why-do-saugandh

Why do saugandh

Psychologically speaking a saugandh or a vow strengthens self restraint, helps in staying more conscious (apramatt), coz we have to be alert around our habits to avoid doing something that we took a vow for.

Spiritually speaking, if we take vow, we end up following it. And usually we take vow of some hinsa activity. So by taking a vow we try to limit that hinsa from our side. The 14 Niyam that @Chandani Singhvi Batman From Discord shared, talks about limiting normal things that we can easily do. As she mentioned, the idea is to take normal limits that are feasible and then lower it down the line.

From that pov, it might feel like we should take saugandh of things that actually requires some self restraint or things that we would have done if we didn't take a vow.

If I automatically do less of hinsa and don't take a vow for it vs I take a vow for it, would it make any difference in my karm?

This question bugged me for a long time, and I almost stopped taking saugandhs, coz at one point I was taking a lot of saugandhs and it felt like a mental load to track em all, so I resolved, that I just do less of everything at max capacity and just avoid keeping tabs of what all vows I have taken.... But I got to understand the importance of vow from my dad and @Chandani Singhvi Batman From Discord.

There is a concept of closing/ narrowing the doors of Ashrav (a lazy translation of ashrav would be - input channel of karm to our souls). Yog and Kashay together contribute to Ashrav.

If you think that karm accumulation only happens by yog then it would appear that taking a vow for something that you anyways don't do, shouldn't matter!

But there is more to it, karm accumulation happens due to kashay(intent / passions like anger, pride, deceit, greed) as well. Craving accompanied by attachment or agitation contributes to karm accumulation even without external action.

* Eliminates negotiation - Even if craving arises once, you discard it by understanding you have a vow and then craving subsides coz you have made peace with the fact that you won't be doing it! So you end up avoiding the intent which otherwise could have risen multiple times.

Now it might appear that a vow is just about samvar, ie. stopping inflow of new karm related to the vow that we have taken, but again there is more to it !

Generally if we are enduring discomfort due to not having something that we want, we shed karm coz of that discomfort, but we attach new karm if we get irritated or angry coz those are Kashay. Hence the whole incident becomes a net zero or sometimes net negative also!

If a vow causes some discomfort and we endure it with low kashay(coz the vow was self imposed and a low kashay is activated), we allow old karm to detach without or with very low new karm to attach. Hence leading to a net positive ! ✨

A vow not only causes Samvar (restricting new karm accumulation), it helps in narrowing the Ashrav (channel of entry of karma) and it helps in nirjara (extra karm detachment) also !

[04/04/26, 9:31:35 AM] ऋत्विक: *Help me understand the role of non restraint in ashrava.

If someone is not eating non veg mindfully understanding it is wrong and against ahinsa vs if someone took saugandh, will both scenarios affect asrava differently*

Yes, these two scenarios affect asrava (influx) differently because they address different "security layers" of the soul.

In Jain philosophy, simply not doing something "bad" is not the same as having a formal vow (virati) against it. Here is how they differ in terms of the channels of influx:

Even if you are mindfully avoiding non-vegetarian food because you understand it is wrong, you are technically still in a state of avirati (non-restraint).

In our software analogy, this is like having a server where no malicious packets are currently arriving, but you haven't actually configured a firewall rule to block them. Because the "port" is still open and unmonitored by a formal commitment, there is a continuous, subtle influx of karma. You haven't legally or spiritually "closed the door" to that possibility. This is identified as avirati (non-restraint/vowlessness), which is a lack of specific security protocols that leaves the system open.

When you take a vow (saugandh or pachchhakh ana), you are practicing samvara—the stoppage of influx. By making a formal commitment, you are "patching" the vulnerability of avirati.

Impact on asrava: The moment you take a vow, you shut down that specific channel of influx. Even when you are sleeping or not thinking about food, the vow is active, preventing the karma that would otherwise flow from "potential" harmful actions.

Logical Optimization: From a Terapanth perspective, the internal disposition (bh ava) is key. A vow is a powerful manifestation of bh ava shuddhi (purity of intention). It transforms a passive "I'm not doing this" into an active "I have renounced this."

This distinction is clearly outlined in the literature of Acharya Bhikshu Tattva Sahitya 01 -… [1]. In the section discussing the Importance of "Nav Padarth", specifically under the definition of Asrava, it lists [1a] as the five causes. Unregulatedness (another term for avirati) is what stays active in your first scenario. By taking a vow, you move toward Samvara, which is described in the next subsection as the [1b].

Essentially, the person with the vow has "optimized" their spiritual system by reducing the total volume of incoming "data" (dravya asrava) through a permanent configuration change, rather than relying on manual, moment-to-moment filtering.

In Jain philosophy, Avirati (non-restraint or vowlessness) is one of the five root causes that keep the channels of asrava (influx) open. While yoga provides the physical or mental "vibration" that draws karma in, avirati represents the lack of a "security policy" to block specific harmful activities.

The role of avirati in the influx of karma can be understood through these points:

Lack of Boundaries: It is the state of being uncommitted to self-control. Specifically, it involves the failure to abstain from harming other life forms (hims a) and the inability to restrain the five senses. Without these boundaries, the soul remains in a state of constant vulnerability to incoming karmic matter.

A "Security Vulnerability": Given your background in software development, the lesson describes avirati as the absence of antivirus software or specific security protocols. Even if your operating system is running, the lack of a firewall means the system is "wide open to any incoming traffic."

Interaction with Other Causes: Avirati usually follows mithy atva (delusion). If a soul does not have the right belief, it naturally lacks the motivation to implement restraints, leading to a continuous and unregulated flow of karma.

This concept is central to the teachings of Acharya Bhikshu. In the resource Acharya Bhikshu Tattva Sahitya 01 -… [1], under the section discussing the Importance of "Nav Padarth", avirati (referred to as "unregulatedness") is listed as a primary factor influencing how the soul interacts with karma: [1a].

Essentially, while yoga is the activity that pulls the "data packets" (karma) in, avirati is the lack of a rule-set to filter out the "malicious" ones.

Does the distinction between the "vibration" of yoga and the "lack of restraint" in avirati make sense to you, or would you like to look at a specific example of how a vow (the opposite of avirati) changes the influx?

*I mean if let's say my computer is not connected to internet and I do not use USB as well, then what's the point of antivirus? If I genuinely do the right conduct why do I need restraint? It's not about lack of dedication or Motivation to take restraint, it's more of a management issue, keeping track of what all restraints I should take... I want to focus on 100 things that I want to do not keep track and take bow to not do the infinite number of things that I know are bad and I won't do*

In Jain Karma theory, your soul is never truly "offline." As long as you are a living being in the cycle of samsara, your "network card" (yoga) is always active and drawing in data.

Here is why "doing the right thing" without a formal restraint (virati) is seen differently in this system:

In your analogy, you suggest that if you don't use the internet or a USB, you don't need an antivirus. However, Jainism posits that the soul is constantly vibrating. This vibration, called yoga, is the mechanical cause of asrava. Even if you are not "downloading" a specific sin right now, the fact that you haven't explicitly blocked the "port" means you are still technically "listening" for that traffic.

This leads to a specific type of influx called avirati-janya asrava (influx due to non-restraint). In this state, even while you are sleeping or doing something good, you are still incurring a subtle flow of karma because you have reserved the "right" or the "option" to act otherwise.

You mentioned that tracking infinite "bad things" is a management issue. Jainism handles this through broad "security policies" rather than an infinite list of blocked URLs. For example, a single vow of Ahimsa (non-violence) acts as a wildcard rule: BLOCK ALL where action = harm.

Without this rule, the "system" considers the channel open. From a Terapanth perspective, the importance lies in the bh ava (internal state). By not taking a vow, there is a subtle, perhaps unconscious, attachment to the freedom to do that "bad thing" if you really wanted to. That subtle attachment is a bhava asrava (impure psychic state) that keeps the dravya asrava (physical influx) flowing.

The goal of a vow is not to give you more things to track, but to automate your "firewall."

Without a vow: You have to mindfully decide not to do "bad thing X" every single time it comes up. This uses up "CPU cycles" (mental energy) and leaves you vulnerable when you are distracted (pram ada).

With a vow: You set a permanent rule. This "shuts down the port" entirely, providing a state of samvara (stoppage).

As noted in Acharya Bhikshu Tattva Sahitya 01 -… [1], the transition from Asrava to Samvara happens specifically through [1a]. Note that vows (virati) are listed as a direct tool for stopping the influx.

[04/04/26, 11:29:04 AM] ऋत्विक: If asrava is only caused by yog, (man, vachan or kaya) then the karma particle will come close to aatma only when a yog happens, if saugandh is supposed to be a firewall, then it is only a mental firewall, yog can still happen with the mental inclination or thoughts irrespective of the presence of saugandh. so what is the point of saugandh?

if someone is not going into yog about some negative thing, then they are not getting influx of karm because of that negative thing, irrespectve of the saugandh. And even with saugandh, yog can still happen, saugandh in the end is just a menatal block, which might not be active everytime, like when sleeping or unconcious or in paramad, one can easily forget the saugandh they took

Your observation is logically sound from a purely mechanical perspective: if there is no activity (yoga), how can there be an influx?

However, Jain Karma philosophy distinguishes between the active vibration (the "vibration" of the soul) and the state of the soul (the "disposition" of the soul). Here is why a vow (saugandh) is more than just a mental block:

In Jainism, as long as the soul is embodied, yoga is truly "always on." Even in deep sleep or while unconscious, you are engaging in k aya-yoga (activities of the body like breathing, circulation, and cellular movement) and subtle mana-yoga (subconscious mental activity).

The lesson notes that k aya-yoga includes activities from "walking to breathing." Since this "vibration" is constant, the soul is continuously drawing in karmic particles. The vow acts as a filter on this constant stream.

While yoga is the "mechanical" cause that pulls particles in, it is only one of five underlying causes.

If you have not taken a vow, you are in a continuous state of "not-refraining." In Jain theory, this state itself causes a specific type of influx known as avirati-janya asrava.

Even if you aren't currently thinking about the "bad thing," the fact that you haven't "uninstalled" the permission to do it means the soul is still technically "aligned" with that possibility.

You suggested that one might forget a vow during sleep or negligence (pram ada). However, in Jainism, a vow is not just a conscious thought you have to "keep active"; it is a formal transformation of the soul's disposition.

Once you take a vow, it becomes a "background process" or a compiled rule in the soul's "operating system."

Without a vow: Your constant background vibrations (yoga) carry the "tag" of avirati. You are effectively "accruing" the potential karma of every negative thing you haven't renounced.

As Acharya Bhikshu Tattva Sahitya 01 -… [1] explains, the nine principles include [1a]. The vow is the "counteraction" that changes the quality of the influx generated by your constant yoga.

Think of it like a legal contract. If you haven't signed a non-compete agreement, you are legally "available" for other work, even if you aren't currently looking. That "availability" is a state that defines your professional status. Avirati is the soul's "availability" for harmful actions. The saugandh is the "contract" that officially changes your status to "unavailable," which logically stops the influx associated with that "availability."

If yoga is constant, and the "port" of avirati is open, wouldn't it be more "computationally efficient" to close the port permanently with a vow rather than manually checking every "packet" of thought throughout the day?

[04/04/26, 5:29:06 PM] ऋत्विक: *You say as if a vow blocks a port, but a vow is just a promise that we make to ourselves, it can be broken as well, the vow does not make any difference it is just a mental block that we can feel but nothing physically or mentally blocks us from doing something it boils down to will power and memory of the vow. Which anyways if is strong can help in avoiding yog*

You are raising a very logical point: physically and mentally, a human remains "free" to break a promise. However, in Jain Karma philosophy, a vow is not just a psychological "reminder"; it is a formal transformation of the soul's state.

To understand why this "mental promise" is considered a structural "firewall," we have to look at how it changes the logic of influx:

In Jainism, the soul is considered to have a continuous influx of karma based on its "potentiality."

Avirati (Non-restraint): This is a state where you have given yourself "permission" to act. Even if you aren't currently acting, that permission is an active bhava asrava (impure psychic state). It's like a software port that is "Listening." Even if no data is currently coming in, the "Listening" state itself consumes resources and creates a vulnerability.

Virati (Vow): This is the state of formal renunciation. It's not just "not doing it"; it is the "intentional absence of permission." When you take a vow, you change the status of that port from "Listening" to "Closed/Disabled."

You suggested that strong willpower to avoid yoga (activity) should be enough. In Jainism, willpower is a function of pram ada (vigilance/negligence).

Willpower requires active, moment-to-moment CPU processing. If you get tired, sleep, or become unconscious, your willpower "service" stops.

A Vow is like a configuration change in the kernel. It is "compiled" into the soul's state. Even when you are sleeping and not "remembering" the vow, the Jain view is that the samvara (stoppage) remains active because the soul's formal relationship with that specific harmful action has been severed.

As explained in Acharya Bhikshu Tattva Sahitya 01 -… [1], the transition to Samvara (stoppage of karma) is achieved through [1a]. Note that vows and non-negligence (willpower/vigilance) are listed as separate tools. You need both for total optimization.

If a vow is broken, the "firewall" has failed. Jainism acknowledges this; breaking a vow (vrat-bhang) creates a very heavy, sticky type of karma because it involves both the original harmful act and the "deceit" or "instability" of the broken promise.

However, as long as the vow is intact, it provides a "zero-influx" zone for that specific category of action. Without the vow, you are constantly "accruing" the karma of avirati for every possible harm you haven't renounced, simply because you are still "available" to do them.

From a management perspective, wouldn't it be more efficient to "disable" a thousand ports with one broad "security policy" (a vow) rather than trying to manually monitor each one using only your "willpower" and "memory"?

Protected note

Why do saugandh