and-all web) is significant: superficial trimming will not do. The rāga-dvesha-moha complex must be uprooted completely, and this requires systematic practice. What follows in the chapter is that enumeration.

The simple version: The web of attachment-aversion-delusion must be uprooted completely. Now the means will be described.

रसा पगामं ण णिसेवियव्वा, पायं रसा दित्तिकरा णराणं ।
दित्तं च कामा समिभड्डवंति, दुमं जहा साउफलं व पक्खी ॥३२.१०॥

Flavors and tastes should not be over-indulged; they generally inflame people. The inflamed are engulfed by sense desires, just as birds swarm upon a sweet-fruited tree.

The first practical instruction targets the tongue — the most habitual sense attachment for most people. Over-indulgence in pleasant flavors creates inflammation of all the senses. The analogy is precise: a sweet-fruited tree does not have to seek the birds; they come on their own and are trapped by the sweetness. Similarly, once the tongue is inflamed, the senses pull the practitioner away from the path without deliberate effort.

The simple version: Don't over-indulge in tastes. Inflamed senses attract more desire, like birds swarming a sweet tree.

जहा दवग्गि पउरिंधणे वणे, समारुओ णोवसमं उवेइ ।
एविंदियग्गि वि पगाम-भोइणो, ण भंभयारिस्स हियाय कस्सइ ॥३२.११॥

Just as a forest fire fed with abundant fuel does not calm down — similarly, the fire of the senses in one who over-indulges is not beneficial to any observer of brahmacharya.

The forest fire analogy: the more fuel, the stronger the fire. The senses, when repeatedly indulged, do not become satisfied; they become more demanding. This is why ascetic traditions universally restrict sense pleasures — not from fear of the world, but from the direct observation that indulgence feeds the flame rather than quenching it. For a brahmacharya practitioner, this fire is particularly destructive.

The simple version: Feeding the senses is like feeding a fire: more fuel, more fire. Indulgence never leads to peace.

विवित्त-संजासण-जिंदियाणं, ओमसणणं दिमइदियाणं ।
ण रागसतु धरिसेइ चित्तं, पराइओ वाहिर-वोसहेहिं ॥३२.१२॥

For one observing solitary seat and bed, eating little, and restraining the senses — attachment cannot overpower the mind, just as a disease is defeated by external medicine.

Three protective practices: (1) vivikta-śayyā — solitary seat and bed, keeping the practitioner away from stimulating environments; (2) ōmaśanana — reduced eating, which directly reduces the fire of the senses; (3) indriya-restraint — disciplined non-engagement with sense objects. Together these three form the outer fortress of brahmacharya. Rāga cannot breach this fortification, just as medicine defeats disease from outside.

The simple version: Solitary seat, reduced eating, and sense-restraint form the outer fortress that attachment cannot breach.

जहा बिरालावसहस्स मूले, ण मूसगाणं वसही पसत्था ।
एमेव इत्थी-णिलयस्स मज्झे, ण भंभयारिस्स खमो णिवासो ॥३२.१३॥

Just as it is unsuitable for mice to dwell near a cat's lair — similarly, it is not appropriate for an observer of brahmacharya to reside among women.

The mouse-and-cat analogy makes the point through natural self-preservation logic. A mouse near a cat's dwelling is perpetually at risk; even the strongest mouse would eventually succumb to proximity. Similarly, even the most committed brahmacharya practitioner is not served by placing himself in a structurally high-risk environment. This is not a statement about women's moral character but about the monk's need to structure his environment in support of his vows.

The simple version: A mouse near a cat's home is always at risk. Similarly, living among women compromises brahmacharya.

ण रूव-लावण्ण-विलास-हासं, ण जिंपयं इंगिय-पेहियव्वा ।
इत्थीणं चित्तिंस णिवेसइत्ता, ददु ववस्से समणे तवस्सी ॥३२.१४॥

A tapasvi monk should not fix his mind on women's beauty, grace, laughter, voice, or physical gestures — and should not engage in conversation with them.

This sutra names the specific channels through which fascination enters: visual beauty, graceful movement, laughter, voice, and gestures. The monk must keep the mind from settling on any of these. This is not hatred of women — it is a recognition that these channels are specifically designed by biology to create attachment, and a monk committed to liberation must not let his mind rest there.

The simple version: Don't let the mind dwell on appearance, grace, laughter, voice, or gestures — these are attachment's entry points.

अदंसणं चेव अपत्थणं च, अचिंतणं चेव अकित्तणं च ।
इत्थी-जणस्सारिय-झाणजुग्गं, हियं सया बंभवए-रयाणं ॥३२.१५॥

Not seeing, not desiring, not thinking about, and not praising women — this is the dhyāna-worthy conduct always beneficial for those devoted to brahmacharya.

Four-fold protection for brahmacharya: (1) not looking (adaṃsaṇa); (2) not desiring (apatthana); (3) not thinking about (acintana); (4) not glorifying (akittana). The four levels move from outer to inner: looking can be controlled by the body; desiring by the will; thinking by the mind; but praising reveals that the fascination has already colored the speech and attitude. All four must be mastered for brahmacharya to be authentic.

The simple version: Four protections of brahmacharya: don't look, don't desire, don't think about, don't praise.

कामं तु देवीहिं विभूसियाहिं, ण चाइया खोभइउं तिगुत्ता ।
तहा वि एगंतिहयं तिं पच्चा, विवित्तवासो मुणीणं पसत्थो ॥३२.१६॥

Even though triple-guarded monks cannot be disturbed by adorned goddesses — still, ultimately, solitary dwelling is the most beneficial and praiseworthy state for monks.

The argument reaches its conclusion with an extreme case: even a monk who has reached the level of triple-gupta (triple restraint of body, speech, and mind) and cannot be disturbed even by adorned goddesses — even for him, solitary dwelling is recommended. This is not about weakness but about wisdom: why place yourself in a situation that demands constant vigilance when you could simply remove the stimulus? Vivikta-vāsa (solitary dwelling) is not a necessity of weakness but a sign of wisdom.

The simple version: Even the most advanced monk benefits from solitary dwelling — wisdom, not weakness, chooses simplicity.

मोक्खाभिकिंखिस्स उ माणवस्स, संसार-भीरुस्स ठियस्स धम्मे ।
णेयारिस दुत्तरमिथ लोए, जिहित्थिओ बालमणोहराओ ॥३२.१७॥

For a person yearning for liberation, fearful of samsāra, and established in dharma — there is nothing more difficult in this world than abandoning mind-captivating women.

This is a frank acknowledgment of one of the hardest aspects of the monastic path. The text does not pretend it is easy. The fascination with women is described as bālamanoharāo — "captivating even for intelligent minds" — acknowledging the deep-seated biological and psychological pull that makes this renunciation so demanding. The honest naming of the difficulty is itself a teaching: know your enemy before you fight it.

The simple version: There is nothing harder for a liberation-seeker than renouncing women. Acknowledge the difficulty clearly.

एए य संगे समइक्कमित्ता, सुदुत्तरा चेव भवंति सेसा ।
जहा महासागरे उत्तरित्ता, णई भवे अवि गंगासमाणा ॥३२.१८॥

Once this greatest attachment is transcended, all remaining attachments become easy to overcome — just as after crossing the great ocean, even crossing a Gangā-like river becomes easy.

The ocean-and-river analogy gives a liberating perspective. If the seeker can win this one hardest battle — the pull of romantic attachment — all other battles of renunciation become relatively manageable. This is encouraging: it suggests that the difficulty is not uniformly distributed. Master the hardest thing and the rest follows. The ocean (stri-sanga) crossed, the rivers (other attachments) are mere streams.

The simple version: Win the hardest battle — romantic attachment — and all other battles of renunciation become rivers after crossing an ocean.

कामापुगिद्दिस्सपभवं खु दुक्खं, सव्वस्स लोगस्स सदेवगस्स ।
जं काइयं माणसियं च किंच, तस्संतगं गच्छइ वीयरागो ॥३२.१९॥

The suffering born of attachment to sense pleasures — whatever is physical or mental — for all worlds including the realms of gods — a vītarāgī (the dispassionate one) reaches its complete end.

The scope is total: kāmabhoga-derived suffering covers all bodily and mental pain, and it afflicts everyone from human to divine realms. The only one who reaches its complete end (taṃ-antaṃ gacchei) is the vītarāgī — the one who has moved beyond rāga, who has no residual desire for sense pleasures. This is the destination the preceding sutras have been pointing toward.

The simple version: Only the dispassionate one — the vītarāgī — reaches the complete end of all suffering, bodily and mental.

जहा य किंपागफला मणोरमा, रसेण वण्णेण य भुज्जमाणा ।
ते खुडए जीविय पच्चमाणा, एओवमा कामगुणा विवागे ॥३२.२०॥

Just as kimpāka fruits are charming in taste and color while being eaten, but destroy life in their digestion — such is the consequence of sense pleasures when they ripen as karma.

Kimpāka (a poisonous fruit mentioned in Indian scriptures) appears beautiful and delicious but is fatal after consumption. Sense pleasures follow the same trajectory: attractive at the point of contact, devastating in their karmic aftermath. The "ripening" (vipāka) of the karma accumulated through sense-indulgence is the ripe fruit of suffering in future lives. The analogy is stark and complete.

The simple version: Sense pleasures are like kimpāka fruit — beautiful and sweet now, deadly in their ripening.

जे इंदियाणं विसया मणुण्णा, ण तेसु भावं णिसिरे कयाइ ।
ण यामणुण्णेसु मणं पि कुज्जा, समाहिकामे समणे तवस्सी ॥३२.२१॥

A tapasvi monk seeking samādhi should never develop attachment toward pleasant sense objects nor aversion toward unpleasant ones.

This sutra is the master principle that governs the entire sense-indriya section (sutras 21–99). The tapasvi seeking samādhi must maintain complete equanimity: neither bhāva (deep settlement) toward the pleasant, nor mana (even mental movement) toward the unpleasant. The goal is not to force positive feelings toward everything, but to establish the mind in a place where it no longer swings with the pleasant-unpleasant pendulum.

The simple version: Don't settle into attachment for pleasant things; don't let the mind move toward unpleasant things either. Stay centered.

चक्खुस्स रूवं गहणं वयंति, तं रागहेउं तु मणुण्णमाहु ।
तं दोसहेउं अमणुण्णमाहु, समो य जो तेसु स वीयरागो ॥३२.22॥

Form is said to be what the eye grasps; pleasant form is called the cause of attachment, unpleasant form the cause of aversion. One who maintains equanimity toward both is called vītarāgī.

Each sense organ has its corresponding object. The eye is drawn to form and through it develops either rāga (when pleasant) or dvesha (when unpleasant). Both responses bind karma. The vītarāgī — the dispassionate one — maintains equanimity (sama) toward both pleasant and unpleasant form. This equanimity is not indifference; it is freedom from reactive bondage.

The simple version: Pleasant form → attachment; unpleasant form → aversion. The vītarāgī stays equanimous to both.

रूवस्स चक्खुं गहणं वयंति, चक्खुस्स रूवं गहणं वयंति ।
रागस्स हेउं समणुण्णमाहु, दोसस्स हेउं अमणुण्णमाहु ॥३२.23॥

The eye grasps form; form is grasped by the eye. Pleasant [form] is said to be the cause of attachment; unpleasant [form] the cause of aversion.

This sutra restates the same truth from both directions — the organ and its object are mutually defining. They do not exist in isolation: the eye constitutes forms as visible; forms constitute the eye as seeing. This mutual dependence means neither is inherently pleasant or unpleasant — the quality arises from the rāga-dvesha projection of the mind. Understanding this is the beginning of freedom from sense-bondage.

The simple version: Neither eye nor form is the problem; the problem is the rāga-dvesha projection onto them.

रूवेसु जो गिद्धिमुवेइ तिव्वं, अकालियं पावइ से विणासं ।
रागाउरे सीयजलावसण्णे, मच्छे जहा आमिसभोग-गिद्धे ॥३२.24॥

One who develops intense attachment to form meets untimely destruction — like a fish, greedy for bait, pierced by a hook and meeting death.

The analogy is drawn from nature to show the fatal logic of sense attachment. The animal's attachment is so strong that it overrides the survival instinct — it cannot see the trap because the desired object blinds it. A practitioner caught in intense sensory craving is in the same situation: the pleasure overrides the perception of danger.

The simple version: Intense attachment to form leads to untimely destruction — like a fish, greedy for bait, pierced by a hook and meeting death.

जे याविं दोसं समुवेइ तिव्वं, तंसिक्खणे से उ उवेइ दुक्खं ।
दुदंत-दोसेण सएण जंतु, ण किंचि रूवं अवरज्झइ से ॥३२.25॥

One who develops intense aversion to unpleasant form experiences immediate suffering within that very moment — the being is harmed by its own intense aversion; there is no fault in the form itself.

Aversion is as binding as attachment. The text makes a precise philosophical point: the form itself carries no fault (na kiṃci... aparajjhai se). The fault lies entirely in the dvesha (aversion) generated by the mind. The suffering comes not from the unpleasant stimulus but from the reactive rejection of it. This is why equanimity — not avoidance — is the goal.

The simple version: Aversion creates its own suffering immediately. The form is not at fault — your reactive rejection is.

एगंतरते रुद्रूरिस रूवे, अतालिसे से कुणइ पओसं ।
दुक्खस्स संपीलमुवेइ बाले, ण लिप्पइ तेण मुणी विरागो ॥३२.26॥

Extremely attached to beautiful form and aversive to unpleasant form, the ignorant person experiences the crushing weight of suffering; but the detached muni is not stained by it.

The same form — the same world — produces crushing suffering in the ignorant person and leaves the vīrāgī muni completely unstained. The difference is entirely internal: one mind is entangled in rāga-dvesha, the other has renounced both. The world does not need to change; only the mind's relationship to it needs to change.

The simple version: The same world crushes the attached; the detached muni remains unstained. It's about the mind, not the world.

रूवाणुगासाणुगए य जीवे, चराचरे हिंसइ णेगरूवे ।
चित्तेहिं ते परितावेइ बाले, पीलेइ अत्तदुगुरू किलिट्ठु ॥३२.27॥

A being captivated by form-attachment harms mobile and stationary beings in many ways; the deluded one torments others with various intentions and oppresses them.

Sense attachment is not a private matter — it generates violence toward others. The person attached to form will injure, deceive, steal, and exploit to obtain or protect their objects of attachment. The affliction spreads outward: what started as inner craving becomes outer himsa. This is why the Jain tradition links ahimsa so directly to non-attachment.

The simple version: Form-attachment generates harm to others. Inner craving becomes outer violence.

रूवाणुवाएण परिग्गहेण, उप्पायणे रक्खण-सिण्णओगे ।
वए विओगे य कहं सुहं से, संभोगकाले य अतित्तलाभे ॥३२.28॥

From form-based possession — earning it, protecting it, using it — spending and losing it: how can there be any happiness? Even at the time of enjoyment, insatiable dissatisfaction is its only fruit.

The full lifecycle of sense-based possession is mapped: earning → protecting → using → losing. At every stage there is anxiety, effort, or grief. Even the brief window of enjoyment does not bring satisfaction — only insatiety. The rhetorical question "how can there be happiness?" is not answered because the life cycle of possession makes the answer obvious.

The simple version: Earning, protecting, using, losing sense-objects: where in this cycle is there actual happiness?

रूवे अतित्ते य परिग्गहम्मि, सत्तोवसत्तो ण उवेइ तुट्टिं ।
अतुट्टिदोसेण दुही परस्स, लोभाविले आययई अदत्तं ॥३२.29॥

Insatiable regarding form and its possessions, intensely attached, one finds no satisfaction. Miserable from dissatisfaction and maddened by greed, one takes what has not been given.

The chain from attachment to theft: insatiability → suffering from dissatisfaction → greed → taking what is not given. Adattādāna (taking the non-given) — the Jain term for stealing — arises from a chain that begins with the simple fact of non-satisfaction in sense pleasures. The attachment never finds its full object; greed is the engine; theft is the inevitable exit.

The simple version: Insatiability → dissatisfaction → greed → stealing. Attachment to form ends in theft.

तण्हाभिभूयस्स अदत्तहारिणो, रूवे अतित्तस्स परिग्गहे य ।
मायामुसं वड्डुइ लोभदोसा, तत्थावि दुक्खा ण विमुच्चइ से ॥३२.30॥

For one overcome by craving, insatiable regarding form and taking what is not given — greed's fault causes deceit and falsehood to grow; and even then, one is not freed from suffering.

Theft generates its own miserable consequences: to steal, one must deceive; to cover the theft, one must lie. The entire web of māyā (deceit) and mṛṣā (falsehood) grows from the root of greed. And even after all this effort and moral degradation, the person is still not freed from suffering — because the root (tṛṣṇā) is untouched.

The simple version: Craving → stealing → deceit → lies. And even then, still not freed from suffering.

मोसस्स पच्छा य पुरत्थओ य, पओगकाले य दुही दुरंते ।
एवं अदत्ताणि समाययंतो, रूवे अतित्तो दुहिओ अणिस्सो ॥३२.31॥

Painful before lying, during the act of lying, and painful afterward too — one who wrongfully takes things, insatiable in form, becomes wretched and without shelter.

The temporal completeness of suffering from falsehood: before (anticipation and guilt), during (the act), and after (remorse and consequences). There is no window of genuine peace. The insatiable person is described as duṛante anissō — wretched and without refuge. This is the portrait of attachment taken to its final stage: a person trapped in their own craving with nowhere to rest.

The simple version: Before lying, while lying, after lying — suffering in all three. Attachment to form leaves no shelter.

रूवापुरत्तस्स णरस्स एवं, कत्तो सुहं होज्ज कयाइ किंचि ।
तत्थोवभोगे वि किलेसदुक्खं, णिव्वत्तइ जस्स कएण दुक्खं ॥३२.32॥

How can there ever be any happiness for a person insatiable in form? Even in the very enjoyment, intense afflicting suffering is generated — through which karma is accumulated that brings more suffering.

The rhetorical question "how can there be happiness?" is the summary verdict. And even the momentary enjoyment is not neutral: it generates intense (kilesa) karma through the very act of enjoying. The enjoyment thus seeds more future suffering. This is the profound teaching on vipāka — the ripening of karmic seeds planted by sense-indulgence.

The simple version: Even the moment of form-enjoyment creates karma that generates future suffering. There is no escape within the system.

एमेव रूवम्मि गओ पओसं, उवेइ दुक्खोह परंपराओ ।
पदुट्ठचित्तो य चिणाइ कम्म, जं से पुणो होइ दुहं विवागे ॥३२.33॥

In the same way, one who develops aversion to unpleasant form also receives a succession of sufferings, and with a defiled mind accumulates karma that again becomes suffering in its ripening.

The parallel case: aversion to unpleasant form is just as karmic as attachment to pleasant form. Both bind. Both accumulate. Both ripen into suffering. The defiled mind (paduṭṭha-citta) is the key: whether defiled by rāga or by dvesha, it generates karma. Equanimity — the absence of both — is the only way out.

The simple version: Aversion to unpleasant form also generates karma and suffering. Both rāga and dvesha bind equally.

रूवे विरत्तो मणुओ विसोगो, एएण दुक्खोह परंपरेण ।
ण लिप्पइ भवमज्झे वि संतो, जलेण वा पोक्खरिणी पलासं ॥३२.34॥

A person detached from form is free from grief and not touched by this succession of sufferings — even while remaining in worldly existence, just as a lotus leaf is untouched by water.

The lotus analogy is one of the most beloved in Indian spiritual literature. The lotus leaf is fully in the water — submerged in the same world — yet not wetted by it. The vītarāgī lives in the same world as everyone else but is not caught by it. This is not withdrawal from life; it is the mastery of the mind's relationship to sense experience. The suffering chain simply does not attach to one whose mind does not attach.

The simple version: Detached from form, one lives in the world like a lotus in water — present, but untouched.

सोयस्स सद्दं गहणं वयंति, तं रागहेउं तु मणुण्णमाहु ।
तं दोसहेउं अमणुण्णमाहु, समो य जो तेसु स वीयरागो ॥३२.35॥

Sound is said to be what the hearing grasps; pleasant sound is called the cause of attachment, unpleasant sound the cause of aversion. One who maintains equanimity toward both is called vītarāgī.

Each sense organ has its corresponding object. The hearing is drawn to sound and through it develops either rāga (when pleasant) or dvesha (when unpleasant). Both responses bind karma. The vītarāgī — the dispassionate one — maintains equanimity (sama) toward both pleasant and unpleasant sound. This equanimity is not indifference; it is freedom from reactive bondage.

The simple version: Pleasant sound → attachment; unpleasant sound → aversion. The vītarāgī stays equanimous to both.

सदस्स सोयं गहणं वयंति, सोयस्स सद्दं गहणं वयंति ।
रागस्स हेउं समणुण्णमाहु, दोसस्स हेउं अमणुण्णमाहु ॥३२.36॥

The hearing grasps sound; sound is grasped by the hearing. Pleasant [sound] is said to be the cause of attachment; unpleasant [sound] the cause of aversion.

This sutra restates the same truth from both directions — the organ and its object are mutually defining. They do not exist in isolation: the eye constitutes forms as visible; forms constitute the eye as seeing. This mutual dependence means neither is inherently pleasant or unpleasant — the quality arises from the rāga-dvesha projection of the mind. Understanding this is the beginning of freedom from sense-bondage.

The simple version: Neither hearing nor sound is the problem; the problem is the rāga-dvesha projection onto them.

सद्देसु जो गिद्धिमुवेइ तिव्वं, अकालियं पावइ से विणासं ।
रागाउरे हिरण-मिगे व मुढे, सद्दे अतित्ते समुवेइ मच्चुं ॥३२.37॥

One who develops intense attachment to sound meets untimely destruction — like a deer, maddened by music, insatiable and meeting untimely death.

The analogy is drawn from nature to show the fatal logic of sense attachment. The animal's attachment is so strong that it overrides the survival instinct — it cannot see the trap because the desired object blinds it. A practitioner caught in intense sensory craving is in the same situation: the pleasure overrides the perception of danger.

The simple version: Intense attachment to sound leads to untimely destruction — like a deer, maddened by music, insatiable and meeting untimely death.

जे याविं दोसं समुवेइ तिव्वं, तंसिक्खणे से उ उवेइ दुक्खं ।
दुदंत-दोसेण सएण जंतु, ण किंचि सद्दं अवरज्झइ से ॥३२.38॥

One who develops intense aversion to unpleasant sound experiences immediate suffering within that very moment — the being is harmed by its own intense aversion; there is no fault in the sound itself.

Aversion is as binding as attachment. The text makes a precise philosophical point: the sound itself carries no fault (na kiṃci... aparajjhai se). The fault lies entirely in the dvesha (aversion) generated by the mind. The suffering comes not from the unpleasant stimulus but from the reactive rejection of it. This is why equanimity — not avoidance — is the goal.

The simple version: Aversion creates its own suffering immediately. The sound is not at fault — your reactive rejection is.

एगंतरते रुद्रूरिस सद्दे, अतालिसे से कुणइ पओसं ।
दुक्खस्स संपीलमुवेइ बाले, ण लिप्पइ तेण मुणी विरागो ॥३२.39॥

Extremely attached to beautiful sound and aversive to unpleasant sound, the ignorant person experiences the crushing weight of suffering; but the detached muni is not stained by it.

The same sound — the same world — produces crushing suffering in the ignorant person and leaves the vīrāgī muni completely unstained. The difference is entirely internal: one mind is entangled in rāga-dvesha, the other has renounced both. The world does not need to change; only the mind's relationship to it needs to change.

The simple version: The same world crushes the attached; the detached muni remains unstained. It's about the mind, not the world.

सद्दाणुगासाणुगए य जीवे, चराचरे हिंसइ णेगरूवे ।
चित्तेहिं ते परितावेइ बाले, पीलेइ अत्तदुगुरू किलिट्ठु ॥३२.40॥

A being captivated by sound-attachment harms mobile and stationary beings in many ways; the deluded one torments others with various intentions and oppresses them.

Sense attachment is not a private matter — it generates violence toward others. The person attached to sound will injure, deceive, steal, and exploit to obtain or protect their objects of attachment. The affliction spreads outward: what started as inner craving becomes outer himsa. This is why the Jain tradition links ahimsa so directly to non-attachment.

The simple version: Sound-attachment generates harm to others. Inner craving becomes outer violence.

सद्दाणुवाएण परिग्गहेण, उप्पायणे रक्खण-सिण्णओगे ।
वए विओगे य कहं सुहं से, संभोगकाले य अतित्तलाभे ॥३२.41॥

From sound-based possession — earning it, protecting it, using it — spending and losing it: how can there be any happiness? Even at the time of enjoyment, insatiable dissatisfaction is its only fruit.

The full lifecycle of sense-based possession is mapped: earning → protecting → using → losing. At every stage there is anxiety, effort, or grief. Even the brief window of enjoyment does not bring satisfaction — only insatiety. The rhetorical question "how can there be happiness?" is not answered because the life cycle of possession makes the answer obvious.

The simple version: Earning, protecting, using, losing sense-objects: where in this cycle is there actual happiness?

सद्दे अतित्ते य परिग्गहम्मि, सत्तोवसत्तो ण उवेइ तुट्टिं ।
अतुट्टिदोसेण दुही परस्स, लोभाविले आययई अदत्तं ॥३२.42॥

Insatiable regarding sound and its possessions, intensely attached, one finds no satisfaction. Miserable from dissatisfaction and maddened by greed, one takes what has not been given.

The chain from attachment to theft: insatiability → suffering from dissatisfaction → greed → taking what is not given. Adattādāna (taking the non-given) — the Jain term for stealing — arises from a chain that begins with the simple fact of non-satisfaction in sense pleasures. The attachment never finds its full object; greed is the engine; theft is the inevitable exit.

The simple version: Insatiability → dissatisfaction → greed → stealing. Attachment to sound ends in theft.

तण्हाभिभूयस्स अदत्तहारिणो, सद्दे अतित्तस्स परिग्गहे य ।
मायामुसं वड्डुइ लोभदोसा, तत्थावि दुक्खा ण विमुच्चइ से ॥३२.43॥

For one overcome by craving, insatiable regarding sound and taking what is not given — greed's fault causes deceit and falsehood to grow; and even then, one is not freed from suffering.

Theft generates its own miserable consequences: to steal, one must deceive; to cover the theft, one must lie. The entire web of māyā (deceit) and mṛṣā (falsehood) grows from the root of greed. And even after all this effort and moral degradation, the person is still not freed from suffering — because the root (tṛṣṇā) is untouched.

The simple version: Craving → stealing → deceit → lies. And even then, still not freed from suffering.

मोसस्स पच्छा य पुरत्थओ य, पओगकाले य दुही दुरंते ।
एवं अदत्ताणि समाययंतो, सद्दे अतित्तो दुहिओ अणिस्सो ॥३२.44॥

Painful before lying, during the act of lying, and painful afterward too — one who wrongfully takes things, insatiable in sound, becomes wretched and without shelter.

The temporal completeness of suffering from falsehood: before (anticipation and guilt), during (the act), and after (remorse and consequences). There is no window of genuine peace. The insatiable person is described as duṛante anissō — wretched and without refuge. This is the portrait of attachment taken to its final stage: a person trapped in their own craving with nowhere to rest.

The simple version: Before lying, while lying, after lying — suffering in all three. Attachment to sound leaves no shelter.

सद्दापुरत्तस्स णरस्स एवं, कत्तो सुहं होज्ज कयाइ किंचि ।
तत्थोवभोगे वि किलेसदुक्खं, णिव्वत्तइ जस्स कएण दुक्खं ॥३२.45॥

How can there ever be any happiness for a person insatiable in sound? Even in the very enjoyment, intense afflicting suffering is generated — through which karma is accumulated that brings more suffering.

The rhetorical question "how can there be happiness?" is the summary verdict. And even the momentary enjoyment is not neutral: it generates intense (kilesa) karma through the very act of enjoying. The enjoyment thus seeds more future suffering. This is the profound teaching on vipāka — the ripening of karmic seeds planted by sense-indulgence.

The simple version: Even the moment of sound-enjoyment creates karma that generates future suffering. There is no escape within the system.

एमेव सद्दम्मि गओ पओसं, उवेइ दुक्खोह परंपराओ ।
पदुट्ठचित्तो य चिणाइ कम्म, जं से पुणो होइ दुहं विवागे ॥३२.46॥

In the same way, one who develops aversion to unpleasant sound also receives a succession of sufferings, and with a defiled mind accumulates karma that again becomes suffering in its ripening.

The parallel case: aversion to unpleasant sound is just as karmic as attachment to pleasant sound. Both bind. Both accumulate. Both ripen into suffering. The defiled mind (paduṭṭha-citta) is the key: whether defiled by rāga or by dvesha, it generates karma. Equanimity — the absence of both — is the only way out.

The simple version: Aversion to unpleasant sound also generates karma and suffering. Both rāga and dvesha bind equally.

सद्दे विरत्तो मणुओ विसोगो, एएण दुक्खोह परंपरेण ।
ण लिप्पइ भवमज्झे वि संतो, जलेण वा पोक्खरिणी पलासं ॥३२.47॥

A person detached from sound is free from grief and not touched by this succession of sufferings — even while remaining in worldly existence, just as a lotus leaf is untouched by water.

The lotus analogy is one of the most beloved in Indian spiritual literature. The lotus leaf is fully in the water — submerged in the same world — yet not wetted by it. The vītarāgī lives in the same world as everyone else but is not caught by it. This is not withdrawal from life; it is the mastery of the mind's relationship to sense experience. The suffering chain simply does not attach to one whose mind does not attach.

The simple version: Detached from sound, one lives in the world like a lotus in water — present, but untouched.

घाणस्स गंधं गहणं वयंति, तं रागहेउं तु मणुण्णमाहु ।
तं दोसहेउं अमणुण्णमाहु, समो य जो तेसु स वीयरागो ॥३२.48॥

Smell is said to be what the nose grasps; pleasant smell is called the cause of attachment, unpleasant smell the cause of aversion. One who maintains equanimity toward both is called vītarāgī.

Each sense organ has its corresponding object. The nose is drawn to smell and through it develops either rāga (when pleasant) or dvesha (when unpleasant). Both responses bind karma. The vītarāgī — the dispassionate one — maintains equanimity (sama) toward both pleasant and unpleasant smell. This equanimity is not indifference; it is freedom from reactive bondage.

The simple version: Pleasant smell → attachment; unpleasant smell → aversion. The vītarāgī stays equanimous to both.

गंधस्स घाणं गहणं वयंति, घाणस्स गंधं गहणं वयंति ।
रागस्स हेउं समणुण्णमाहु, दोसस्स हेउं अमणुण्णमाहु ॥३२.49॥

The nose grasps smell; smell is grasped by the nose. Pleasant [smell] is said to be the cause of attachment; unpleasant [smell] the cause of aversion.

This sutra restates the same truth from both directions — the organ and its object are mutually defining. They do not exist in isolation: the eye constitutes forms as visible; forms constitute the eye as seeing. This mutual dependence means neither is inherently pleasant or unpleasant — the quality arises from the rāga-dvesha projection of the mind. Understanding this is the beginning of freedom from sense-bondage.

The simple version: Neither nose nor smell is the problem; the problem is the rāga-dvesha projection onto them.

गंधेसु जो गिद्धिमुवेइ तिव्वं, अकालियं पावइ से विणासं ।
रागाउरे ओसिहि-गंध-गिद्धे, सप्पे विलाओ विव णिक्खमंते ॥३२.50॥

One who develops intense attachment to smell meets untimely destruction — like serpents intensely attracted to medicinal fragrances, emerging from their lairs and being killed.

The analogy is drawn from nature to show the fatal logic of sense attachment. The animal's attachment is so strong that it overrides the survival instinct — it cannot see the trap because the desired object blinds it. A practitioner caught in intense sensory craving is in the same situation: the pleasure overrides the perception of danger.

The simple version: Intense attachment to smell leads to untimely destruction — like serpents intensely attracted to medicinal fragrances, emerging from their lairs and being killed.

जे याविं दोसं समुवेइ तिव्वं, तंसिक्खणे से उ उवेइ दुक्खं ।
दुदंत-दोसेण सएण जंतु, ण किंचि गंधं अवरज्झइ से ॥३२.51॥

One who develops intense aversion to unpleasant smell experiences immediate suffering within that very moment — the being is harmed by its own intense aversion; there is no fault in the smell itself.

Aversion is as binding as attachment. The text makes a precise philosophical point: the smell itself carries no fault (na kiṃci... aparajjhai se). The fault lies entirely in the dvesha (aversion) generated by the mind. The suffering comes not from the unpleasant stimulus but from the reactive rejection of it. This is why equanimity — not avoidance — is the goal.

The simple version: Aversion creates its own suffering immediately. The smell is not at fault — your reactive rejection is.

एगंतरते रुद्रूरिस गंधे, अतालिसे से कुणइ पओसं ।
दुक्खस्स संपीलमुवेइ बाले, ण लिप्पइ तेण मुणी विरागो ॥३२.52॥

Extremely attached to beautiful smell and aversive to unpleasant smell, the ignorant person experiences the crushing weight of suffering; but the detached muni is not stained by it.

The same smell — the same world — produces crushing suffering in the ignorant person and leaves the vīrāgī muni completely unstained. The difference is entirely internal: one mind is entangled in rāga-dvesha, the other has renounced both. The world does not need to change; only the mind's relationship to it needs to change.

The simple version: The same world crushes the attached; the detached muni remains unstained. It's about the mind, not the world.

गंधाणुगासाणुगए य जीवे, चराचरे हिंसइ णेगरूवे ।
चित्तेहिं ते परितावेइ बाले, पीलेइ अत्तदुगुरू किलिट्ठु ॥३२.53॥

A being captivated by smell-attachment harms mobile and stationary beings in many ways; the deluded one torments others with various intentions and oppresses them.

Sense attachment is not a private matter — it generates violence toward others. The person attached to smell will injure, deceive, steal, and exploit to obtain or protect their objects of attachment. The affliction spreads outward: what started as inner craving becomes outer himsa. This is why the Jain tradition links ahimsa so directly to non-attachment.

The simple version: Smell-attachment generates harm to others. Inner craving becomes outer violence.

गंधाणुवाएण परिग्गहेण, उप्पायणे रक्खण-सिण्णओगे ।
वए विओगे य कहं सुहं से, संभोगकाले य अतित्तलाभे ॥३२.54॥

From smell-based possession — earning it, protecting it, using it — spending and losing it: how can there be any happiness? Even at the time of enjoyment, insatiable dissatisfaction is its only fruit.

The full lifecycle of sense-based possession is mapped: earning → protecting → using → losing. At every stage there is anxiety, effort, or grief. Even the brief window of enjoyment does not bring satisfaction — only insatiety. The rhetorical question "how can there be happiness?" is not answered because the life cycle of possession makes the answer obvious.

The simple version: Earning, protecting, using, losing sense-objects: where in this cycle is there actual happiness?

गंधे अतित्ते य परिग्गहम्मि, सत्तोवसत्तो ण उवेइ तुट्टिं ।
अतुट्टिदोसेण दुही परस्स, लोभाविले आययई अदत्तं ॥३२.55॥

Insatiable regarding smell and its possessions, intensely attached, one finds no satisfaction. Miserable from dissatisfaction and maddened by greed, one takes what has not been given.

The chain from attachment to theft: insatiability → suffering from dissatisfaction → greed → taking what is not given. Adattādāna (taking the non-given) — the Jain term for stealing — arises from a chain that begins with the simple fact of non-satisfaction in sense pleasures. The attachment never finds its full object; greed is the engine; theft is the inevitable exit.

The simple version: Insatiability → dissatisfaction → greed → stealing. Attachment to smell ends in theft.

तण्हाभिभूयस्स अदत्तहारिणो, गंधे अतित्तस्स परिग्गहे य ।
मायामुसं वड्डुइ लोभदोसा, तत्थावि दुक्खा ण विमुच्चइ से ॥३२.56॥

For one overcome by craving, insatiable regarding smell and taking what is not given — greed's fault causes deceit and falsehood to grow; and even then, one is not freed from suffering.

Theft generates its own miserable consequences: to steal, one must deceive; to cover the theft, one must lie. The entire web of māyā (deceit) and mṛṣā (falsehood) grows from the root of greed. And even after all this effort and moral degradation, the person is still not freed from suffering — because the root (tṛṣṇā) is untouched.

The simple version: Craving → stealing → deceit → lies. And even then, still not freed from suffering.

मोसस्स पच्छा य पुरत्थओ य, पओगकाले य दुही दुरंते ।
एवं अदत्ताणि समाययंतो, गंधे अतित्तो दुहिओ अणिस्सो ॥३२.57॥

Painful before lying, during the act of lying, and painful afterward too — one who wrongfully takes things, insatiable in smell, becomes wretched and without shelter.

The temporal completeness of suffering from falsehood: before (anticipation and guilt), during (the act), and after (remorse and consequences). There is no window of genuine peace. The insatiable person is described as duṛante anissō — wretched and without refuge. This is the portrait of attachment taken to its final stage: a person trapped in their own craving with nowhere to rest.

The simple version: Before lying, while lying, after lying — suffering in all three. Attachment to smell leaves no shelter.

गंधापुरत्तस्स णरस्स एवं, कत्तो सुहं होज्ज कयाइ किंचि ।
तत्थोवभोगे वि किलेसदुक्खं, णिव्वत्तइ जस्स कएण दुक्खं ॥३२.58॥

How can there ever be any happiness for a person insatiable in smell? Even in the very enjoyment, intense afflicting suffering is generated — through which karma is accumulated that brings more suffering.

The rhetorical question "how can there be happiness?" is the summary verdict. And even the momentary enjoyment is not neutral: it generates intense (kilesa) karma through the very act of enjoying. The enjoyment thus seeds more future suffering. This is the profound teaching on vipāka — the ripening of karmic seeds planted by sense-indulgence.

The simple version: Even the moment of smell-enjoyment creates karma that generates future suffering. There is no escape within the system.

एमेव गंधम्मि गओ पओसं, उवेइ दुक्खोह परंपराओ ।
पदुट्ठचित्तो य चिणाइ कम्म, जं से पुणो होइ दुहं विवागे ॥३२.59॥

In the same way, one who develops aversion to unpleasant smell also receives a succession of sufferings, and with a defiled mind accumulates karma that again becomes suffering in its ripening.

The parallel case: aversion to unpleasant smell is just as karmic as attachment to pleasant smell. Both bind. Both accumulate. Both ripen into suffering. The defiled mind (paduṭṭha-citta) is the key: whether defiled by rāga or by dvesha, it generates karma. Equanimity — the absence of both — is the only way out.

The simple version: Aversion to unpleasant smell also generates karma and suffering. Both rāga and dvesha bind equally.

गंधे विरत्तो मणुओ विसोगो, एएण दुक्खोह परंपरेण ।
ण लिप्पइ भवमज्झे वि संतो, जलेण वा पोक्खरिणी पलासं ॥३२.60॥

A person detached from smell is free from grief and not touched by this succession of sufferings — even while remaining in worldly existence, just as a lotus leaf is untouched by water.

The lotus analogy is one of the most beloved in Indian spiritual literature. The lotus leaf is fully in the water — submerged in the same world — yet not wetted by it. The vītarāgī lives in the same world as everyone else but is not caught by it. This is not withdrawal from life; it is the mastery of the mind's relationship to sense experience. The suffering chain simply does not attach to one whose mind does not attach.

The simple version: Detached from smell, one lives in the world like a lotus in water — present, but untouched.

जिब्भाए रसं गहणं वयंति, तं रागहेउं तु मणुण्णमाहु ।
तं दोसहेउं अमणुण्णमाहु, समो य जो तेसु स वीयरागो ॥३२.61॥

Taste is said to be what the tongue grasps; pleasant taste is called the cause of attachment, unpleasant taste the cause of aversion. One who maintains equanimity toward both is called vītarāgī.

Each sense organ has its corresponding object. The tongue is drawn to taste and through it develops either rāga (when pleasant) or dvesha (when unpleasant). Both responses bind karma. The vītarāgī — the dispassionate one — maintains equanimity (sama) toward both pleasant and unpleasant taste. This equanimity is not indifference; it is freedom from reactive bondage.

The simple version: Pleasant taste → attachment; unpleasant taste → aversion. The vītarāgī stays equanimous to both.

रसस्स जिब्भां गहणं वयंति, जिब्भाए रसं गहणं वयंति ।
रागस्स हेउं समणुण्णमाहु, दोसस्स हेउं अमणुण्णमाहु ॥३२.62॥

The tongue grasps taste; taste is grasped by the tongue. Pleasant [taste] is said to be the cause of attachment; unpleasant [taste] the cause of aversion.

This sutra restates the same truth from both directions — the organ and its object are mutually defining. They do not exist in isolation: the eye constitutes forms as visible; forms constitute the eye as seeing. This mutual dependence means neither is inherently pleasant or unpleasant — the quality arises from the rāga-dvesha projection of the mind. Understanding this is the beginning of freedom from sense-bondage.

The simple version: Neither tongue nor taste is the problem; the problem is the rāga-dvesha projection onto them.

रसेसु जो गिद्धिमुवेइ तिव्वं, अकालियं पावइ से विणासं ।
रागाउरे बडिस-विभिण्णकाए, मच्छे जहा आमिसभोग-गिद्धे ॥३२.63॥

One who develops intense attachment to taste meets untimely destruction — like a fish, greedy for bait, pierced by a hook and meeting death.

The analogy is drawn from nature to show the fatal logic of sense attachment. The animal's attachment is so strong that it overrides the survival instinct — it cannot see the trap because the desired object blinds it. A practitioner caught in intense sensory craving is in the same situation: the pleasure overrides the perception of danger.

The simple version: Intense attachment to taste leads to untimely destruction — like a fish, greedy for bait, pierced by a hook and meeting death.

जे याविं दोसं समुवेइ तिव्वं, तंसिक्खणे से उ उवेइ दुक्खं ।
दुदंत-दोसेण सएण जंतु, ण किंचि रसं अवरज्झइ से ॥३२.64॥

One who develops intense aversion to unpleasant taste experiences immediate suffering within that very moment — the being is harmed by its own intense aversion; there is no fault in the taste itself.

Aversion is as binding as attachment. The text makes a precise philosophical point: the taste itself carries no fault (na kiṃci... aparajjhai se). The fault lies entirely in the dvesha (aversion) generated by the mind. The suffering comes not from the unpleasant stimulus but from the reactive rejection of it. This is why equanimity — not avoidance — is the goal.

The simple version: Aversion creates its own suffering immediately. The taste is not at fault — your reactive rejection is.

एगंतरते रुद्रूरिस रसे, अतालिसे से कुणइ पओसं ।
दुक्खस्स संपीलमुवेइ बाले, ण लिप्पइ तेण मुणी विरागो ॥३२.65॥

Extremely attached to beautiful taste and aversive to unpleasant taste, the ignorant person experiences the crushing weight of suffering; but the detached muni is not stained by it.

The same taste — the same world — produces crushing suffering in the ignorant person and leaves the vīrāgī muni completely unstained. The difference is entirely internal: one mind is entangled in rāga-dvesha, the other has renounced both. The world does not need to change; only the mind's relationship to it needs to change.

The simple version: The same world crushes the attached; the detached muni remains unstained. It's about the mind, not the world.

रसाणुगासाणुगए य जीवे, चराचरे हिंसइ णेगरूवे ।
चित्तेहिं ते परितावेइ बाले, पीलेइ अत्तदुगुरू किलिट्ठु ॥३२.66॥

A being captivated by taste-attachment harms mobile and stationary beings in many ways; the deluded one torments others with various intentions and oppresses them.

Sense attachment is not a private matter — it generates violence toward others. The person attached to taste will injure, deceive, steal, and exploit to obtain or protect their objects of attachment. The affliction spreads outward: what started as inner craving becomes outer himsa. This is why the Jain tradition links ahimsa so directly to non-attachment.

The simple version: Taste-attachment generates harm to others. Inner craving becomes outer violence.

रसाणुवाएण परिग्गहेण, उप्पायणे रक्खण-सिण्णओगे ।
वए विओगे य कहं सुहं से, संभोगकाले य अतित्तलाभे ॥३२.67॥

From taste-based possession — earning it, protecting it, using it — spending and losing it: how can there be any happiness? Even at the time of enjoyment, insatiable dissatisfaction is its only fruit.

The full lifecycle of sense-based possession is mapped: earning → protecting → using → losing. At every stage there is anxiety, effort, or grief. Even the brief window of enjoyment does not bring satisfaction — only insatiety. The rhetorical question "how can there be happiness?" is not answered because the life cycle of possession makes the answer obvious.

The simple version: Earning, protecting, using, losing sense-objects: where in this cycle is there actual happiness?

रसे अतित्ते य परिग्गहम्मि, सत्तोवसत्तो ण उवेइ तुट्टिं ।
अतुट्टिदोसेण दुही परस्स, लोभाविले आययई अदत्तं ॥३२.68॥

Insatiable regarding taste and its possessions, intensely attached, one finds no satisfaction. Miserable from dissatisfaction and maddened by greed, one takes what has not been given.

The chain from attachment to theft: insatiability → suffering from dissatisfaction → greed → taking what is not given. Adattādāna (taking the non-given) — the Jain term for stealing — arises from a chain that begins with the simple fact of non-satisfaction in sense pleasures. The attachment never finds its full object; greed is the engine; theft is the inevitable exit.

The simple version: Insatiability → dissatisfaction → greed → stealing. Attachment to taste ends in theft.

तण्हाभिभूयस्स अदत्तहारिणो, रसे अतित्तस्स परिग्गहे य ।
मायामुसं वड्डुइ लोभदोसा, तत्थावि दुक्खा ण विमुच्चइ से ॥३२.69॥

For one overcome by craving, insatiable regarding taste and taking what is not given — greed's fault causes deceit and falsehood to grow; and even then, one is not freed from suffering.

Theft generates its own miserable consequences: to steal, one must deceive; to cover the theft, one must lie. The entire web of māyā (deceit) and mṛṣā (falsehood) grows from the root of greed. And even after all this effort and moral degradation, the person is still not freed from suffering — because the root (tṛṣṇā) is untouched.

The simple version: Craving → stealing → deceit → lies. And even then, still not freed from suffering.

मोसस्स पच्छा य पुरत्थओ य, पओगकाले य दुही दुरंते ।
एवं अदत्ताणि समाययंतो, रसे अतित्तो दुहिओ अणिस्सो ॥३२.70॥

Painful before lying, during the act of lying, and painful afterward too — one who wrongfully takes things, insatiable in taste, becomes wretched and without shelter.

The temporal completeness of suffering from falsehood: before (anticipation and guilt), during (the act), and after (remorse and consequences). There is no window of genuine peace. The insatiable person is described as duṛante anissō — wretched and without refuge. This is the portrait of attachment taken to its final stage: a person trapped in their own craving with nowhere to rest.

The simple version: Before lying, while lying, after lying — suffering in all three. Attachment to taste leaves no shelter.

रसापुरत्तस्स णरस्स एवं, कत्तो सुहं होज्ज कयाइ किंचि ।
तत्थोवभोगे वि किलेसदुक्खं, णिव्वत्तइ जस्स कएण दुक्खं ॥३२.71॥

How can there ever be any happiness for a person insatiable in taste? Even in the very enjoyment, intense afflicting suffering is generated — through which karma is accumulated that brings more suffering.

The rhetorical question "how can there be happiness?" is the summary verdict. And even the momentary enjoyment is not neutral: it generates intense (kilesa) karma through the very act of enjoying. The enjoyment thus seeds more future suffering. This is the profound teaching on vipāka — the ripening of karmic seeds planted by sense-indulgence.

The simple version: Even the moment of taste-enjoyment creates karma that generates future suffering. There is no escape within the system.

एमेव रसम्मि गओ पओसं, उवेइ दुक्खोह परंपराओ ।
पदुट्ठचित्तो य चिणाइ कम्म, जं से पुणो होइ दुहं विवागे ॥३२.72॥

In the same way, one who develops aversion to unpleasant taste also receives a succession of sufferings, and with a defiled mind accumulates karma that again becomes suffering in its ripening.

The parallel case: aversion to unpleasant taste is just as karmic as attachment to pleasant taste. Both bind. Both accumulate. Both ripen into suffering. The defiled mind (paduṭṭha-citta) is the key: whether defiled by rāga or by dvesha, it generates karma. Equanimity — the absence of both — is the only way out.

The simple version: Aversion to unpleasant taste also generates karma and suffering. Both rāga and dvesha bind equally.

रसे विरत्तो मणुओ विसोगो, एएण दुक्खोह परंपरेण ।
ण लिप्पइ भवमज्झे वि संतो, जलेण वा पोक्खरिणी पलासं ॥३२.73॥

A person detached from taste is free from grief and not touched by this succession of sufferings — even while remaining in worldly existence, just as a lotus leaf is untouched by water.

The lotus analogy is one of the most beloved in Indian spiritual literature. The lotus leaf is fully in the water — submerged in the same world — yet not wetted by it. The vītarāgī lives in the same world as everyone else but is not caught by it. This is not withdrawal from life; it is the mastery of the mind's relationship to sense experience. The suffering chain simply does not attach to one whose mind does not attach.

The simple version: Detached from taste, one lives in the world like a lotus in water — present, but untouched.

कायस्स फासं गहणं वयंति, तं रागहेउं तु मणुण्णमाहु ।
तं दोसहेउं अमणुण्णमाहु, समो य जो तेसु स वीयरागो ॥३२.74॥

Touch is said to be what the body grasps; pleasant touch is called the cause of attachment, unpleasant touch the cause of aversion. One who maintains equanimity toward both is called vītarāgī.

Each sense organ has its corresponding object. The body is drawn to touch and through it develops either rāga (when pleasant) or dvesha (when unpleasant). Both responses bind karma. The vītarāgī — the dispassionate one — maintains equanimity (sama) toward both pleasant and unpleasant touch. This equanimity is not indifference; it is freedom from reactive bondage.

The simple version: Pleasant touch → attachment; unpleasant touch → aversion. The vītarāgī stays equanimous to both.

फासस्स कायं गहणं वयंति, कायस्स फासं गहणं वयंति ।
रागस्स हेउं समणुण्णमाहु, दोसस्स हेउं अमणुण्णमाहु ॥३२.75॥

The body grasps touch; touch is grasped by the body. Pleasant [touch] is said to be the cause of attachment; unpleasant [touch] the cause of aversion.

This sutra restates the same truth from both directions — the organ and its object are mutually defining. They do not exist in isolation: the eye constitutes forms as visible; forms constitute the eye as seeing. This mutual dependence means neither is inherently pleasant or unpleasant — the quality arises from the rāga-dvesha projection of the mind. Understanding this is the beginning of freedom from sense-bondage.

The simple version: Neither body nor touch is the problem; the problem is the rāga-dvesha projection onto them.

फासेसु जो गिद्धिमुवेइ तिव्वं, अकालियं पावइ से विणासं ।
रागाउरे सीयजलावसण्णे, मिहसे व गाहगहीए मरणे ॥३२.76॥

One who develops intense attachment to touch meets untimely destruction — like a buffalo intensely attached to cool water, seized by a crocodile.

The analogy is drawn from nature to show the fatal logic of sense attachment. The animal's attachment is so strong that it overrides the survival instinct — it cannot see the trap because the desired object blinds it. A practitioner caught in intense sensory craving is in the same situation: the pleasure overrides the perception of danger.

The simple version: Intense attachment to touch leads to untimely destruction — like a buffalo intensely attached to cool water, seized by a crocodile.

जे याविं दोसं समुवेइ तिव्वं, तंसिक्खणे से उ उवेइ दुक्खं ।
दुदंत-दोसेण सएण जंतु, ण किंचि फासं अवरज्झइ से ॥३२.77॥

One who develops intense aversion to unpleasant touch experiences immediate suffering within that very moment — the being is harmed by its own intense aversion; there is no fault in the touch itself.

Aversion is as binding as attachment. The text makes a precise philosophical point: the touch itself carries no fault (na kiṃci... aparajjhai se). The fault lies entirely in the dvesha (aversion) generated by the mind. The suffering comes not from the unpleasant stimulus but from the reactive rejection of it. This is why equanimity — not avoidance — is the goal.

The simple version: Aversion creates its own suffering immediately. The touch is not at fault — your reactive rejection is.

एगंतरते रुद्रूरिस फासे, अतालिसे से कुणइ पओसं ।
दुक्खस्स संपीलमुवेइ बाले, ण लिप्पइ तेण मुणी विरागो ॥३२.78॥

Extremely attached to beautiful touch and aversive to unpleasant touch, the ignorant person experiences the crushing weight of suffering; but the detached muni is not stained by it.

The same touch — the same world — produces crushing suffering in the ignorant person and leaves the vīrāgī muni completely unstained. The difference is entirely internal: one mind is entangled in rāga-dvesha, the other has renounced both. The world does not need to change; only the mind's relationship to it needs to change.

The simple version: The same world crushes the attached; the detached muni remains unstained. It's about the mind, not the world.

फासाणुगासाणुगए य जीवे, चराचरे हिंसइ णेगरूवे ।
चित्तेहिं ते परितावेइ बाले, पीलेइ अत्तदुगुरू किलिट्ठु ॥३२.79॥

A being captivated by touch-attachment harms mobile and stationary beings in many ways; the deluded one torments others with various intentions and oppresses them.

Sense attachment is not a private matter — it generates violence toward others. The person attached to touch will injure, deceive, steal, and exploit to obtain or protect their objects of attachment. The affliction spreads outward: what started as inner craving becomes outer himsa. This is why the Jain tradition links ahimsa so directly to non-attachment.

The simple version: Touch-attachment generates harm to others. Inner craving becomes outer violence.

फासाणुवाएण परिग्गहेण, उप्पायणे रक्खण-सिण्णओगे ।
वए विओगे य कहं सुहं से, संभोगकाले य अतित्तलाभे ॥३२.80॥

From touch-based possession — earning it, protecting it, using it — spending and losing it: how can there be any happiness? Even at the time of enjoyment, insatiable dissatisfaction is its only fruit.

The full lifecycle of sense-based possession is mapped: earning → protecting → using → losing. At every stage there is anxiety, effort, or grief. Even the brief window of enjoyment does not bring satisfaction — only insatiety. The rhetorical question "how can there be happiness?" is not answered because the life cycle of possession makes the answer obvious.

The simple version: Earning, protecting, using, losing sense-objects: where in this cycle is there actual happiness?

फासे अतित्ते य परिग्गहम्मि, सत्तोवसत्तो ण उवेइ तुट्टिं ।
अतुट्टिदोसेण दुही परस्स, लोभाविले आययई अदत्तं ॥३२.81॥

Insatiable regarding touch and its possessions, intensely attached, one finds no satisfaction. Miserable from dissatisfaction and maddened by greed, one takes what has not been given.

The chain from attachment to theft: insatiability → suffering from dissatisfaction → greed → taking what is not given. Adattādāna (taking the non-given) — the Jain term for stealing — arises from a chain that begins with the simple fact of non-satisfaction in sense pleasures. The attachment never finds its full object; greed is the engine; theft is the inevitable exit.

The simple version: Insatiability → dissatisfaction → greed → stealing. Attachment to touch ends in theft.

तण्हाभिभूयस्स अदत्तहारिणो, फासे अतित्तस्स परिग्गहे य ।
मायामुसं वड्डुइ लोभदोसा, तत्थावि दुक्खा ण विमुच्चइ से ॥३२.82॥

For one overcome by craving, insatiable regarding touch and taking what is not given — greed's fault causes deceit and falsehood to grow; and even then, one is not freed from suffering.

Theft generates its own miserable consequences: to steal, one must deceive; to cover the theft, one must lie. The entire web of māyā (deceit) and mṛṣā (falsehood) grows from the root of greed. And even after all this effort and moral degradation, the person is still not freed from suffering — because the root (tṛṣṇā) is untouched.

The simple version: Craving → stealing → deceit → lies. And even then, still not freed from suffering.

मोसस्स पच्छा य पुरत्थओ य, पओगकाले य दुही दुरंते ।
एवं अदत्ताणि समाययंतो, फासे अतित्तो दुहिओ अणिस्सो ॥३२.83॥

Painful before lying, during the act of lying, and painful afterward too — one who wrongfully takes things, insatiable in touch, becomes wretched and without shelter.

The temporal completeness of suffering from falsehood: before (anticipation and guilt), during (the act), and after (remorse and consequences). There is no window of genuine peace. The insatiable person is described as duṛante anissō — wretched and without refuge. This is the portrait of attachment taken to its final stage: a person trapped in their own craving with nowhere to rest.

The simple version: Before lying, while lying, after lying — suffering in all three. Attachment to touch leaves no shelter.

फासापुरत्तस्स णरस्स एवं, कत्तो सुहं होज्ज कयाइ किंचि ।
तत्थोवभोगे वि किलेसदुक्खं, णिव्वत्तइ जस्स कएण दुक्खं ॥३२.84॥

How can there ever be any happiness for a person insatiable in touch? Even in the very enjoyment, intense afflicting suffering is generated — through which karma is accumulated that brings more suffering.

The rhetorical question "how can there be happiness?" is the summary verdict. And even the momentary enjoyment is not neutral: it generates intense (kilesa) karma through the very act of enjoying. The enjoyment thus seeds more future suffering. This is the profound teaching on vipāka — the ripening of karmic seeds planted by sense-indulgence.

The simple version: Even the moment of touch-enjoyment creates karma that generates future suffering. There is no escape within the system.

एमेव फासम्मि गओ पओसं, उवेइ दुक्खोह परंपराओ ।
पदुट्ठचित्तो य चिणाइ कम्म, जं से पुणो होइ दुहं विवागे ॥३२.85॥

In the same way, one who develops aversion to unpleasant touch also receives a succession of sufferings, and with a defiled mind accumulates karma that again becomes suffering in its ripening.

The parallel case: aversion to unpleasant touch is just as karmic as attachment to pleasant touch. Both bind. Both accumulate. Both ripen into suffering. The defiled mind (paduṭṭha-citta) is the key: whether defiled by rāga or by dvesha, it generates karma. Equanimity — the absence of both — is the only way out.

The simple version: Aversion to unpleasant touch also generates karma and suffering. Both rāga and dvesha bind equally.

फासे विरत्तो मणुओ विसोगो, एएण दुक्खोह परंपरेण ।
ण लिप्पइ भवमज्झे वि संतो, जलेण वा पोक्खरिणी पलासं ॥३२.86॥

A person detached from touch is free from grief and not touched by this succession of sufferings — even while remaining in worldly existence, just as a lotus leaf is untouched by water.

The lotus analogy is one of the most beloved in Indian spiritual literature. The lotus leaf is fully in the water — submerged in the same world — yet not wetted by it. The vītarāgī lives in the same world as everyone else but is not caught by it. This is not withdrawal from life; it is the mastery of the mind's relationship to sense experience. The suffering chain simply does not attach to one whose mind does not attach.

The simple version: Detached from touch, one lives in the world like a lotus in water — present, but untouched.

मणस्स भावं गहणं वयंति, तं रागहेउं तु मणुण्णमाहु ।
तं दोसहेउं अमणुण्णमाहु, समो य जो तेसु स वीयरागो ॥३२.87॥

Mental states is said to be what the mind grasps; pleasant mental states is called the cause of attachment, unpleasant mental states the cause of aversion. One who maintains equanimity toward both is called vītarāgī.

Each sense organ has its corresponding object. The mind is drawn to mental states and through it develops either rāga (when pleasant) or dvesha (when unpleasant). Both responses bind karma. The vītarāgī — the dispassionate one — maintains equanimity (sama) toward both pleasant and unpleasant mental states. This equanimity is not indifference; it is freedom from reactive bondage.

The simple version: Pleasant mental states → attachment; unpleasant mental states → aversion. The vītarāgī stays equanimous to both.

भावस्स मणं गहणं वयंति, मणस्स भावं गहणं वयंति ।
रागस्स हेउं समणुण्णमाहु, दोसस्स हेउं अमणुण्णमाहु ॥३२.88॥

The mind grasps mental states; mental states is grasped by the mind. Pleasant [mental states] is said to be the cause of attachment; unpleasant [mental states] the cause of aversion.

This sutra restates the same truth from both directions — the organ and its object are mutually defining. They do not exist in isolation: the eye constitutes forms as visible; forms constitute the eye as seeing. This mutual dependence means neither is inherently pleasant or unpleasant — the quality arises from the rāga-dvesha projection of the mind. Understanding this is the beginning of freedom from sense-bondage.

The simple version: Neither mind nor mental states is the problem; the problem is the rāga-dvesha projection onto them.

भावेसु जो गिद्धिमुवेइ तिव्वं, अकालियं पावइ से विणासं ।
रागाउरे कामगुणेसु गिद्धे, करेणुमग्गाविहए व णागे ॥३२.89॥

One who develops intense attachment to mental states meets untimely destruction — like an elephant, maddened by desire for female elephants, struck down by hunters on the path.

The analogy is drawn from nature to show the fatal logic of sense attachment. The animal's attachment is so strong that it overrides the survival instinct — it cannot see the trap because the desired object blinds it. A practitioner caught in intense sensory craving is in the same situation: the pleasure overrides the perception of danger.

The simple version: Intense attachment to mental states leads to untimely destruction — like an elephant, maddened by desire for female elephants, struck down by hunters on the path.

जे याविं दोसं समुवेइ तिव्वं, तंसिक्खणे से उ उवेइ दुक्खं ।
दुदंत-दोसेण सएण जंतु, ण किंचि भावं अवरज्झइ से ॥३२.90॥

One who develops intense aversion to unpleasant mental states experiences immediate suffering within that very moment — the being is harmed by its own intense aversion; there is no fault in the mental states itself.

Aversion is as binding as attachment. The text makes a precise philosophical point: the mental states itself carries no fault (na kiṃci... aparajjhai se). The fault lies entirely in the dvesha (aversion) generated by the mind. The suffering comes not from the unpleasant stimulus but from the reactive rejection of it. This is why equanimity — not avoidance — is the goal.

The simple version: Aversion creates its own suffering immediately. The mental states is not at fault — your reactive rejection is.

एगंतरते रुद्रूरिस भावे, अतालिसे से कुणइ पओसं ।
दुक्खस्स संपीलमुवेइ बाले, ण लिप्पइ तेण मुणी विरागो ॥३२.91॥

Extremely attached to beautiful mental states and aversive to unpleasant mental states, the ignorant person experiences the crushing weight of suffering; but the detached muni is not stained by it.

The same mental states — the same world — produces crushing suffering in the ignorant person and leaves the vīrāgī muni completely unstained. The difference is entirely internal: one mind is entangled in rāga-dvesha, the other has renounced both. The world does not need to change; only the mind's relationship to it needs to change.

The simple version: The same world crushes the attached; the detached muni remains unstained. It's about the mind, not the world.

भावाणुगासाणुगए य जीवे, चराचरे हिंसइ णेगरूवे ।
चित्तेहिं ते परितावेइ बाले, पीलेइ अत्तदुगुरू किलिट्ठु ॥३२.92॥

A being captivated by mental states-attachment harms mobile and stationary beings in many ways; the deluded one torments others with various intentions and oppresses them.

Sense attachment is not a private matter — it generates violence toward others. The person attached to mental states will injure, deceive, steal, and exploit to obtain or protect their objects of attachment. The affliction spreads outward: what started as inner craving becomes outer himsa. This is why the Jain tradition links ahimsa so directly to non-attachment.

The simple version: Mental states-attachment generates harm to others. Inner craving becomes outer violence.

भावाणुवाएण परिग्गहेण, उप्पायणे रक्खण-सिण्णओगे ।
वए विओगे य कहं सुहं से, संभोगकाले य अतित्तलाभे ॥३२.93॥

From mental states-based possession — earning it, protecting it, using it — spending and losing it: how can there be any happiness? Even at the time of enjoyment, insatiable dissatisfaction is its only fruit.

The full lifecycle of sense-based possession is mapped: earning → protecting → using → losing. At every stage there is anxiety, effort, or grief. Even the brief window of enjoyment does not bring satisfaction — only insatiety. The rhetorical question "how can there be happiness?" is not answered because the life cycle of possession makes the answer obvious.

The simple version: Earning, protecting, using, losing sense-objects: where in this cycle is there actual happiness?

भावे अतित्ते य परिग्गहम्मि, सत्तोवसत्तो ण उवेइ तुट्टिं ।
अतुट्टिदोसेण दुही परस्स, लोभाविले आययई अदत्तं ॥३२.94॥

Insatiable regarding mental states and its possessions, intensely attached, one finds no satisfaction. Miserable from dissatisfaction and maddened by greed, one takes what has not been given.

The chain from attachment to theft: insatiability → suffering from dissatisfaction → greed → taking what is not given. Adattādāna (taking the non-given) — the Jain term for stealing — arises from a chain that begins with the simple fact of non-satisfaction in sense pleasures. The attachment never finds its full object; greed is the engine; theft is the inevitable exit.

The simple version: Insatiability → dissatisfaction → greed → stealing. Attachment to mental states ends in theft.

तण्हाभिभूयस्स अदत्तहारिणो, भावे अतित्तस्स परिग्गहे य ।
मायामुसं वड्डुइ लोभदोसा, तत्थावि दुक्खा ण विमुच्चइ से ॥३२.95॥

For one overcome by craving, insatiable regarding mental states and taking what is not given — greed's fault causes deceit and falsehood to grow; and even then, one is not freed from suffering.

Theft generates its own miserable consequences: to steal, one must deceive; to cover the theft, one must lie. The entire web of māyā (deceit) and mṛṣā (falsehood) grows from the root of greed. And even after all this effort and moral degradation, the person is still not freed from suffering — because the root (tṛṣṇā) is untouched.

The simple version: Craving → stealing → deceit → lies. And even then, still not freed from suffering.

मोसस्स पच्छा य पुरत्थओ य, पओगकाले य दुही दुरंते ।
एवं अदत्ताणि समाययंतो, भावे अतित्तो दुहिओ अणिस्सो ॥३२.96॥

Painful before lying, during the act of lying, and painful afterward too — one who wrongfully takes things, insatiable in mental states, becomes wretched and without shelter.

The temporal completeness of suffering from falsehood: before (anticipation and guilt), during (the act), and after (remorse and consequences). There is no window of genuine peace. The insatiable person is described as duṛante anissō — wretched and without refuge. This is the portrait of attachment taken to its final stage: a person trapped in their own craving with nowhere to rest.

The simple version: Before lying, while lying, after lying — suffering in all three. Attachment to mental states leaves no shelter.

भावापुरत्तस्स णरस्स एवं, कत्तो सुहं होज्ज कयाइ किंचि ।
तत्थोवभोगे वि किलेसदुक्खं, णिव्वत्तइ जस्स कएण दुक्खं ॥३२.97॥

How can there ever be any happiness for a person insatiable in mental states? Even in the very enjoyment, intense afflicting suffering is generated — through which karma is accumulated that brings more suffering.

The rhetorical question "how can there be happiness?" is the summary verdict. And even the momentary enjoyment is not neutral: it generates intense (kilesa) karma through the very act of enjoying. The enjoyment thus seeds more future suffering. This is the profound teaching on vipāka — the ripening of karmic seeds planted by sense-indulgence.

The simple version: Even the moment of mental states-enjoyment creates karma that generates future suffering. There is no escape within the system.

एमेव भावम्मि गओ पओसं, उवेइ दुक्खोह परंपराओ ।
पदुट्ठचित्तो य चिणाइ कम्म, जं से पुणो होइ दुहं विवागे ॥३२.98॥

In the same way, one who develops aversion to unpleasant mental states also receives a succession of sufferings, and with a defiled mind accumulates karma that again becomes suffering in its ripening.

The parallel case: aversion to unpleasant mental states is just as karmic as attachment to pleasant mental states. Both bind. Both accumulate. Both ripen into suffering. The defiled mind (paduṭṭha-citta) is the key: whether defiled by rāga or by dvesha, it generates karma. Equanimity — the absence of both — is the only way out.

The simple version: Aversion to unpleasant mental states also generates karma and suffering. Both rāga and dvesha bind equally.

भावे विरत्तो मणुओ विसोगो, एएण दुक्खोह परंपरेण ।
ण लिप्पइ भवमज्झे वि संतो, जलेण वा पोक्खरिणी पलासं ॥३२.99॥

A person detached from mental states is free from grief and not touched by this succession of sufferings — even while remaining in worldly existence, just as a lotus leaf is untouched by water.

The lotus analogy is one of the most beloved in Indian spiritual literature. The lotus leaf is fully in the water — submerged in the same world — yet not wetted by it. The vītarāgī lives in the same world as everyone else but is not caught by it. This is not withdrawal from life; it is the mastery of the mind's relationship to sense experience. The suffering chain simply does not attach to one whose mind does not attach.

The simple version: Detached from mental states, one lives in the world like a lotus in water — present, but untouched.

एविंदियत्था य मणस्स अत्था, दुक्खस्स हेउं मणुयस्स रागिणो ।
ते चेव थोवं पि कयाइ दुक्खं, ण वीयरागस्स करेंति किंचि ॥३२.१००॥

Sense objects and mental objects are the cause of suffering for the passionate person; these very same objects do not cause even a trace of suffering to the dispassionate one.

The most radical statement of the chapter: the objects themselves are neutral. The same form, sound, smell, taste, touch, and mental state that plunges a passionate person into chains of suffering causes not even a particle of suffering to the vītarāgī. Reality is the same; the mind's relationship to it is different. This is the core Jain teaching: liberation is an inner event, not an outer one.

The simple version: The same world: causes suffering in the passionate, causes nothing in the dispassionate. Liberation is an inner event.

ण कामभोगा समयं उवेंति, ण याविं भोगा विगई उवेंति ।
जे तप्पओसी य परिग्गही य, सो तेसु मोहा विगई उवेइ ॥३२.१०१॥

Sense pleasures do not produce satisfaction by themselves, nor do they produce dissatisfaction by themselves. It is the one who is attached to and possessive of them who, because of delusion about them, experiences dissatisfaction.

A precise philosophical clarification: kāmabhoga are phenomenologically neutral regarding satisfaction. They neither produce nor prevent satisfaction on their own. The variable is the mind's relationship: attachment + possession + delusion = dissatisfaction. This means satisfaction is not found by changing or acquiring objects; it is found by transforming the mind's attachment to them.

The simple version: Pleasures don't produce dissatisfaction — your attachment and possession of them do.

कोहं च माणं च तहेव मायं, लोभं दुगुंछ अरई रई च ।
हासं भयं सोग पुमित्थियेयं, णपुंसवेयं विविहे य भावे ॥३२.१०२॥

[Attached to sense pleasures, one acquires:] Anger, pride, deceit, greed, disgust, disinterest, desire, laughter, fear, grief, male and female passions, eunuch-states, and various other mental conditions —

The list of mental states generated by sense attachment is comprehensive. The four kaṣāyas (anger, pride, deceit, greed) head the list, but the damage extends to emotional states (disgust, disinterest, desire, laughter, fear, grief) and even to gender-specific passions. Kāmabhoga does not only produce obvious attachment; it generates the entire spectrum of afflicted mental states.

The simple version: Sense attachment generates: anger, pride, deceit, greed, fear, grief, and many other mental afflictions.

आवज्जइ एवमणेगरूवे, एवं विहे कामगुणेसु सत्तो ।
अण्णे य एयप्पभवे विसेसे, कारुण्णदीणे हिरिमे वइस्से ॥३२.१०३॥

— and many other such states arise in one attached to sense pleasures: compassionlessness, wretchedness, shame, and servitude — all born from these same roots.

The list from sutra 102 continues here. The final items — compassionlessness, wretchedness, shame, and servitude — describe the social and psychological degeneration that follows from full immersion in kāmabhoga. The person becomes incapable of genuine compassion (kāruṇya); falls into despair (dīna); loses dignity (hirī) and becomes enslaved (vaissa) to their cravings. This is the full portrait of what sense-attachment does to a human being over time.

The simple version: Sense attachment ultimately produces compassionlessness, wretchedness, shame, and servitude.

कप्पं ण इच्छिज्ज सहायलिच्छु, पच्छाणुतावे ण तवप्पभावं ।
एवं वियारे अमियप्पयारे, आवज्जइ इंदियचोरवस्से ॥३२.१०४॥

A monk should not desire help from a companion, should not regret past actions, and should not desire the power of austerities to bear fruit. In this way, one with unlimited desires falls captive to the thieving senses.

Three subtle forms of desire that compromise the monk: (1) desire for a companion's help — dependency on others; (2) regret for past actions — mental clinging to the past; (3) desire for the fruits of austerities — even spiritual practice becomes tainted by desire for reward. These "unlimited desires" (amiya-ppayāra) open the door to the "thieving senses" (indiya-coravasse) — desires that steal the practitioner's spiritual capital.

The simple version: Even these desires compromise the monk: needing help, regretting the past, wanting the fruits of practice.

तओ से जायंति पओयणाइं, णिमज्जिउं मोहमहण्णवम्मि ।
सुहेसिणो दुक्ख-विणोयणट्ठा, तप्पच्चयं उज्जमए य रागी ॥३२.१०५॥

Then arise in such a person the desires — to dive into the great ocean of delusion; the passionate one, pleasure-seeking and wanting to banish pain, makes effort for those very causes.

Once the door of desire opens, the flood begins. The person wanting pleasure and seeking to avoid pain makes effort in the very directions that increase delusion. This is the great irony: the passionate person is effortful — but their effort runs exactly in the wrong direction, diving deeper into the ocean of moha rather than swimming out of it.

The simple version: Desire leads to effort — but effort toward pleasure dives deeper into the ocean of delusion.

विवरज्जमाणस्स य इंदियत्था, सद्दाइया तावयप्पगारा ।
ण तस्स सव्वे वि मणुण्णयं वा, णिव्वत्तयंति अमणुण्णयं वा ॥३२.१०६॥

For one who is completely detached — sounds and all other sense objects of every kind — none of these, for that person, can produce either pleasure or displeasure.

The mirror image of sutra 100, stated from the object's perspective. The sound, form, smell, taste, touch, and mental state have no power to produce pleasure or displeasure in the one who is vīrarāgī. The objects are present; the reactions are absent. This is the complete picture of liberation-in-life: the world runs its full course, but the liberated mind moves through it like light through glass — passing through without being refracted.

The simple version: For the detached one, no sense object can produce pleasure or displeasure. Objects are present; reactions are absent.

एवं सं संकप्प-विकप्पणासु, संजायइ समयमुवडुत्तस्स ।
अत्थे य संकप्पओ तओ से, पहीयए कामगुणेसु तण्हा ॥३२.१०७॥

In this way, in one established in equanimity with thoughts and counter-thoughts destroyed, craving for sense pleasures is thereafter completely annihilated.

Saṃkalpa (thought/intention) and vikalpa (counter-thought/doubt) are the two primary movements of the reactive mind. When both are destroyed — when the mind ceases its endless pendulum between "I want this" and "I don't want that" — samata (equanimity) arises. And with genuine equanimity, the craving for sense pleasures is not suppressed but annihilated: it no longer has a foothold to stand on.

The simple version: When thought-reactions and counter-thought-reactions both cease, genuine equanimity arises — and craving is annihilated.

स वीयरागो कय-सव्विकच्चो, खवेइ णाणावरणं खणेणं ।
तहेव जं दंसणमावरेइ, जं चंतरायं पकरेइ कम्म ॥३२.१०८॥

That dispassionate one, having fulfilled all duties, destroys in an instant the knowledge-obscuring karma, the vision-obscuring karma, and the obstructing karma.

The chapter culminates with the moment of omniscience. The vītarāgī who has completed all duties and traversed the path of sense-mastery destroys in a single instant (khaṇena) three types of karma: jñānāvaraṇa (knowledge-obscuring), darśanāvaraṇa (vision/right-view-obscuring), and antarāya (obstructing karma). The destruction is simultaneous and instantaneous — the dawn does not arrive gradually but all at once. This is the promise and the destination of the entire chapter.

The simple version: The dispassionate one, duties fulfilled, destroys knowledge-obscuring, vision-obscuring, and obstructing karma in an instant.