Soul & Non-Soul (जीव-अजीव अधिकार)

अप्पाणमयाणंता मूढा दु परप्पवादिणो केई।
जीवं अझ्झवसाणं कम्मं च तहा परुवेंति ॥३९॥

Not knowing the soul's true nature, some foolish para-ātmavādins declare that karma and adhyavasāna (passionate mental dispositions) are the soul.

The Adhikar begins where all spiritual error begins: not knowing the soul. When someone doesn't know what the self actually is, they look outward — to emotions, to karma, to states of mind — and call those the self. It's like someone who has never seen a mirror not knowing what their face looks like, so they describe themselves by their clothes instead. The clothes are not the person; the feelings and karma are not the soul. The term para-ātmavādin means "one who identifies with what is other than the soul." This is not just an ancient philosophical mistake. It describes the default state of most people today. When someone asks you "Who are you?" — most people answer with a name, a job, a mood, a story. These are all ajīva (non-soul) things. The verse calls such people "mūḍha" — which means deluded or confused — not to insult them, but to describe their situation precisely. They are lost in a case of mistaken identity. The specific errors named here are: (1) calling adhyavasāna — the charged emotional mental states like anger, fear, desire — the soul; and (2) calling karma the soul. Both mistakes collapse the wall between jīva (consciousness) and ajīva (matter) that this entire Adhikar will carefully rebuild.

The simple version: The verse says that those who don't know the soul look at the wrong things — like anger, desire, and karma — and say "that is me." It is like someone pointing at their shadow and saying "that is my body." The shadow follows you around, but it is not you. Karma and emotions follow the soul around, but they are not the soul. This is the root mistake that the whole Samaysaar is trying to correct. Until you know what the soul actually is, you will keep calling the wrong thing "me."

अवरे अझ्झवसाणेसु तिव्वमंदाणुभागं जीवं।
मण्णंति तहा अवरे णोकम्मं चावि जीवो ति ॥४०॥

Others consider the soul to be the intense-or-mild experiential quality within adhyavasāna; and yet others consider nokamma (body and sense organs) to be the soul.

The errors here become a little more refined, but they do not improve. Some people noticed that emotions come in different strengths — sometimes anger is very intense, sometimes it is mild. They said: "The soul is that quality of intensity — the tīvra (strong) or manda (weak) degree within the passionate state." This sounds more specific and subtle than Gatha 39's error, but it is still pointing at a purely material-causal process. How strongly or weakly a passion arises depends on the type and intensity of karma — it is a karma-event, not a soul-event. Others take a completely different approach and point to the physical body and say: "That is the soul." This is the most common ordinary mistake. Most people, if they reflect honestly, feel that they are their body. But the body is matter. It grows, changes, gets sick, ages, and dies. The soul, by definition in Jain philosophy, is eternal and beyond all these changes. So calling the body the soul is calling the most obviously impermanent thing the most obviously permanent thing. Both views in this verse — the intensity-of-emotion view and the body view — are still entirely within the world of pudgala (matter). The soul has not appeared in either description.

The simple version: Some people said the soul is the strength of a feeling — how strong or mild anger feels. Others said the soul is just the physical body. Both are still wrong. A feeling's intensity is caused by karma — it is a karma-thing, not a soul-thing. And the body is made of matter — it can be seen, touched, weighed, and it dies. The real soul is none of these things. These errors show how many different directions people look — and miss.

कम्मस्सुदयं जीवं अवरे कम्माणुभागमिच्छंति।
तिव्वत्तणमंदत्तणगुणेहिं जो सो हवदि जीवो ॥४१॥

Others consider the rising (udaya) of karma to be the soul; others want karma's anubhāga — whoever has the quality of intensity-or-mildness, they say that is the soul.

This verse goes even deeper into technical territory. Two more wrong views appear. First: "The soul is the udaya (rising) of karma." Udaya means the moment when a karma-particle becomes active and produces an experience. When your knowledge-blocking karma rises, you feel confused. When your pleasure-karma rises, you feel good. Some philosophers pointed at this moment of rising and said: "That is the soul." But the rising of karma is a material event — a pudgala-dravya process. The soul is the one who experiences it; it is not the process itself. Think of a light bulb turning on. The electricity flowing is a material event. But whoever is reading by that light is not the electricity — they are the reader. Second: "The soul is the anubhāga — the fruition-force of karma." Anubhāga is how strongly karma delivers its result. A high-anubhāga karma hits hard; a low-anubhāga karma barely registers. Again, this is describing a property of the karma, not of the soul. How hard karma hits is karma's property, not the soul's. These views are more sophisticated than Gatha 39's, but sophistication here doesn't mean correctness. All refinements here still stay inside the world of matter.

The simple version: Some said the soul is the moment karma turns active and starts producing experience. Others said the soul is the strength of what karma delivers. Both are still describing karma — a material process — not the soul. It is like saying the light is the electricity, or the light is the wattage of the bulb. But light is light — and the soul is consciousness, not any part of the karma-process at all.

जीवो कम्मं उहयं दोण्णि वि खलु केइ जीवमिच्छंति।
अवरे संजोगेण दु कम्माणं जीवमिच्छंति ॥४२॥

Some consider both soul and karma together as the soul; others consider the very conjunction of karmas to be the soul.

Now two "compromise" views appear — views that tried to be clever by combining the soul and karma together. The first says: "Both the soul and karma together are the soul." This is like saying "the person and their clothes together is the person." But the clothes are not part of the person's definition; they are an addition. In the same way, karma is not part of the soul's definition; it is something that has joined the soul from outside. Calling the jīva-karma complex "the soul" means you've snuck matter into the soul's definition. The second view says: "The meeting-point — the junction — of karmas is the soul." This is stranger still: not jīva alone, not karma alone, but the place where they connect. But a junction between two things is not itself a third conscious entity. The point where a river meets the ocean is not a third substance — it is just a description of relationship. Similarly, the relationship between soul and karma does not create a new conscious self. In both of these views, matter has been included in the definition of consciousness. Once you let matter in, the definition of the soul is contaminated and liberation becomes impossible to conceive properly.

The simple version: Some said the soul is the soul-plus-karma combination taken as a whole. Others said the soul is the junction point where karma meets the soul. Both are still wrong — they sneak matter into the definition of consciousness. It is like saying "You are your body plus your clothes" or "You are the button on your shirt." The soul stands alone — pure consciousness, nothing else added. Any view that mixes matter into the soul's definition is a confused view.

एवंविहा बहुविहा परमप्पाणं वदंति दुम्मेहा।
ते ण परमद्वावादी णिच्छयवादीहिं णिंदिट्ठा ॥४३॥

In these various and many ways, the foolish ones describe the supreme self; they are not paramārthavādins — the niśchayavādins do not acknowledge them as such.

Gatha 43 closes the survey of errors with a clear and final verdict. Kundkundacharya has listed view after view — karma, adhyavasāna, emotional intensity, the body, karma's rising, karma's fruition, the karma-soul combination, the junction of karmas — and now pronounces: all of these are dummēdhā (foolish) views. They fail to be paramārthavādins — speakers of ultimate truth. The term niśchayavādin means one who speaks from the ultimate standpoint, the standpoint that sees reality as it truly is without any conventional shortcuts or pedagogical compromise. From the niśchaya standpoint, the soul is one kind of thing — consciousness — and karma is another kind of thing — matter. These two are never the same. Any view that uses material categories to describe what the soul ultimately is has already made a fundamental error. This is not just a philosophical debate among scholars. It has direct practical consequences. If you believe your anger is "you," then you will try to manage or hide your anger rather than recognizing it as a foreign material process. If you believe your body is "you," then you will be terrified of death in a way that prevents liberation. Seeing clearly — from the niśchaya standpoint — is the first step toward actual freedom from samsāra.

The simple version: All these many ways of describing the soul are rejected by Kundkundacharya as failing the ultimate test. The niśchaya standpoint — the standpoint of seeing things as they truly are — does not recognize any of these views as correct. They are all pointing at matter and calling it consciousness. This is not just a philosophical mistake; it is the root cause of being stuck in the cycle of birth and death. When you know what the soul really is, everything changes. When you don't, you keep getting it wrong in many clever ways.

एदे सव्वे भावा पोग्गलदव्वपरिणामिण्पण्णा।
केवलिजिणेहिं भणिया कह ते जीवो ति वृच्छंति ॥४४॥

All these states arise from the transformation of pudgala-dravya; the Kevali Jinas have declared this. How then can they be called the soul?

This is the turning point — the philosophical pivot of the entire Adhikar. After five gathas listing every wrong view, Kundkundacharya now invokes the highest possible authority in Jain thought: the Kevali Jinas, the Omniscient Ones who have directly perceived all substances, all their qualities, all their transformations, across all of time. What have they seen and declared? That every single state mentioned in Gathas 39–43 — adhyavasāna, karma, emotional intensity, the body, the junction of karmas — every single one is a transformation of pudgala-dravya (matter). Not half-matter. Not a mixture of soul and matter. Pure, fully material transformations of pudgala. This declaration is not a philosophical argument that can be countered. It is a report from perception that is complete and perfect — like the report of someone who has seen the bottom of the ocean versus the guesses of someone who has only seen the surface. The omniscient Jinas have seen the actual nature of these states. Their conclusion: matter, matter, matter — not soul. The verse then closes with a simple, devastating rhetorical question: if the Omniscient Ones have declared all these states to be material — how then can anyone still call them the soul? The question answers itself. You cannot. This single gatha breaks the back of all five wrong views at once.

The simple version: Kundkundacharya now calls on the greatest possible witnesses — the Omniscient Jinas, who have perfectly seen all reality. What do they say? Every single state that was being called "the soul" — the karma, the emotions, the body — is actually matter. Not part soul, not partly both. Pure matter. Then comes the key question: if the wisest beings who ever lived say these are all matter, how can anyone call them the soul? You cannot. This one verse clears the field of all five wrong views that came before it.

अट्ठिवहं पि य कम्मं सव्वं पोग्गलमयं जिणा बेंति।
जस्स फलं तं वुच्चिदे दुक्खं ति विपच्चमाणस्स ॥४५॥

All eight types of karma are entirely matter (pudgala) — so the Jinas declare. The fruit of this karma when it ripens is what is called suffering (duhkha).

This gatha builds directly on Gatha 44's declaration. There, the Jinas said all those states are matter. Now Kundkundacharya gets specific: there are eight types of karma in Jain philosophy, and the Jinas declare all eight to be entirely pudgala (material). The eight are: jñānāvaraṇa (blocks knowledge), darśanāvaraṇa (blocks clear perception), vedanīya (produces pleasure and pain), mohanīya (produces delusion and passion), āyu (determines lifespan), nāma (determines the type of body), gotra (determines family and status), and antarāya (blocks energy and ability). Every single one is matter — not a mysterious spiritual force, not a half-conscious energy, but actual material particles in specific configurations, clinging to the soul. Then comes the second key point: what does karma produce when it ripens (vipakvamāna — when it matures and gives its fruit)? Suffering (duhkha). This is a radical reassignment of responsibility. In ordinary thinking, people feel suffering and say "the soul is suffering." But the Jinas say: no, suffering is karma's product, not the soul's nature. The soul by its pure nature does not suffer. Suffering is what happens when material karma acts on the soul's experience. This distinction matters enormously — it means the soul is not inherently a suffering thing, and liberation (cessation of suffering) is actually possible.

The simple version: There are eight kinds of karma — one that blocks knowledge, one that blocks clear seeing, one that produces pain and pleasure, one that produces delusion, one that determines how long you live, one that shapes your body, one that determines your family, and one that blocks your abilities. The Jinas say every single one of these is matter — not spirit, not soul, not a blend. Pure matter. And when these karmas ripen and give their result, that result is suffering. So suffering is not the soul's own nature — it is what karma does to the soul's experience. This is a huge point: the soul is not a suffering thing by nature. It is made to appear to suffer by material karma.

ववहारस्स दरीसणमुवएसो वण्णिदो जिणवरेहिं।
जीवा एदे सव्वे अझ्झवसाणादओ भावा ॥४६॥

The Jinendras have described this as the teaching of the vyavahāra viewpoint — that all these adhyavasāna etc. bhavas are "jīvas."

This gatha introduces a crucial clarification that prevents a serious confusion. A reader might object: "But wait — some Jain scriptures (Āgamas) do say that adhyavasāna and related states are jīvas (souls). So doesn't that contradict what Kundkundacharya has been saying?" Kundkundacharya addresses this directly. He says: yes, the Jinendras (the great Jinas) did describe these states as "jīva" in the sūtras — but this is the darśana (teaching approach) and upadeśa (instruction style) of the vyavahāra (conventional) standpoint. Vyavahāra is not wrong or false — it is a teaching tool. When you are trying to teach someone who completely identifies with their body and emotions, you cannot start by saying "you are pure consciousness with no connection to this body." They will not understand. So you start where they are: "Your anger is yours, your karma is yours, your passions are yours" — and gradually lead them toward higher understanding. This conventional speech (vyavahāra-vacana) serves a real purpose. But it is not the final, ultimate truth. The ultimate truth will be spelled out in Gatha 48. The next two gathas give a famous analogy to make this vyavahāra/niśchaya distinction concrete and unforgettable.

The simple version: Some Jain scriptures do say adhyavasāna and related states are "jīva." Kundkundacharya explains why: this is the teaching language called vyavahāra — conventional speech used to reach students where they are. A good teacher doesn't start with advanced truths that students can't grasp yet. They use familiar language to guide students forward. Calling emotional states "jīva" is that kind of useful-but-conventional teaching speech. It is not the final truth — it is a stepping stone toward it. The next two gathas explain this with a brilliant example.

राया हु णिग्गदो ति य एसो बलसमुदयस्स आदेसो।
ववहारेण दु उच्चिद तत्थेक्को णिग्गदो राया ॥४७॥

"The king went out" — this is the conventional expression for the army's departure. By vyavahāra it is said; but in truth, within that army, only one king actually went out.

This analogy is one of the most elegant in all of Indian philosophy, and it makes the vyavahāra/niśchaya distinction immediately clear to anyone. Imagine a medieval king marching to battle with his entire army — thousands of soldiers, horses, elephants, generals, servants. When news arrives at the next city, what does everyone say? "The king has arrived!" But did the king alone arrive? No — an army arrived. The king is just one man within it. Yet it is perfectly normal, natural, and understood to say "the king went out" when you mean "the whole military force moved." This is vyavahāra — conventional, shorthand speech that everyone accepts and understands. The literal truth — niśchaya — is that only one king went out; the soldiers are not the king. Now apply this to the soul. Within the complex that we call a "person" or a "jīva" in ordinary speech, there is actually: one true jīva, plus enormous amounts of karma, plus a body (nokamma), plus mental states (adhyavasāna), plus much more. When scriptures say "all these adhyavasāna-bhavas are jīvas," they are using king-language: saying "the king" when they mean the whole entourage. The ultimate truth: in that entire complex, there is exactly one king — one conscious jīva. Everything else is the army.

The simple version: When a king goes to war with his army, people say "the king went out" — but they mean the whole army. It is shorthand. Everyone understands it without anyone being confused. In the same way, when scriptures say "these emotional states are the soul," they are using shorthand. They mean: "these states are associated with the soul, they travel with it." The ultimate truth is that only one thing is actually the soul — the pure conscious jīva. All the emotional states, karma, and body are the army, not the king.

एमेव य ववहारो अझ्झवसाणादिअण्णभावाणं।
जीवो ति कदो सुत्ते तत्थेक्को णिच्छिदो जीवो ॥४८॥

Similarly, calling adhyavasāna etc. other-bhavas as "jīva" in the sūtra is vyavahāra; but from niśchaya, only one jīva is established there.

Gatha 48 applies the king-analogy directly to the sūtra (scripture). When Āgamic sūtras call adhyavasāna and other bhāvas (states) "jīva," that is vyavahāra language — the same kind of shorthand as "the king went out." The sūtras are teaching tools. They use the language of the situation the student is in, not the language of the ultimate truth, so that the student can begin to understand. But the niśchaya verdict — the ultimate conclusion — is stated here with crystal clarity: "tathā eko niśchito jīvah" — "there, one jīva alone is established." Within the whole complex of soul + karma + body + mental states + emotional intensities, there is exactly one conscious entity — one true jīva. That single, distinct, pure-consciousness entity is what the soul is. Everything else — every karma, every emotional state, every body-material — is ajīva (non-soul). This is not a theory to believe; it is a truth to be directly recognized. The entire Samaysaar, starting from this Adhikar, is working to help the seeker see this one distinction with clarity, so that identification shifts from matter to consciousness — and liberation becomes not just possible but inevitable.

The simple version: The same king-analogy now gets applied directly to the Jain scriptures. When the scriptures say "adhyavasāna is jīva," they are using the same kind of shorthand as "the king went out." It is conventional, teaching-level speech. But from the highest standpoint — niśchaya — there is exactly one jīva in the whole complex. Just one conscious being. All the karma, all the emotions, all the body — those are the army, not the king. This is the clearest statement yet: within you, there is one conscious reality. Everything else is not you.

अरसमरूवमगंधं अव्वत्तं चेदणागुणमसदं।
जाण अलिंगग्गहणं जीवमिणिदिट्ठसंठाणं ॥४९॥

Know the soul as: without taste, without form, without smell, imperceptible to the senses, having consciousness (chetanā) as its essential quality, without sound, not grasped through signs, and of no defined physical shape.

After eleven gathas demolishing wrong views, Kundkundacharya turns to the reader directly and says: "Know the soul as..." This is the moment the Adhikar has been building toward. The soul is now positively defined. Notice the structure: eight qualities, and seven of them are negative (the soul does NOT have these things), and one is positive. No taste — you cannot put the soul on your tongue. No form (rūpa) — you cannot see it with eyes. No smell — your nose cannot detect it. Imperceptible to the senses (avyakta) — all five sense organs are completely useless for finding the soul. Without sound — ears cannot hear it. Not grasped through external signs or liṅga — you cannot identify the soul by its marks, the way you identify gold by its color or fire by its heat. No defined physical shape — it has no body-outline, no boundary you could trace. And the one positive: chētanā-guṇam — its essential quality is consciousness. Chētanā here means the living knowing-experiencing capacity. It is not a quality the soul has the way a mango has sweetness. Chētanā is what the soul is. Consciousness is not an attribute of the soul — it is the soul's very nature, its intrinsic definition. This one verse contains the complete definition of the jīva, against which all the wrong views of Gathas 39–43 shatter instantly.

The simple version: After all the wrong views, this verse tells you what the soul actually is. The soul has no taste, no shape, no smell, no sound, no body, no form you can see or touch — it cannot be found by any of your five senses. Only one positive thing defines it: consciousness. And not consciousness as something it has, like a wallet has money. Consciousness is what the soul is. Its very nature, its core, its definition. If you strip away every material quality, what remains is consciousness — and that is the soul.

जीवस्स णत्थि वण्णो ण वि गंधो ण वि रसो ण वि य फासो।
ण वि रूवं ण सरीरं ण वि संठाणं ण संहणणं ॥५०॥

The soul has no color, no smell, no taste, no touch; no form, no body, no shape (saṃsthāna), no physical constitution (saṃhanana).

Gatha 50 continues and deepens the definition given in Gatha 49, but now it speaks as a systematic list of denials, making the negation even more complete and unambiguous. Color (varṇa) — the soul has none. There are five colors in Jain philosophy: black, blue, red, yellow, and white. None belong to the soul. Smell (gandha) — the soul has no odor, pleasant or foul. Taste (rasa) — the soul has no taste, none of the six tastes (sweet, sour, salty, pungent, bitter, astringent). Touch (sparśa) — the soul has no tactile quality — not hot, cold, soft, hard, light, or heavy. Form or appearance (rūpa) — the soul has no visual form whatsoever. Body (śarīra) — the soul is not a body; it is not made of the five kinds of bodies (gross, fluid, electric, karmic, projectable) that Jain physics describes. Shape (saṃsthāna) — the soul has no defined external shape, no outline. Physical constitution (saṃhanana) — the soul has no structural solidity or bone-and-sinew arrangement. Every single physical and sensory category is eliminated. What remains after all these negations? Only consciousness — the one quality that cannot be listed among the physical properties, the one quality that cannot be weighed, measured, seen, touched, smelled, or tasted. This is the soul.

The simple version: This verse goes through every physical quality one by one and says: the soul has none of it. No color. No smell. No taste. No texture. No visible form. No body. No shape. No bone structure. Think of everything you can detect with any of your five senses — the soul is none of that. Every sensory quality belongs to matter, not to the soul. What the soul is cannot be found by any of your senses. Only pure knowing-awareness — consciousness — is the soul.

जीवस्स णत्थि रागो ण वि दोसो णेव विज्जदे मोहो।
णो पच्चया ण कम्मं णोकम्मं चावि से णत्थि ॥५१॥

The soul has no rāga (attachment), no dvēṣa (aversion); moha (delusion) does not exist in it; no pratyayas (influx-causes), no karma, and nokamma also does not belong to it.

Gathas 49 and 50 eliminated the physical. Now Gatha 51 eliminates the psychological — and this is where things become most personally challenging. Rāga means attachment — the pull you feel toward things you want to hold on to, like a favorite toy, a comfortable routine, a person you love. Dvēṣa means aversion — the push you feel away from things you dislike, like pain, embarrassment, or people who criticize you. Moha means delusion — the confused fog that makes you see things incorrectly, like believing the temporary is permanent, or that pleasure is the goal of life. These three — attachment, aversion, delusion — feel like the most deeply "us" things about us. They feel like our personality, our character, our very self. But Kundkundacharya declares: they are not in the soul. They are not the soul's inherent nature. They are foreign intrusions driven by karma — specifically by mohanīya-karma (deluding karma) acting on the soul's experience. Beyond these three, the gatha also eliminates pratyayas (the conditions that cause karma to flow in), karma itself, and nokamma (the body and material accompaniments). The soul, by its pure nature, has none of these. This is perhaps the most radical claim in the entire Adhikar: the feelings that feel most "like you" — your loves, your fears, your habitual confusions — are not you.

The simple version: After removing physical qualities in Gathas 49–50, now the inner qualities get removed too. Attachment — that feeling of "I want this, I need this" — is not the soul's nature. Aversion — that feeling of "I hate this, get it away from me" — is also not the soul. Delusion — the fog of confusion about what is real — also does not belong to the soul. These three feelings seem like the most personal things about us. But they are actually driven by karma — by matter. The pure soul, without karma, would have none of these. No karma, no body — none of it belongs to the soul's actual nature.

जीवस्स णत्थि वग्गो ण वग्गणा णेव फड्डुया केई।
णो अझ्झप्पट्ठाणा णेव य अणुभागट्ठाणाणि ॥५२॥

The soul has no varga, no vargaṇā, no spardhaka whatsoever; no adhyātmasthānas, no anubhāgasthānas — none of these.

Parts 4 of the Adhikar works through the entire technical vocabulary of Jain philosophy and eliminates each category from the soul's definition. This may seem dry, but it has a precise purpose: to show that no matter how sophisticated your technical understanding, the soul cannot be found within any framework built of material categories. Varga means a group of same-type pudgala-particles. Vargaṇā means a larger organized grouping of vargas — like how carbon atoms group into molecules, molecules group into compounds. Spardhaka is a further grouping — a competitive cluster of particles that determines karmic strength. These are increasingly refined levels at which pudgala organizes itself. Think of it like chemistry: atoms → molecules → compounds → materials. All of Jain material physics. None of it touches the soul. Adhyātmasthānas are the internal stations or levels within the soul-body complex as karma acts — and anubhāgasthānas are the stages of karmic fruition intensity. Again: these are categories describing matter's organization and karma's operation. The soul itself has none of these. The soul's nature cannot be indexed by any material category, however technically sophisticated. You can describe matter all the way down to its finest structure — you will still not find the soul, because the soul is not matter.

The simple version: Jain physics has very detailed technical categories for describing how matter (pudgala) is organized — from tiny particles, to groups of particles, to larger clusters. These are the building blocks of the material universe. Kundkundacharya says: none of these belong to the soul. Not a single one. No matter how finely you describe the organization of matter, you will never arrive at the soul — because the soul is a completely different kind of thing. It is not matter at any level. You cannot dissect matter finely enough to find consciousness inside it.

जीवस्स णत्थि केई जोयट्ठाणा ण बंधट्ठाणा वा।
णेव य उदयट्ठाणा ण मग्गणट्ठाणया केई ॥५३॥

The soul has no yogasthānas, no bandhhasthānas; no udayasthānas, no mārgaṇāsthānas of any kind.

The elimination continues with four more categories from Jain philosophy. Yogasthānas are the degrees of yoga — yoga here means vibration or activity in the body, mind, and speech that causes karma to flow into the soul. How active your body is, how busy your mind is — these are yogasthānas, and they determine how much karma you attract. Bandhhasthānas are the configurations in which karma actually binds to the soul — different types of karmic binding, like different ways a knot can be tied. Udayasthānas are the stages of karmic maturation and rising — when karma becomes active and produces its results. Mārgaṇāsthānas are the fourteen search-categories (gati, indriya, kāya, yoga, vesha, kaṣāya, jñāna, saṃyama, darśana, leśyā, bhavya, saṃyaktva, sañjñā, āhāra) used in Jain texts to classify and describe souls according to their current state. These categories tell you what kind of body a soul has, what kind of passions it has, what stage of knowledge it has — they describe the soul's current situation and condition in samsāra. But they describe the situation, not the nature. Think of it like a person's address: their address describes where they currently live, not what their personality is. These classification categories describe "where the soul currently is" in samsāra — they do not describe what the soul fundamentally is.

The simple version: Four more technical categories are ruled out. Yogasthānas describe how much bodily and mental activity a soul currently has. Bandhhasthānas describe how karma binds to the soul. Udayasthānas describe how karma rises and gives results. Mārgaṇāsthānas are the fourteen categories used to classify what kind of soul you currently are — like whether you have five senses or two, what passions you have, what spiritual knowledge you have. All of these describe the soul's current situation in samsāra. They are like a map of where the soul is right now. But a map of where you are is not a definition of who you are.

णो ठिदिबंधट्ठाणा जीवस्स ण संकिलेसट्ठाणा वा।
णेव विसोहिट्ठाणा णो संजमलद्धिट्ठाणा वा ॥५४॥

The soul has no sthitibandhasthānas, no saṃkleśasthānas; no viśuddhisthānas, no saṃyamalabdhisthānas.

This gatha goes one step further than the previous categories — and this is where it really challenges spiritual students. The previous categories (varga, yogasthāna, mārgaṇā) are technical terms that most people never think about anyway. But this verse eliminates categories that directly describe spiritual progress — things a sincere practitioner would naturally care about. Sthitibandhasthāna is the duration for which karma binds — some karma binds for a moment, some for a lifetime, some for much longer. Saṃkleśasthāna describes the degree of spiritual pollution or defilement — how much the mohanīya-karma has disturbed the soul's natural clarity. Viśuddhisthāna describes the degree of purification — how clean and clear the soul-space has become as karma sheds. Saṃyamalabdhisthāna describes the attainment of different degrees of self-restraint in spiritual practice. These all sound deeply spiritual — they are about purity, restraint, progress on the path. Yet Kundkundacharya declares: these too are not the soul's own nature, because they are all driven by karma, which is matter (pudgala). Saṃkleśa rises because mohanīya-karma rises. Viśuddhi increases because karma sheds. Saṃyama develops as karma weakens its hold. The soul's actual nature is identical — pure consciousness — at every point, regardless of which stage of defilement or purification is currently active. The stages describe what karma is currently doing to the soul's situation, not what the soul itself is.

The simple version: This gatha eliminates even categories of spiritual progress. Things like: how long your karma binds, how spiritually polluted you currently are, how purified you are becoming, how much self-restraint you have developed — all of these change as karma acts. They describe your spiritual situation, not your soul's actual nature. Your soul's nature is the same whether you are at the lowest stage of spiritual development or the highest. What changes across those stages is the karma-situation, not the soul itself. The soul is always pure consciousness — even when karma is making it appear impure.

णेव य जीवट्ठाणा ण गुणट्ठाणा य अत्थि जीवस्स।
जेण दु एदे सव्वे पोग्गलदव्वस्स परिणामा ॥५५॥

The soul has no jīvasthānas, no guṇasthānas — because all of these are transformations (pariṇāma) of pudgala-dravya.

This gatha is the climax of the entire technical section. The Adhikar has been systematically eliminating every Jain technical category from the soul's definition. Now it arrives at the most important category of all: guṇasthānas. The fourteen guṇasthānas are the spiritual stages of development in Jain philosophy, from mithyādṛṣṭi (completely false perception of reality) through the thirteen stages all the way to siddha (fully liberated). These stages form the entire map of the spiritual path in Jain thought. A student learns these stages, tracks their own position on the map, and aspires to move upward. And yet Kundkundacharya says: even jīvasthānas (the fourteen soul-classifications by sense capacity) and guṇasthānas are transformations of pudgala-dravya. Why? Because — and this is the reason given explicitly in the gatha — all these stages are driven by karma (which is pudgala). When mohanīya-karma (deluding karma) is fully active, the soul appears to be at stage one. As that karma weakens, the soul appears to climb the stages. As it completely ends, the soul reaches liberation. The stages are tracking karma's activity, not the soul's intrinsic nature. The soul itself — its pure consciousness — does not change between stage one and stage fourteen. What changes is which karmas are active, which are suppressed, which have been shed. The soul is the knower of every stage. It is not identical with any particular stage. It is what sees all fourteen from within.

The simple version: This is the boldest statement in the technical section. Even the fourteen guṇasthānas — the famous spiritual stages of Jain practice, from complete delusion all the way to full liberation — are declared not to be the soul's own nature. Why? Because they are all driven by karma. When karma changes, the stage changes. The soul's own nature — pure consciousness — does not change from stage to stage. The soul is what is aware at every stage. It is not the stage itself. You are not "a second-stage soul" any more than you are your shoes. The stage is a description of your karma-situation right now. Your soul is what watches all of it.

ववहारेण दु एदे जीवस्स हवंति वण्णमादीया।
गुणट्ठाणंता भावा ण दु केई णिच्छयणयस्स ॥५६॥

By vyavahāra, color etc. up to guṇasthāna-related bhavas "belong to" the soul; but from the niśchaya standpoint, not one of these applies.

Gatha 56 provides the explicit summary of the entire technical section (Gathas 52–55). Kundkundacharya states the two-standpoints conclusion cleanly: from vyavahāra — the conventional standpoint used in teaching — all these properties from color (vaṇṇa) up through guṇasthāna "belong to" the soul. The scriptures say so; the teachers teach it this way. But from niśchaya — the ultimate standpoint that sees reality as it truly is — not one of these material categories actually applies to the soul's own nature. This is the philosophical framework that governs the entire Samaysaar. Neither standpoint is simply "wrong." Vyavahāra is not a lie — it is the useful teaching tool that allows people to begin. Niśchaya is not the only truth worth speaking — it is the deepest truth, which must be reached through teaching. The relationship between them is like steps and a destination: the steps (vyavahāra) are real and necessary, but the destination (niśchaya) is where you actually need to arrive. And crucially: only the niśchaya standpoint, when genuinely recognized — not just intellectually agreed with, but actually seen — produces liberation. You can agree that the soul has no color and still unconsciously identify with your emotional states. Liberation comes when the niśchaya truth is not just understood but lived.

The simple version: This verse is the summary of everything in Gathas 52–55. From the conventional standpoint (vyavahāra), all those technical categories — color, spiritual stages, karma categories — "belong to" the soul. This is how teachers teach and how scriptures speak. From the ultimate standpoint (niśchaya), not one of those categories actually belongs to the soul. Both standpoints matter — one for teaching, one for liberation. But only the ultimate standpoint, when you truly see it for yourself rather than just agreeing with it, actually sets you free.

एदेहिं य संबंधो जहेव खीरोदयं मुणेदव्वो।
ण य होंति तस्स ताणि दु उवओगगुणाधिगो जम्हा ॥५७॥

The soul's connection with these [color etc.] should be understood like the mixing of milk and water; yet those do not truly belong to the soul, because the soul is superior in the quality of upayoga (conscious knowing).

This gatha contains one of the most famous analogies in Jain philosophy — the milk-and-water analogy — and uses it to answer a natural question: if the soul has nothing to do with color, karma, or any material quality, why does it appear as if it does? When you look at a person, you see a colored body, emotional reactions, intelligent behavior. Where is this pure, colorless, emotionless consciousness you are describing? The answer is the milk-water analogy. When you pour milk into water, the two mix completely. The whole liquid looks like one substance. You cannot tell by looking where the milk ends and the water begins. But they are two different substances — milk is fat-and-protein in water, and the water is H₂O. They were never actually one thing, only mixed. In the tradition, a mythical swan (haṃsa) is said to be able to separate milk from water — a symbol of discrimination. Similarly: the soul and karma/body/mental-states are thoroughly mixed in samsāra. They appear to be one thing. But they are two fundamentally different substances. What distinguishes them? Upayoga — the capacity for conscious knowing and experiencing. This quality belongs to the soul alone. No piece of matter — no karma-particle, no body-cell, no emotion-wave — has upayoga. Consciousness does not arise from matter however complex; it is the soul's intrinsic nature. The soul's connection to karma and body is like milk mixed with water — appearing as one, but fundamentally two. The one who has discrimination (like the swan) can see them separately.

The simple version: This gatha gives one of the most beautiful explanations in the Adhikar. Soul and matter (karma, body, emotions) are mixed together in samsāra like milk mixed into water. They look like one thing. But they are not one thing — they are two completely different substances that got mixed. What is the one quality that separates the soul from everything it's mixed with? Upayoga — the ability to consciously know and experience. Nothing material has this quality. No amount of karma-particles can produce consciousness. The soul alone has upayoga. That single quality is the line between soul and not-soul.

पंथे मुस्संतं परिस्सदूण लोगा भणंति ववहारी।
मुस्सिदे एसो पंथो ण य पंथो मुस्सदे कोई ॥५८॥

Seeing a traveler being robbed on the path, people conventionally say "the path is being robbed" — but in truth, no path is actually being robbed; it is the traveler.

This gatha gives a second, equally vivid analogy for understanding how vyavahāra language works. Imagine you are walking on a road. A robber appears, attacks you, and steals your bag. Your family hears the news. What do they say? In common speech: "He was robbed on the highway" or even "The highway robbed him." People sometimes say "that road is dangerous" or "someone was robbed on that path." But here is the precise truth: the path cannot be robbed. A path is made of dirt and stone — it has no possessions. It cannot be harmed. Only the traveler on the path can be robbed, because only the traveler has possessions and interests. The path is the location where the event happened. We say "the path" to point to the event's location, not to name the actual victim. This is a perfect description of vyavahāra language: we describe the location and call it the subject. Now the application: the soul, in samsāra, is the traveler. Karma is what the soul carries with it. Karma has color — karma-particles in Jain physics have five colors. When we say "the soul has color," we are saying "the traveler on this path got robbed" — we are naming the soul when we mean what is carried with the soul. The color belongs to karma (what travels with the soul), not to the soul (the traveler itself). Saying "the soul's color" is path-language — vyavahāra — pointing to what accompanies the soul, not what the soul is.

The simple version: When someone is robbed on a road, people say "the road is dangerous" — but the road was not robbed. Only the traveler was. The road is just where it happened. In the same way: karma has color (karma-particles in Jain physics actually have colors). Those colored karmas travel with the soul. When teachers say "the soul's color," they are using the same kind of shorthand — pointing at what is around the soul, not what the soul itself is. The soul is the traveler. Karma is what it's carrying. Only karma has color, not the soul.

तह जीवे कम्माणं णोकम्माणं च परिस्सदुं वण्णं।
जीवस्स एस वण्णो जिणेहिं ववहारदो उत्तो ॥५९॥

Similarly, seeing the color of karma and nokamma situated around the soul, "this is the soul's color" — thus the Jinas have spoken by vyavahāra only.

Gatha 59 applies the path-robbery analogy directly to the question of the soul's color. Karma-dravya (karmic matter) and nokamma (body-matter and sense-material) both carry material color. They are situated around the soul — enveloping it the way a colored cloth envelops a lamp. From the outside, the lamp appears colored. But the lamp's light itself is not the color of the cloth. The color belongs to what is wrapped around it. In the same way: karma and nokamma are wrapped around the soul in samsāra. They have five colors. The soul appears to be colored because of what surrounds it. The Jinas, when teaching souls in samsāra who cannot yet see this distinction, use the conventional statement: "This is the soul's color." They do not say this to mislead — they say it because students at that level need to begin where they are. But the text includes a critical qualifier that Kundkundacharya highlights: vyavahārata uktah — "spoken by vyavahāra only." The Jinas themselves, even as they speak the conventional statement, know and declare that it is conventional only. This is the mark of an omniscient teacher: they can use pedagogical language without themselves being confused by it. The ultimate truth remains: the color belongs to karma and nokamma, not to the soul.

The simple version: Karma and the body both have color — real material color. They wrap around the soul like a colored blanket around a lamp. The lamp doesn't change color — the blanket does. When the Jinas said "the soul's color," they were using shorthand — pointing at the karma-blanket around the soul, not at the soul's own nature. And the text makes this explicit: "spoken by convention only." The teachers knew they were speaking conventionally. Even as they taught it, they knew the deeper truth: the color belongs to karma, not the soul.

गंधरसफासरूवा देहो संठाणमाइया जे य।
सव्वे ववहारस्स य णिच्छयदण्हू वविदसंति ॥६०॥

Smell, taste, touch, form, body, shape etc. — all of these, those who see ultimate truth describe only from the vyavahāra standpoint.

This gatha makes a point that might seem subtle but is enormously important. It lists several material qualities — smell, taste, touch, form (gandha, rasa, sparśa, rūpa), along with body and shape — and says: all of these, when described in relation to the soul, are descriptions from the vyavahāra standpoint only. But who is doing this describing? The bhūtārtha-draṣṭas — "those who see ultimate truth." This phrase is key. Even the realized masters, those who have directly seen ultimate reality, sometimes use vyavahāra language about the soul. They say "the soul's color," "the soul's karma," "the soul's spiritual stage." They use this conventional language because they are teaching students who need it. But there is a crucial difference between a master using vyavahāra language and a confused person using it: the master knows exactly which standpoint they are speaking from. They are never confused by their own pedagogical language. They use vyavahāra speech like a skilled translator uses an imperfect translation — with full awareness of what is being said and what its limitations are. A student hearing this gatha should understand: when a great teacher uses conventional soul-language, do not mistake it for the final truth. The teacher is teaching from where you are, not declaring ultimate reality. Ask: from which standpoint is this being said? That question itself is a mark of philosophical maturity.

The simple version: Even the greatest realized teachers — those who have personally seen ultimate truth — sometimes describe the soul using conventional language about sense-qualities. They say "the soul's color," "the soul's form," etc. But they do this while knowing exactly what they are doing. They are teaching from the conventional standpoint (vyavahāra) to meet students where they are. They are never confused about it themselves. This is like a skilled teacher using simple examples even though they know the advanced version — they choose simpler language for their students. The key difference: a master uses vyavahāra knowingly; a confused person uses it while thinking it is ultimate truth.

तत्थ भवे जीवाणं संसारट्ठाण होंति वण्णादी।
संसारपमुक्काणं णत्थि हु वण्णादओ केई ॥६१॥

In samsāra, for worldly souls, color etc. exist conventionally; but for those liberated from samsāra, no color etc. exist whatsoever.

Gatha 61 offers what may be the most practical, empirical argument in the entire Adhikar. Up until now, the argument has been philosophical — definitions, standpoints, analogies. Now comes a test that you can apply: look at what happens in liberation. Souls in samsāra — ordinary worldly souls — do have color, body, shape, and form in the vyavahāra sense. These material qualities are present because karma and nokamma are present. Fine. But now look at what happens when liberation occurs. The siddha (liberated soul) has shed all karma completely. Nothing material remains attached to it. And what happens to color? It vanishes completely. What happens to shape? Gone. Body? None. Form? None. Location? A siddha has no specific location — it is at the apex of the universe, formless and motionless. Now apply the logical test: if color were truly the soul's own nature — intrinsic to what the soul is — then it would persist even after karma falls away. You cannot separate a thing from its own nature. Fire cannot be un-hot. Water cannot be un-wet. But liberation removes all color from the soul. This proves that color was never the soul's own — it was only associated with it temporarily through karma. What remains after all karma falls away is the soul's pure nature: pure consciousness, upayoga alone, colorless, formless, without body or shape, eternal and free.

The simple version: Here is a simple test. In samsāra, souls appear to have color and body because karma wraps around them. But in liberation — when all karma is completely gone — the siddha soul has no color, no body, no shape, nothing material at all. If color were truly the soul's own nature, you could not remove it even in liberation. But liberation removes it completely. That proves color was never the soul's own — it was always karma's. What the soul has at the very end, after everything material is stripped away, is its true nature: pure consciousness, nothing more.

जीवो चेव हि एदे सव्वे भाव ति मण्णसे जदि हि।
जीवस्साजीवस्स य णत्थि विसेसो दु दे कोई ॥६२॥

If you believe that all these bhavas [color, rāga, karma etc.] are indeed the soul — then there remains no distinction whatsoever between jīva and ajīva for you.

Part 6 of the Adhikar introduces a different kind of argument: the reductio ad absurdum — Latin for "reduction to the absurd." This is a powerful philosophical technique where you accept the opponent's position as true and then follow it to its logical conclusion, showing that it produces an absurd or impossible result. Kundkundacharya turns to an imagined opponent who still insists: "All these bhavas — color, rāga, karma, the body — these are indeed the jīva (soul)." He accepts this position for a moment and asks: well, if all those material states are the soul — then what is not the soul? If karma is the soul, and the body is the soul, and emotional states are the soul — then ajīva (non-soul) would be empty of content. Everything becomes "soul." But jīva and ajīva are supposed to be two distinct categories — consciousness and matter. The entire Jain philosophical system is built on this distinction. Six substances: jīva, pudgala-dravya, dharma, adharma, ākāśa, kāla — each a distinct category. If you collapse jīva and pudgala into one by calling material states "the soul," you have destroyed the foundational distinction of the entire system. And more practically: liberation means jīva becoming free from ajīva. If jīva and ajīva are the same, liberation has no meaning. The path has no destination. The teaching collapses from within.

The simple version: Kundkundacharya now uses a brilliant argument: "Let's say you are right — let's say all those material things are the soul." If that were true, then there would be nothing left that is NOT the soul. Everything would be soul — karma, bodies, emotions, rocks, water, everything. But the whole Jain teaching is built on the difference between soul (jīva) and non-soul (ajīva). If they are the same thing, that entire teaching collapses. And liberation — which means soul becoming free from non-soul — would become meaningless, because there would be no non-soul to escape from. The wrong view destroys itself when followed to its conclusion.

अह संसारट्ठाणं जीवाणं तुझ होंति वण्णादी।
तम्हा संसारट्था जीवा रूवित्तमावण्णा ॥६३॥

If you say that in the samsāric state, color etc. belong to souls — then it follows that samsāric souls have attained the quality of rūpa-ness (form/matter-ness).

The opponent may retreat and say: "I don't mean the soul always and everywhere has color. I mean only that samsāric souls — souls currently in the cycle of birth and death — have color, because they are mixed with karma." This sounds more careful and reasonable. Kundkundacharya accepts this more limited claim and shows it leads to the same problem. If samsāric souls have color — and color is a material quality — then samsāric souls have attained rūpitvam: "the quality of being rūpa." Being rūpa means being material. Being material means being pudgala-dravya. So you have now declared samsāric souls to be pudgala-dravya — matter. But here is the fatal consequence: if the soul in samsāra is matter — actual pudgala — then when karma falls away at liberation, the pudgala-soul would simply become a soul without karma. It would still be pudgala. A material thing shedding its coating is still material. A pudgala-soul cannot escape from pudgala — it is pudgala. Liberation becomes impossible in principle. You cannot free a material substance from materiality — only consciousness can be freed from material association. The entire project of mokṣa (liberation) depends on consciousness being fundamentally different from matter. The moment you say the soul is material, even only in samsāra, you have made liberation conceptually incoherent.

The simple version: The opponent tries to be more careful: "I only mean samsāric souls have color — not liberated souls." Kundkundacharya shows this still fails. If samsāric souls have color — a material quality — then samsāric souls are material things. But then liberation (losing all karma) would just be a material thing losing its covering — it would still be material. You cannot liberate a material thing from matter, because it is already matter. Liberation only makes sense if the soul is fundamentally different from matter — a consciousness that can separate itself from material karma. The moment you call the soul material, liberation becomes impossible to explain.

एवं पोग्गलदव्वं जीवो तहलक्खणेण मूढमदी।
णिव्वाणमुवगदो वि य जीवत्तं णोग्गलो पत्तो ॥६४॥

By that reasoning, the foolish-minded one is calling pudgala-dravya "the soul" — and even at liberation, pudgala would have attained the state of jīva-ness. An absurd conclusion.

Gatha 64 drives the reductio to its final, most absurd conclusion and delivers the knock-out blow. If we follow the opponent's logic — that the soul is defined by material qualities like color, rāga, karma, the body — then we have called pudgala-dravya "the soul." This is the first absurdity the gatha names. The wise person (niśchayavādin) would call this mūḍhamati — the thinking of a confused mind. But then comes the second and even stranger conclusion. The opponent was trying to define what the soul is. But at liberation, the soul sheds all karma — all material qualities fall away. If those material qualities were the soul's defining characteristics, then at liberation the soul loses its defining characteristics. What is left would not be the soul by the opponent's own definition. And what would be left? The body and karma-matter, minus the soul-qualities that have now departed. But those body and karma-materials would now be what "remains" — and since the soul-qualities have somehow separated from them... the karma-matter (pudgala) has achieved the "jīva-state." An absolutely absurd conclusion: the rocks and dust left behind when someone achieves liberation would become souls. The entire reductio shows that the wrong view is not just philosophically incorrect — it is self-destroying. The only coherent position, the only one that explains samsāra, liberation, and the path between them, is: the soul is pure consciousness; matter is entirely other.

The simple version: The reductio reaches its most extreme point. If the soul is defined by material qualities like color and karma — then at liberation, when all those material qualities disappear, the soul disappears too. What is left? Just the matter that the soul was apparently living in. But now that matter has "achieved liberation" — it has the jīva-qualities by default. A rock would become a soul. The body left behind at death would become a soul. This is completely absurd. The argument collapses entirely. The only sensible conclusion: the soul is consciousness — not matter. Matter is matter. They are two different things. One can be freed from the other. And that freedom is what liberation actually is.

एकं च दोण्णि तिण्णि य चत्तारि य पंच इंदिया जीवा।
बादरपज्जत्तिदरा पयडीओ णामकम्मस्स ॥६५॥

One, two, three, four, five-sensed beings — bādara (gross), paryāpta (fully developed), itara (undeveloped) — these are the species-types (prakṛtis) of nāma-karma.

Part 7 addresses the "classification problem" — the fact that Jain texts constantly categorize souls by types, and those types appear to say something fundamental about the soul. The most familiar classifications are the sense-categories: one-sensed (like bacteria and plants, which have only touch-sense), two-sensed (like worms — touch and taste), three-sensed (like ants — touch, taste, smell), four-sensed (like flies — touch, taste, smell, sight), and five-sensed (like humans — all five senses). Then the gross/subtle distinction (bādara = gross-bodied, sūkṣma = subtle/micro-bodied) and the developed/undeveloped distinction (paryāpta = fully developed, aparyāpta = not yet fully developed). Everyone who studies Jain philosophy encounters these categories early. They seem to be basic facts about different kinds of souls. But Kundkundacharya reveals the precise status of these categories: they are not properties of the soul — they are prakṛtis (species-determining configurations) of nāma-karma. Nāma-karma is the type of karma that determines the kind of body, the kind of sense-apparatus, the kind of form a soul takes in a particular birth. When we say "this is a five-sensed being," we are naming which nāma-karma-type is currently active for that soul. We are not naming the soul's own nature. The soul by its own nature has upayoga — conscious knowing. It does not have "five senses" as part of its pure nature; it has five senses temporarily, as a result of nāma-karma. A different birth, a different nāma-karma, and it would have a different sense-count. The soul itself did not change — the karma did.

The simple version: You have probably heard Jain classification of souls: one-sensed, two-sensed, up to five-sensed. And other labels like "gross-bodied" or "subtle-bodied," "fully developed" or "not yet developed." These feel like they are describing the soul — what kind of soul this is. But this verse reveals: these are descriptions of nāma-karma (the karma that determines body-type), not descriptions of the soul's own nature. Having five senses is a result of nāma-karma giving you that kind of body. In a different birth with different karma, the same soul might have only two senses. The soul did not gain or lose senses — the karma changed. The labels tell us what nāma-karma is currently doing, not what the soul fundamentally is.

एदाहि य णिव्वत्ता जीवट्ठाणा उ करणभूदाहिं।
पयडीहिं पोग्गलमइहिं ताहिं कहं भण्णदे जीवो ॥६६॥

The jīva-sthānas are produced by these nāma-karma prakṛtis which are instrumental; these prakṛtis are pudgala-made. How then can those jīva-sthānas be called the soul?

Gatha 66 draws the logical conclusion from Gatha 65 with crystal clarity. The argument has three steps, all explicit in the verse. First: jīvasthānas (the fourteen soul-classifications by sense-organ count and body-type) are produced (nirvṛtta) by the nāma-karma prakṛtis. These prakṛtis are the instrumental cause (karaṇa-bhūta) — the mechanism that produces these classifications. So jīvasthānas are effects produced by nāma-karma. Second: those nāma-karma prakṛtis are pudgala-made (pauddgalika) — they are material configurations of karma-particles. Karma is matter. Therefore what karma produces is also a material product. Third — and this is the punchline question: how then can those jīvasthānas be called the soul? Something produced by matter as its instrumental cause is a material product. Material products are not consciousness. The soul is consciousness. Therefore jīvasthānas are not the soul — they are descriptions of what matter (karma) has currently arranged around the soul. Think of it like this: if a sculptor (karma) takes stone (body-material) and carves a particular shape, the resulting statue is the sculptor's product. The statue describes the sculptor's activity, not the nature of the light shining on it. The soul is like the light — it illuminates the scene but is not responsible for the statue's shape. The statue's shape (jīvasthāna) tells you about the sculptor (karma), not about the light (soul).

The simple version: The argument here is three simple steps. Step 1: The jīvasthāna classifications (like "five-sensed" or "gross-bodied") are produced by nāma-karma. Step 2: Nāma-karma is made of matter — it is a pudgala thing. Step 3: Therefore, what nāma-karma produces (the jīvasthānas) is also a material product. So how can something that is the product of matter be called the soul — which is consciousness? It cannot. The soul-classifications are descriptions of what karma is doing, not of what the soul is. A sculptor's work tells you about the sculptor, not about the room's light.

पज्जत्तापज्जत्ता जे सुहुमा बादरा य जे चेव।
देहस्स जीवसण्णा सुत्ते ववहारदो उत्ता ॥६७॥

Paryāpta, aparyāpta, sūkṣma, bādara — these designations for the body have been called "jīva-saṃjñā" (soul-designations) in the sūtras only by vyavahāra.

Gatha 67 addresses a specific potential confusion that arises from Āgamic scripture-study. In the Āgamas — the ancient Jain scriptures — you frequently encounter terms like "paryāpta jīva" (fully developed soul) and "sūkṣma jīva" (subtle soul) and "bādara jīva" (gross-bodied soul) and "aparyāpta jīva" (undeveloped soul). A student reading these terms naturally assumes they are descriptions of the soul — the word jīva is right there. But Kundkundacharya clarifies precisely what these terms actually are: jīva-saṃjñā — "soul-designations" — used in the sūtras by vyavahāra (convention), not by niśchaya (ultimate truth). The four terms describe body-conditions: paryāpta means the body has fully developed all its capacities after birth; aparyāpta means it hasn't yet. Sūkṣma means the body-material is extremely subtle (micro-organisms so tiny they cannot be seen); bādara means the body is gross and visible. These are descriptions of the physical apparatus — the body that karma (specifically nāma-karma) has produced. When Āgamic texts call these "jīva-types," they are using the body-designation to stand in for the soul living in that body — the same way we say "the five-sensed jīva" to mean "a soul currently inhabiting a five-sensed body." It is convenient convention, not a declaration about the soul's own nature. The soul inhabiting a sūkṣma (subtle) body is not itself subtle — it is pure consciousness, same as always. The subtlety belongs to the body; the soul is the consciousness within it.

The simple version: Jain scriptures frequently say things like "the subtle soul" (sūkṣma jīva) or "the fully developed soul" (paryāpta jīva). These sound like descriptions of the soul. But they are actually descriptions of the body-type — subtle or gross body, fully developed or still developing. The soul living in a subtle body is not itself subtle; its body is. The soul living in a fully developed body is not itself "fully developed" or "undeveloped" — those terms describe the body's condition. The scriptures call these "soul-labels" as a shorthand for "the soul currently in this kind of body" — but it is conventional shorthand, not a statement about the soul's own nature.

मोहणकम्मस्सुदया दु वण्णिया जे इमे गुणट्ठाणा।
ते कह हवंति जीवा जे णिच्चमचेदणा उत्ता ॥६८॥

The guṇasthānas described as arising from the udaya of mohanīya-karma — how can those be the soul? For they are declared eternally devoid of consciousness (achetana).

The final gatha of the Adhikar delivers the closing argument with extraordinary philosophical precision. The target is the guṇasthānas — the fourteen spiritual stages from mithyādṛṣṭi (false perception, stage 1) through sāsādana, miśra, avirata-samyagdṛṣṭi, deśa-virata, pramatta-virata, apramatta-virata, apūrvakaraṇa, anivṛttibādarasaṃparāya, sūkṣmasaṃparāya, upaśāntamoha, kṣīṇamoha, sayogakevali, and finally ayogakevali and siddha (stages 13–14). These stages describe the soul's spiritual journey. They are the most important spiritual categories in Jain practice. A student might reasonably ask: surely the guṇasthānas, at least, describe something intrinsic to the soul — they are about consciousness and liberation, not just material stuff? Kundkundacharya's answer uses the Āgamas' own testimony. The guṇasthānas are driven by and described in terms of mohanīya-karma (deluding karma) — specifically its udaya (rising), upaśama (suppression), kṣaya (destruction), and kṣayopaśama (partial destruction). The stages change as mohanīya-karma changes its activity. And here is the devastating admission from the Āgamas themselves: the guṇasthānas are declared eternally achetana — "devoid of consciousness." Not temporarily, not partially — eternally devoid of consciousness. Because they are karma-products. Now apply the definition: the soul is defined by chetanā (consciousness). The guṇasthānas are declared eternally achetana (without consciousness). How can the eternally non-conscious be the soul, which is defined as consciousness? It cannot. Guṇasthānas are the soul's spiritual GPS coordinates — they tell you where the soul currently is on the map. They do not tell you what the soul is. The Adhikar closes with the declaration: jīva and ajīva, having been clearly separated through these 30 gathas, now exit the arena — distinct, no longer confused.

The simple version: The final gatha targets the guṇasthānas — the fourteen spiritual stages that every serious Jain student learns. These stages rise and fall based on mohanīya-karma (deluding karma) becoming more or less active. When delusion-karma rises, you fall toward lower stages. When it weakens, you rise. And here is the key: the Āgamas themselves declare the guṇasthānas to be eternally achetana — non-conscious — because they are produced by karma. But the soul is defined as consciousness (chetanā). How can something that is permanently non-conscious be called the soul, which is pure consciousness? It cannot. Even the fourteen spiritual stages are not the soul — they are karma's changing influence on the soul's situation. The soul is the awareness that watches all fourteen stages from within. This is the final, conclusive separation: the soul is pure consciousness alone. Everything else — even the most spiritual-sounding categories — is ajīva.