The Concepts of Bhavya in Early Jainism

Summary

The article explores the Jain philosophical concepts of Bhavya (those capable of achieving liberation) and Abhavya (those not capable of achieving liberation). It surveys the development of these concepts across major Jain thinkers such as Kundakunda, Umasvati, Pujyapada, and Samantabhadra, while analyzing the doctrinal, epistemological, and karmic implications. Key Points 1. Definition and Context i) Bhavya is a person who has the potential to achieve mokṣa (liberation). ii) Abhavya is one who, due to innate nature, lacks this potential. iii) These terms became prominent in later Jain works, not in the early Āgamas. 2. Kundakunda’s View i) First major mention of Bhavya and Abhavya. ii) Abhavya denies the bliss of omniscient souls (Tīrthaṅkaras), while Bhavya aspires to attain that bliss. iii) Emphasizes individual effort and denies divine predestination. 3. Umasvati’s Tattvārtha Sūtra i) Introduces Bhavyatva as an innate nature (parināmika) of the soul. ii) A soul is either Bhavya or Abhavya—not both, and not changeable. iii) Pujyapada’s commentary links Bhavyatva to the Three Jewels: right faith, knowledge, and conduct. iv) Raises epistemological questions: can an Abhavya attain omniscience? 4. Samantabhadra’s Contribution i) While not using “Abhavya” directly, he implies the distinction through verses. ii) In Svayambhustotra and Ratnakarandaśrāvakācāra, Bhavya is one who cleanses karma and achieves bliss through devotion. iii) Aptamīmāṁsā (AM) explores this concept via logic, especially in verses 96–100, classifying souls as innately pure or impure (Bhavya or Abhavya). 5. Philosophical Implications i) Jain omniscient beings (Tīrthaṅkaras) exist to indicate whether one is Bhavya or Abhavya, satisfying human curiosity. ii) Even omniscience and kevalajñāna are viewed through this framework. iii) The distinction underscores Jainism’s focus on individual effort and karmic causality over divine intervention.