Outlines of Jaina Philosophy

Author(s): Mohanlal Mehta
Publisher: Jain Mission Society Bangalore
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/011084/1

Page #1

THE FREE INDOLOGICAL
COLLECTION WWW.SANSKRITDOCUMENTS.ORG/TFIC
FAIR USE DECLARATION
This book is sourced from another online repository and provided to you at this site under the TFIC collection. It is provided under commonly held Fair Use guidelines for individual educational or research use. We believe that the book is in the public domain and public dissemination was the intent of the original repository. We applaud and support their work wholeheartedly and only provide this version of this book at this site to make it available to even more readers. We believe that cataloging plays a big part in finding valuable books and try to facilitate that, through our TFIC group efforts. In some cases, the original sources are no longer online or are very hard to access, or marked up in or provided in Indian languages, rather than the more widely used English language. TFIC tries to address these needs too. Our intent is to aid all these repositories and digitization projects and is in no way to undercut them. For more information about our mission and our fair use guidelines, please visit our website.
Note that we provide this book and others because, to the best of our knowledge, they are in the public domain, in our jurisdiction. However, before downloading and using it, you must verify that it is legal for you, in your jurisdiction, to access and use this copy of the book. Please do not download this book in error. We may not be held responsible for any copyright or other legal violations. Placing this notice in the front of every book, serves to both alert you, and to relieve us of any responsibility.
If you are the intellectual property owner of this or any other book in our collection, please email us, if you have any objections to how we present or provide this book here, or to our providing this book at all. We shall work with you immediately.
-The TFIC Team.

Page #2

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
DEPARTMENT OF ARCHAEOLOGY CENTRAL ARCHAEOLOGICAL
LIBRARY
Chass
asso
CALL No 181.43
Meh
D.G.A. 79.

Page #3


Page #4


Page #5

OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY

Page #6


Page #7

OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
THE ESSENTIALS OF JAINA ONTOLOGY
EPISTEMOLOGY AND ETHICS
BY
MOHAN LAL MEHTA
M.A. (Phil. & Psy.), Šāstrācārya jaina-Bauddha-darśana-śāstri, Dip. Ger.
Ratanchand Memorial Research Fellow Parshvanath Vidyashrama, Banaras Hindu University
WITH A FOREWORD
By
Shri B. P. WADIA
R
?
Delhi 6
181•443 - Mick
In
राक्षमा
JAIN MISSION SOCIETY G-146, CHICKPET, BANGALORE 2 (INDIA)
MUNSH! RAPUA VOHAR LAL
SANSK21
S
226352LERS

Page #8

All Rights Reserved
. : :Cl
2-1، -
باز از
Am. 2880. . ........ Tote. 19. 5 . 55 ....... Call No. 181. 43 heh: . .......
Printed by L. Shankara Doraiswamy, Manager, W. Q. Judge Press (International Book House, Ltd.), 1, North Public Square Road, Bangalore-+, and
Published by K. Parasmal, Hon. Secretary, The Jain Mission Society, Chickpet, Bangalore-2 (India)
October 1957

Page #9

DEDICATED TO
MY REVERED TEACHERS
PANDIT DALSUKH MALVANIA
AND
DOCTOR CHANDRA DHAR SHARMA
WITH ESTEEM AND AFFECTION

Page #10


Page #11

PUBLISHERS' NOTE
The profundity and vastness of Jaina literature are conceded by all, but there still remains a huge field unexplored with great potentialities, deserving the attention of enthusiastic research scholars. The ever increasing interest evinced by scholars all over the world in the tenets of Jainism has made it imperative to bring out more and more publications in English on the various aspects of Jainalogy. The principles of syadvada and nonviolence have especially engaged the attention of erudites who by the application of these principles are devising ways and means to cure the ills of Humanity. Jainism with its synthetic approach to all the mundane problems tries to solve them systematically. The scientific exploitation of the Jaina literature is still in its embryonic stage. We trust with very keen interest that scholars, in future, would endeavour to devote their time and attention for the advancement of knowledge and culture by undertaking research in Jainology.
The publication of this Volume is undertaken by the Society in furtherance of one of its objectives, viz., the propagation of Right Knowledge. Our thanks are due to Shri Johan Lal Mehta who, by writing this book, provides the students of philosophy with a simple and lucid introduction to the fundamentals of Jain philosophy. Our efforts would be sufficiently rewarded if the academic world would appreciate the publication.
We take this opportunity of recording our grateful thanks to Shriman B. P. Wadia, the Founder-President of the Indian Institute of Culture, Bangalore, for his magnanimity in favouring us with an illuminating foreword for this book, despite the multifarious calls on his valuable time. We express our sincere thanks to Dr. T. M. P. Mahadevan, and Professor N. A. Nikam for having gone through the press copy in advance and for having favoured us with their candid opinion about the book which we publish with this volume. Our appreciative thanks are due to Dr. L S. Dorasami, Honorary Secretary of the Indian Institute of Culture, for giving us valuable suggestions and continued co-operation in connection with the activities of our Society.
We also thank the printers, W. Q. Judge Press, for their hearty co-operation.
JAIN MISSION SOCIETY
Bangalore City Veera Nirvana Day-2481
26th October 1954

Page #12


Page #13

FOREWORD
In this work the outlines of Jain philosophy are drawn by Shri Mohan Lal Mehta, M.A., Shastracharya. a research scholar of the Parshvanath Vidyashrama at the Banaras Hindu University. He was one of the contributors of papers to the "Mahavira Jayanti Week" arranged in April 1954 at the Indian Institute of Culture, Basavangudi, Bangalore, under the joint auspices of the Institute and the Jain Mission Society, Bangalore.
His study of "The Essentials of the Jain Doctrine of Karma," discussed at the Institute on April 18th, covered most of the points made in the important concluding chapter of this book, which deals with the doctrine of Karma. A careful study of this chapter supplements our knowledge of this profound doctrine gained from other sources; it points to links which remain obscure in other expositions of the great Law, and above all it in some measure facilitates the task of application by the aspirant to higher living. By removing obscurations the Jain points of view reveal to the understanding some important psychological propositions.
The book not only is informative for the general reader but also will prove valuable to the student of different religions and philosophies.
The Jains have made great contributions to Indian architectura, sculpture, painting, poetry and music. The wonderful temples and shrines en Mount Abu, the Belur Temple, the colossal statue of Gomateswara at Sravana Belgola in Mysore State and much of the finest poetry in Kannada are owed to the Jains. Jain authorship is claimed also for the sacred Kurul as well as the celebrated Amara-Kosha. The popular grammar Yamal by Pavanandi is also Jain.
The 1951 Census of India show's the Jains today to form less than half of one per cent of the population of the countiy, but they are found in every State. Jains represent a factor of importance in the discharge of the Vaishya Dharma-a contribution of value in modern India. In this age of ruthless competition the Jains set an example in acceptance oi obligations to society, in their charities and in their support of projects for sharing with others the insights of their great teachers, through the printed word, as in the "Sacred Books of the Jainas." oi which several rolumes have appeared.
Between the philosophy and ethics of Jainism and of Hinduism as well as of Buddhism there is a striking similarity "There are also great similarities in temple architecture and even in temple rites between the Jains and their Hindu neighbours. But, whereas the Hindus bow belore images of their Gods and Goddesses, the Jains pay their homage to statues of Tirthankaras or Jinas, who have attained the Great Perfection towards which all men are expected to strive In this respert the Jains, like the Buddhists, are nearer to the Traditional Doctrines of the ageless Bodhi Dharma than are their brethren.

Page #14

The invocation which every pious Jain repeats daily, bowing to East, West. South, North, is this:
I bow to the Arhats. I bow to the Siddhas. I bow to the Acharyas. I bow to the Upadhyayas. I bow to all the Sadhus in the world.
And in the Avash yaka Sutra there is this prayerful submission: "I forgive all souls. Let all souls forgive me. I am in friendship with all. With none I am in enmity."
The Jains have in common with the Zoroastrians and the Buddhists a tradition of a long line of Enlightened Ones. Guides and Teachers of mankind. These Tirthankaras belonged to the Kshatriva caste and yet they taught, age after age, the philosophy of Yon-Violence. Round Ahinsa the entire body of Jain doctrines revolves. The Bij, the seed, of the moral philosophy of Jainism is in the single sentence of the Sutra Kritanga that by harming no creature a man reaches the Great Peace of Enlightenment.
Twenty-three of these Jinas or Tirthankaras are recognized and these stretch far back of Vardhamana, the 24th and last, more widely known as Mahavira, the Man of Dauntless Energy, who lived in the 6th century B.C. This was the great age when not only Gautaina Buddha taught in India, but also Lao-Tzu and Confucius in China, the last of the Zarathushtras in Iran, and Pythagoras in Greece Some information about the Cyclic Appearance of these 24 Tirthankaras and Their achievements is to be found in the Kalpa Sutra of the Jain Canon They are the Awakened Ones who "preach the unparalleled Wisdom."
Taking as his theme the doctrine of Jain philosophy, it is natural that Shri Mehta's approach should be the intellectual one. No adequate consideration of Jainism, however, can ignore its lofty ethics The ethical teachings are to be found in these scholarly pages under the more technically philosophical headings.
Jain ethics is perhaps the most valuable contribution which Jainism can make to modern thought.
How greatly the modern world would profit, for example, by adopting the attitude of Syadvada, with its open-minded recognition that judgments resting on different points of view may differ without any of them being wholly wrong!
legitimate corollary of this doctrine of the relativity of judgment, to which Shri Mehta devotes a chapter, would seem to be that, as between religions also, the complete truth can be found only in their combined views, after that which is false in each of them has been sifted out. The serious comparison of the ancient world religions is sure to yield universal ethics and truths common to them all.
The special mission of the Jains of today, in this respect, is a dual one: (1) Not only should there be respectful tolerance of other creeds and

Page #15

vii
religions but also genuine appreciation of the teachings these enshrine and intelligent recognition of their importance A careful and dispassionate study of other religions and philosophies will show to the devout Jains how fine, how broad and deep are the teachings of Mahavira, who followed in the footsteps of his illustrious predecessors, the Noble Tirthankaras who as Warrior Souls taught the great truth of Dharma-Yuddha, the Righteous War, the Greatest of All Wars, perpetually going on in everyone between the man of sin and the Man of Spirit.
(2) The second aspect of that mission is setting the example of truly Peaceful Living to others who are taking the false attitude of the militant religiose. India today sorely needs the synthesizing influence in matters religious and the grand doctrine of "Resist Not Evil,” of Ahimsa or NonViolence, of Gandhiji's Satyagraha or "the Hold of the True." The individual Jain who lives the life of moral and mental Ahimsa, as taught by all the Great Ones, in addition to his physical plane observances, is uplifting not only his own community but also his whole nation.
One of the most practical features of Jain ethics is the reasonable recognition that human beings are at very different stages on the evolutionary journey, which all are making through many lives on earth, and that what is expected of them should be correspondingly graded. Reincarnation, the twin of the doctrine of Karma, is clearly enunciated in Jainism.
Soul-progress calls for a self-imposed discipline very different from the false asceticism of torturing and maiming the body.
The four lines of the perfect square offer to the Jain a model of right living.
“Learn the true road leading to final deliverance (1) Right Knowledge, (2) Faith, (3) Conduct, (4) Austerities.”
Study of the philosophy of the Jinas purities and gives birth to real Faith, without which human conduct can be neither true nor noble. Conduct energized by good desires leads to the Land of the Gods; but the conduct resulting from desirelessness leads to Liberation and for this the fourth step becomes necessary. For all men the first three are requisite; the fourth is especially meant for the aspirant and the devotee.
All Jains are expected to live by certain ethical principles, such as these very significant ones in the Uttaradhyayana Sutra:
He should not speak unasked and asked he should not tell a lie; he should not give way to anger; he should be indifferent to the pleasant and the unpleasant. He should subdue the self so difficult to
subdue. Happiness in this world and the next is his. And one must guard oneseli against the five tormentors of the Soul-- Pride, Sense-enjoyment, Lust, Gossip and Restless Sleep. (Magadhi Shloka).

Page #16

Vill
Jainism instructs its votaries to observe the duty of limiting voluntarily one's wealth.
The Jain is taught to value the body at its true worth. It is an instrument of learning and experience, to be trained and used. And so the warning:
One who has identified his own self with the body in which it is encased, is extremely afraid of death, seeing therein his Own destruction and separation from friends. (Samadhi shataka)
Control of the animal in man is stressed but non-injury to all is unequivocally proclaimed:
With the three means of punishment-thoughts, words, deedsye shall not injure living beings. (Jaina Sutra)
And active service with a spiritual flavour is recommended:
He who, seeing one thirsty, hungry or pained, is pained in mind and through pity assists him, shows compassion. (Pravachana-sara)
The Sramana, the Jain Sadhu, emerging from the ranks of the laymen, has to have instruction on the fourth step-asceticism, austerities. The moral precepts and the examples of men who are practising Sramanas stir the hearts of laymen also to practise some austerities, leading some of them to become Sramanas.
These austerities are external and internal The external ones are six: (1) Fasting; (2) Starvation; (3) Begging; (4) Abstinence from tasty foods; (5) Bodily penance; (6) Solitary domicile. Six also are the internal ones: (1) Expiation of sins, (2) Humility; (3) Guruseva-service of the teacher; (4) Study; (5) Meditation; (6) Reposeful steadfastness. NirgranthaPravachana]
The duty of the Sramana and the Practitioner is to preach, but the Uttaradhyayana Sutia warns that "clever talking will not work salvation."
Pre-eminently important among these ethical teachings is their stress upon Ahimsa, or non-injury, in its fullest possible application. This doctrine of Non-Violence and the practice of "Resist Not Evil" are taught in very many places. We shall quote only one:
Subdue wrath by forgiveness. Conquer vanity by humility. Overcome fraud by honesty. Vanquish greed through contentment. (Dashavaikalika Sutra)
But the following reveals a very striking insight into the Law of Universal Causation; and the instruction is applicable to many things, including Capital Punishment:

Page #17

Beings which kill others should not be killed in the belief that the destruction of one of them leads to the protection of many others.
(Purushartha Siddhyu paya) In his book, The Essential Unity of All Religions, an excellent volume not only for the general reader but also for the student of all faiths, Dr. Bhagavan Dasji of Banaras gives "a valuable text," rendered by him in verse form:
Thus we enjoin on you, thus do we say, Thus we believe, thus we proclaim to ail: No living thing should be slain anywhere, Nor ordered forcibly this way or that, Nor put in bonds, nor tortured any way, Or treated violently otherwise; Because you are that same which ye would slay, Or order here and there against his will, Or put in prison, or subject to pain, Or treat with violence; ye are that same; The self-same Life doth circulate in all.
He explains:
Of course this is the extreme ideal, for renunciant ascetics. It has to be modified, in practice, for "householders," in Jainism as in all other religions, on the incontrovertible principle, that "Duty varies
with circumstance." The Foreword has been given this particular turn with a view to drawing the reader's attention to the profundity of the ethical teachings of Jainism, which very naturally flow from its philosophical and scientific doctrines. It is hoped that this may attract the attention of the layman, who often holds the view that the ethics of a religion is unrelated to its metaphysics.
The Jain chronology, like the chronology of the Hindus. deals in long cycles and the ages in which the great Tirthankaras appeared go back and back to the dawn of the Human Race. Like pre-V'edic Bodhism it appears that there was also a pre-Vedic Jina Wisdom,
The writings which have descended to us from the remotest antiquity have still the power to quicken the spiritual aspirations and to inculcate such noble precepts as are safe guides to human happiness and enlightenment. Among these writings those of the Jains hold an important place. They have contributed valuable threads to the closely woven fabric of Indian and world thought.
B. P. WADIA
THE INDIAN INSTITUTE OF CULTURE, BASAVANGUDI, BANGALORE 26th October 1954

Page #18


Page #19

PREFACE
My object in preparing the present treatise has been to make a humble and honest contribution to one of the most significant systems of Indian Philosophy, viz., Jainism. The system is, of course, too vast to be adequately treated in a single treatise, and, consequently, I have tried to restrict myself to the general features thereof. I have made an attempt to present the outlines of Jaina Philosophy on the basis of original Prakrit and Sanskrit texts in such a manner as to make the presentation interesting, intelligible, and easy.
The treatise is divided into six chapters. The first chapter has been devoted to a brief survey of the conception of reality from the stand-points of Idealism, Realism, and Jainism. The general features of the six fundamental substances recognized by Jaina Philosophy have been elaborated in a simple and comprehensive manner bearing in mind the non-absolutistic implication of thought. The nature of soul has thoroughly and critically been examined in the second chapter. The third chapter has been devoted to the conception of matter. What are the different forms of matter according to Jainism; what is the nature of atom and molecule; what is the relation between matter and soul, how many kinds of bodies are there; what is the nature of sound, union, fineness, grossness, figure, divisibility darkness, shade, heat, light, etc.; all these questions have been answered in this chapter. In the fourth chapter I have dealt with the theory of knowledge The Canonical as well as Logical conception of knowledge has been discussed in it. The fifth chapter is on the relativity of judgment. The nature of seven-fold judgment and the theory of naya have been precisely presented in this chapter. The sixth chapter deals with the doctrine of karma which is of immense importance from the ethical standpoint. The doctrine of guṇasthāna has also been included in this chapter, since it is invariably associated with the conception of karma. I am sure this work will give an introductory idea of Jain Philosophy.
The credit for this work, I must confess, goes to the teachings, blessings, affection, and inspiration of my revered teachers Pandit Dalsukh Valvania and Dr. Chandra Dhar Sharma. I am very much grateful to Syt. Prithvi Raj Jain, Dr. Nathmal Tatia, and Professor J. A. Venkata Rao who kindly read the whole manuscript and gave their valuable suggestions. I am especially indebted to the Jain Mission Society, Bangalore, who very kindly arranged for the publication of this work.
MOHAN LAL MEHTA
JAINASHRANA Banaras Hindu University
15th August 1957

Page #20

TRANSLITERATION
37, a,
371, 3,
ā, i, T, e, ai,
Vowels
, , i, u, 371, 39, 0, au,
, , , ū, ļ, I,
31, 37: am, aḥ or ah
Consonants
ñ or n
ț,
th
od istim horroro mie
dh
ور و
ہدر ی
p,
ph,
bh
در 5
m
I, y,
I, I,
I, I,
I, v,
I, Ś,
4, ș,
s,

Page #21

CONTENTS
CHAPTER
PAGE
CONCEPTION OF REALITY
Idealism-Some misconceptions--Different types of Idealism-Platonic Idealism-Idealism of BerkeleyIdealism of Kant--Absolute Idealism of Hegel-Bradley on Idealism-Idealistic attitude of Bosanquet-Madhyamika School of Buddhism-Yogācāra School of Buddhism-Non-dualistic Idealism of Sarkara-Realism, Arguments for Physical Existence-Different trends of Realism-Monistic Realism-Dualistic Realism-Pluralistic Realism-Pragmatic view of Realism--Conception of Neo-Realism--Theory of Critical Realism-Selective and Generative Realism-Realistic currents of Indian thought-Purva-Mimāṁsā Schools-Sankhya SchoolRāmānuja's position-Position of Nyāya-Vaiseșika School -Vaibhāșika and Sautrāntika Schools of BuddhismCărvāka School-Jainism-Nature of the universeNature of Reality--Characteristics of 'sat'-Identity and difference-Classification of Substance---Canonical conception of classification-Jivāstikāya-Pudgalāstikāya--Dharmastikāya-Adharmāstikāya-ākāśāstıkaya -Addhāsamaya (Kāla)-Ethical Classification of Tattva -Punya-Pāpa-Asrava--Bandha-Samvara -- Nırjarā –Mokşa.
II
40
NATURE OF SOUL Arguments for the existence of Soul-Definition of SoulDifference between Darśana and Jñāna-Jõāna-Upayoga -Darsana-Upayoga-Temporal relation between Intuition and Knowledge-Simultaneity of Intuition and Knowledge—Successive occurrence of Intuition and Knowledge-Intuition and Knowledge as identicalNature of Worldly Soul_Consciousness as the essence of Soul-Soul as a changing entity--Soul as agent-Soul as enjoyer-Soul as equal in extent to its body-Varieties of Souls--Soul as the possessor of Material Karma.
III
65
CONCEPTION OF MATTER
Reality of Matter-Jeaning of 'Pudgala'-Definition of Matter--Parts of Matter-Difference between the conception of the Vaiśeșika and that of the Jaina-Forms of Matter--Anu-Skandha-Perceptibility of MoleculesUnion of Matter-Six sub-classes of Matter—Matter and

Page #22

xiv
CHAPTER
PAGE Soul-Five kinds of Bodies--Manifestation of MatterSound--Union-Fineness and Grossness-Figure-Divisibility-Darkness--Shade-Heat and Light.
IV
85
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
.. Theory of Knowledge in the Jaina Canons-Description of the Means of Cognition in the Jaina Canons-Logical Conception of Knowledge—Validity of Knowledge Classification of the Means of Valid Knowledge-Categories of Perception-Direct Perception--ClairvoyanceTelepathy-Clairvoyance and Telepathy-OmniscienceArguments for the existence of Omniscience-Empirical Perception--Senses-Mind-Categories of Empirical Perception-Sensation-Speculation---Determinate Perception-Retention-Non-perceptual Cognition--Recollection-Recognition-Inductive Reasoning--InferenceSubjective Inference—Probans--Syllogistic InferenceParts of the Syllogism-Thesis--Reason-ExampleApplication Conclusion Authority.
114
RELATIVITY OF JUDGMENT
Traces in the Canons--Cause and Effect- Anekānta, Anekāntavāda and Syādvāda-Seven-fold Judgment - Complete Judgment-Incomplete Judgment-Definition of Nava-Xaigama Naya-Sangraha Naya--l'yavahāra Nava-Rjusūtra Vaya-Sabda Naya--Samabhırūdha Nava-Erambhūta Naya-Province of Naya-Fallacy of Yaya.
VI
133
DOCTRINE OF KARMA
.. Meaning of Karma--Four kinds of Bondage-NatureKnowledge-obscuring karma-Intuition-obscuring karma ---Feeling-producing karma-- Belief and Conduct-obscuring karma-Age-determining karma-Personality-determining karma-Status-determining karma-Powerhindering karma-Bandha, dava, Ldiraņā, and SattāDuration Intensity-Quantity-Causes of Bondage-- Causes of knowledge and Intuition-obscuring karmasCauses of Feeling-producing karma-Causes of Beliefobstructing karma-Causes of Conduct-obstructing karma -Causes of Age-determining karma--Causes of Personality-determining karma-Causes of status-determining karma --Causes of Power-hindering karma-Prevention and Destruction of karma-Stages of Spiritual Development-I. Vith yādrsți Gunasthāna-2. Sāsvādāna Samyagdssti Guņasthana--3. Miśra Guņasthāna-- 4. Avirata Samyagdsșți Gunasthāna--5. Deśavirata

Page #23

XV
CHAPTER
PAGE Samyagdrsţı Gunasthāna—6. Pramatta Samyata Guņasthāna--7. Apramatta Samvata Gunasthāna--8. Nivịtti Bādara Samparāya Gunasthāna--9. Anivștti Bādara Samparaya Gunasthāna-10. Sūksma Samparāva Guņasthāna-II. Upaśānta kasāva Vitarāga Chadmastha Gunasthāna--1Kșiņa kaşāva l'itarāga Chadmastha Gunasthāna-13. Sayogi Kevali Gunasthāna-14. Ayogi Kevalı Guņasthāna--Upašama Sreņı-K$apaka Śreni.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
INDEX
..
..
..
..
..
162

Page #24


Page #25

CHAPTER 1
CONCEPTION OF REALITY
TT WILL perhaps not be wrong to say that the entire metaphysical 1 world is divided into idealism and realism. No metaphysical thought crosses the boundaries of these two hemispheres. If we desire to study quite sincerely the essential features of philosophy, we will have to establish a keen contact with the development of idealism and realism. Without a comprehensive, complete, and systematic study of these two isms, we cannot grasp the essence of philosophy whether it be Western or Eastern. Although it seems that idealism and realism represent two apparently different lines of approach to the philosophy of life and the universe, yet, a tendency to reconcile them is not absent. It has begun in recent years to be thought that the difference between these two currents is not so much in their goal as in their presuppositions and methods of approach. With this simple observation, we, now, proceed to explain the theory of idealism as it stands.
IDEALISM Some thinkers maintain that a theory is often called idealistic in so far as it underestimates the temporal and spatial aspects of the real universe. Some philosophers are convinced without doubt that the term idealism has been used to cover all those philosophies which agree in maintaining that spiritual values have a determining voice in the ordering of the universe. Others hold that according to idealism, spirit is the terminus ad quem of nature.?
Idealism as we understand it, is the belief or doctrine according to which thought is the medium of the self-expression of Reality or to put it from the other side, Reality is such as must necessarily express itself through the ideal or ideals that are organic to the knower's intellectual equipment which may be called thought or reason.'3
1 Prolegomena to an Idealistic Theory of Knowledge, p. 1. 2 Idea of God, p. 200. 3 Self, Thought and Reality, p. 45.

Page #26

2
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
According to this definition of idealism, the mind of man is taken to be the organ through which Reality expresses itself; and if it is certain that man alone has the capacity to interpret experience through intellectual ideals, then it follows that it is man alone that can be an organ to Reality. He possesses a unique position in the determination of the universe.
SOME MISCONCEPTIONS
Some laymen as well as philosophers define idealism as a doctrine which openly or secretly seeks to establish that the whole choir of heaven and earth is unreal. Now, the first thing which we should bear in mind is that idealism does not take away the reality of anything which is considered as real by commonsense or science. Far from subtracting anything which is considered as real by commonsense or science idealism adds to the reality of the things in so far as it alone makes it clear that things have still many other significant aspects of their life than those which are revealed to commonsense or to science. To put it in the words of Bosanquet: Certainly for myself, if an idealist were to tell me that a chair is really not what we commonly take it to be, but something altogether different, I should be tempted to reply in language below the dignity of controversy." In the same way, a philosophy must stand self-condemned if it thinks that the electronic constitution of matter or the inner structure of the material particles is a mere figment. The philosophers like Berkeley (who says that 'esse est percipi', i.e., to exist is to be perceived) etc. are not idealists in the strict sense of the term idealism. They may be given the name of subjective idealists who think that perception is the real cause of external objects. They reduce Existence or Reality to mere perception which position is absolutely wrong according to the real definition of idealism in which the mind only determines the objects and does not create them. Determination and creation are two different things. What needs emphasis at this place is that true idealism has never disputed the existence of the external world. Green remarks: The fact that there is a real external world of which through feeling we have a determinate experience and that in this experience all our knowledge of nature is implicit, is one which no philosophy disputes. What Mr. Spencer understands by idealism', is what a raw undergraduate understands
1 Contemporary Philosophy, p. 5

Page #27

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
by it. It means to him a doctrine that there is no such thing as matter', or that the external world is merely the creation of our own minds', a doctrine expressly rejected by Kant, and which has had no place since his time in any idealism that knows what it is about.'1
Now, the point is quite clear. There is no difference between the idealistic and the realistic creeds in so far as the reality of the material world is concerned; for both there is an external world which is not the creation of our own minds. The defect, as the idealists hold, of realism lies in the fact that it does not realize the universe in its completeness.
The conclusion of what we have discussed so far is as follows: Though the things we know do not depend for their existence on the fact that somebody knows them, and so in this sense they are independent of the knowing mind, yet, all the determinations of the things are discovered only in the knowledge-relation, so that the things which are referred to in our explanations of the facts are necessarily determined in certain specific ways. Hence, to insist that we can know only phenomena is not to degrade the things into mind-dependent appearances; it is merely to indicate that things are what we know them to be. And we know only by bringing them into relation to things other than themselves, and it follows conseouently that to refer a fact to a thing-in-itself that cannot be determined in any way is to admit that the fact cannot be explained at all. It is only through consciousness that the world exists for us at all, though, of course, it is not created by our own consciousness.
DIFFERENT TYPES OF IDEALISM
After giving the definition of idealism, we, now, proceed to the various types thereof. There have been idealistic views in Western philosophy, some making thoughts or ideas to be eternal reals composing the world of transcendental realities preceding but somehow determining the world of phenomena, some others making thought or idea to be the pre-condition of phenomenal existence, while the others conceiving spirit as the ultimate creative reality
1 Works, I., P. 386. 2 Self, Thought and Reality, pp. 86-7.

Page #28

OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
creating the world of subject and object by its own self-differentiation. The first of these types is Platonic, the second that of Berkeley and Kant, and the last that of Hegel and his followers.
PLATONIC IDEALISM
Plato conceived Reality as consisting of an organized realm of ideas, each of which enjoys immutability and eternality. This organized realm of the eternal and immutable ideas is real in the sense that there are independent entities not depending upon mind, either finite or infinite. They are the real metaphysical forces, remaining at the back of and somehow determining our empirical world of thoughts and things as their imperfect imitations. Hence, our world of experience is only phenomenal and unreal. It comes into existence and passes out of it. It is somehow determined by the ideas which are universal and eternal. The idealism of Plato is objective in the sense that the ideas enjoy an existence in a real world independent of any mind. Mind is not antecedent for the existence of ideas. The ideas are there whether a mind reveals them or not. The determination of the phenomenal world depends on them. They somehow determine the empirical existence of the world. Hence, Plato's conception of Reality is nothing but a system of eternal, immutable, and immaterial ideas. IDEALISM OF BERKELEY
Berkeley may be said to be the founder of idealism in the modern period, although his arrow could not touch the point of destination. According to Locke (the predecessor of Berkeley), substance was regarded as a seat of qualities some of which are primary in the sense that they are objective and others are secondary in the sense that they are not in objects but in our minds, i.e., subjective. Berkeley rejected this two-fold division on the basis that if secondary qualities are what they are by means of perception or idea, the primary qualities are no less dependent on the same perception. A quality whether primary or secondary must be cognized by our perception. All the things which are composed of qualities both primary and secondary must be regarded as such only when they are perceived as such. In other words, the existence of things must be determined by perception or idea: Esse est percipi. This type of Berkeleian idealism may be regarded as subjective idealism. According to Berkeley, it is the individual mind that determines the existence of external objects. In his later

Page #29

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
writings, he faced a horrible difficulty of dualism regarding his doctrine of csse est percipi'. For the emergence of perception the existence of external objects independent of mind is necessary. Without an external and independent object no perception is possible. To overcome this difficulty Berkeley established a new doctrine in his later works which is known as “esse est concipi'. In this new doctrine he placed the word 'conception in place of perception' meaning thereby to exist is to be conceived'. IDEALISM OF KANT
Kant's idealism is a direct result of his epistemological position adopted in his Critique of Pure Reason. He points out that knowledge or intelligible experience is a complex product of the elements of sensibility and understanding. Pure knowledge, i.e., a priori is that with which no empirical element is mixed up. But our judgments are always a posteriori because they are derive: from experience. Sensations originate from an unknown world of things-in-themselves but must be organized into a systematic whole by the forms of intuition, i.e., space and time and by the categories or the fundamental concepts of understanding such as substance, causality, and the like. The forms and categories are a priori because our judgments presuppose the existence of these forms and categories. Experience is never possible without the existence of these transcendental laws of judgment. Thus, it is our understanding that makes nature, according to Kant. The idealism of Kant, thereforc, consists in this that the world of our knowledge is an ideal construction out of sense-manifold to which alone the forms and categories of understanding are confined and, therefore, is commonly known as objective idealism. It is subjective in the sense that knowledge does not reach out to the world of things-in-themselves: ding an sich. He argues that Reality cannot be grasped by our knowledge because our judgment is conditional, relative, and partial. We cannot know a thing as it is but we know it as our experience reveals. Hence, the Kantian ding an sich is unknowable by our experience. His view of the Transcendental Unity of Apperception is more important as regards the unity of knowledge. All knowledge presupposes the Synthetic Unity of Pure Apperception because unless there is a Synthetic Unity, no knowledge is possible. This idea of the Synthetic Unity of Pure Apperception leads Kant quite near the conception of soul which is not accepted by him outwardly.

Page #30

OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
ABSOLUTE IDEALISM OF HEGEL
The fundamental question before Hegel was: What must be the nature and characteristic of the ultimate principle of the universe in order to explain by it the origin, growth, and development of mind and nature, their mutual relations, as well as the questions of science. philosophy, ethics, art, and religion. He found the ultimate principle of his fundamental question in Absolute Spirit, Reason, Thought, or Idea. This Absolute Idea of Hegel is not static but a dynamic spiritual principle as it is with Fichte who after Kant established the world-view of Absolute Idealism on his conception of Absolute Ego. But his Absolute Ego was a moral principle satisfying man's craving for moral values alone, while Hegel took it in a more pronounced and comprehensive form. In his principle of Absolute Idea thinking and being coincide, or what is thinking finds its expression in being, for thinking involves an object of thought. It cannot be in vacuo (vacuum). The world consists of both mind and nature, subject and object, self and not-self. Thus, the world of mind and nature is the heterisation of the Absolute Thought for its thinking, so that the laws of its thinking are also the laws of being. Hegel, thus, seems to reserve for his Absolute an immutable and inexhaustible being which always transcends its heterisation or the world of becoming. '1 It shows that the Absolute Idealism of Hegel is Monistic Spiritualism, i.e., in the shape of one spiritual reality as the source and foundation of all external objects as well as individual thoughts. In other words, the Absolute Idealism of Hegel may be called Objective Idealism. Thought, according to Hegel, is a self-developing reality which develops through the contradiction of the subject and the object. through the clash of the opposites—the thesis and the anti-thesis; and ultimately overcomes this dualism not by negating it but by correcting it. BRADLEY OX IDEALISM
Following the intellectual lead of Hegel, Bradley starts his enquiry and finds that the revelation of the intellect can acquaint us with the fact that the categories of substance, attributes, causality, etc.; the forms of time and space--all these limited abstractions are riddled with contradictions. He finds that the external relations are meaningless to the conception of the Unity of Reality and the
1 Principles of Philosophy, P 107.

Page #31

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
internal relations. Though consistent with the intellectual conception they cannot be applied to the Absolute Reality which is nonrelational. Therefore, Bradley thinks that the proper organ for grasping the Absolute Reality is not intellect but the whole of mental life which is constituted by intellect, feeling, and will. He, therefore, describes his Absolute as identified with Experience. Human experience is a piece of Transcendental Experience and can approximate it when it has learnt to transcend the limitations of intellect. The Absolute of Bradley, therefore, is to be felt, experienced, or realized and not to be known by our simple intellect.
7
The implication of Bradleian Idealism is that intellect is an important factor of consciousness and cannot ordinarily be prevented from grasping and modifying Reality under its own qualifications of categories and relations. But it fails to grasp Reality itself, which is a non-relational whole. Therefore, intellect which grasps Reality in some conditional and partial aspects, must be transcended if we are not to remain satisfied with partial realities or appearances' as Bradley calls them. Reality is to be apprehended by Transcendental Experience. The ordinary world of our experience in the form of individuality and diversity is the realm of appearances. Reality is something transcendental which transcends all the empirical experiences of external objects. The objects of external world are only appearances as experienced by our ordinary intellect, not Reality itself in its Absolute Form. Hence, the external objects and finite concepts are only appearances, not the Absolute Reality. IDEALISTIC ATTITUDE OF BOSANQUET
Following almost the same line of thought as that of Bradley, Bosanquet has come to conceive of Reality as a logical or rational whole which he calls Individual'. He laid emphasis on the faculty of intellect or reason but did not reject the objective order of things. While explaining the nature and functions of thought, Bosanquet says: The essence of thought is not in a mental faculty, but in the objective order of things. We bring the two sides together if we say, it is the control exercised by Reality over mental process.'1
Thought, as Bosanquet conceives it, has for its goal the Whole'. It is by its very nature, compelled to construct. As he puts in his
1
Life and Philosophy in Contemporary British Philosophy, 1st Series, p. 51.

Page #32

8
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
own words: 'Implicit in all the modes of experience which attracted us throughout, it is now considered in its own typical manifestations, in which the idea of system, the spirit of the concrete universal, in other words, of individuality, is the central essence.'1 On this very fundamental basis he defines error as simply an inadequate determination without a system, which leaves alternative possibilities open, i.e., dependent on unknown conditions.2 Bosanquet, therefore, thinks that it is intellect when pursued in its fullest capacity that comprehends or constructs the whole of Reality. He not only maintains this but lays emphasis on the unity of values alsc. Totality expresses itself in value, which is . . . the concentration and focus of Reality in its essence as real, as a positive centre which is a solution of contradictions..."3 The Idealism of Bosanquet, thus, establishes the monism of the Spirit which is at once the unity of experience and the unity of values. The ultimate Spirit is the 'Real Thing'. This spirit is nothing but the totality of existence and the unity of values. Thus, the external world is nothing more than the Spirit as a unity of experience and the unity of values. The Spiritual Idealism propounded by Bosanquet is Monistic in character.
After giving an introductory account of Western Idealism we, now, come to the Idealistic Schools of India. Mahāyāna Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are the most important and dominant schools of Indian Idealism. An attempt would be made to give the outlines of these schools in a concise form.
MADHYAMIKA SCHOOL OF BUDDHISM
According to this school, Reality is beyond the four categories of thought. Human intellect cannot grasp reality. Whatever we grasp is the prapañca, and not the paramartha. If we put this idea in the technical language of Buddhism, we can say that the human knowledge is confined to the samurti-satya, i.e., to the phenomenal reality. It is unable to grasp the paramartha-satya, i.e., the noumenal reality. The phenomenal reality is svabhava-sunya, i.e., devoid of Self-Existence. The noumenal reality is prapanca
1 Life and Philosophy in contemporary British Philosophy, 1st Series, p. 63.
2 ibid. p. 67.
3 ibid. p. 73.
+
Catuşkotiinirmuktam tatteam mādhyamikā viduh.

Page #33

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
śūnya, i.e., devoid of plurality. Some scholars are of the view that the word śünya is synonymous with Nihilism and they draw the conclusion that the school of Madhyamika Buddhism is nihilistic. According to the opinion of other scholars, this conception is not correct. They are of the opinion that the word Śūnya must be interpreted in the sense of svabhāva-śünya and prapañca-śünva. As it is remarked by an eminent exponent of the system: “The Buddha preached Reality (dharma) considering the two types of Truth. The first type is the Phenomenal Truth and the second one is the Noumenal Truth.'1 The empirical world is the phenomenal reality, while the Ultimate Truth is the noumenal reality. “The Ultimate Truth is intuitional, peaceful, devoid of plurality, indeterminate, and one. This is the nature of Reality.'?
YOGĀCĀRA SCHOOL OF BUDDHISM
This school is generally known as Vijñānādvaita Vāda. According to it, as is generally believed, only Momentary Ideas are real. It is only because of this belief that the system is regarded as Subjective Idealism. But this view is not correct. The doctrine of Momentary Ideas is tenable only in the case of phenomenal reality. The conception of momentariness is necessary to reach the Ultimate Reality. If the phenomenal reality is not conceived as momentary, our approach to the Highest Reality is not possible.
The Highest Reality is the Universal Consciousness (ālayavijñāna) according to the Lankāvatāra-sūtra. The Reality which is grasped by the four categories of thought is only phenomenal.3 The Highest Reality is unchanging, calm, and permanent. It is beyond the four categories of thought. It is beyond the duality of subject and object. By mere analysis we cannot grasp Reality. Thus, it is indescribable and devoid of any explanation.
1 Madhyamika-kār:kā, XXIV. S. 2 ibid., XVIII. 9. 3 Lankāvatāra-sūtra, p. 188. 4 Catuskotre'inirinukta. 5 Grāhyagrāhakatinirmukta. 6 Lankavatāra-sútra, p. 116.

Page #34

10
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
Though sometimes the Lankāvatāra appears to support the doctrine of crude subjectivism, yet really it is pregnant with deeper expressions which forbid us to draw such a conclusion. The external world is the creation, not of the individual consciousness, but of the Absolute Consciousness. All, except Consciousness, is unreal. Consciousness alone is the established truth preached by the Buddha. All the three worlds are the result of discrimination or thought-relations. No external object exists in reality. All that is, is Consciousness.
NON-DUALISTIC IDEALISM OF SANKARA
In the philosophy of Sankara the Cltimate Reality is Brahman or Self. He maintains that the transcendental ground of experience is the Self. The Self is not momentary but permanent, not changing but changeless, not finite but infinite, not limited and conditional but unlimited and unconditional. The existence of the Self is self-proved ( svayam siddha ) and cannot be denied. It is always conscious.
Now, there arises a question: If the Self is changeless and permanent, what about the reality of the external world ? Sankara recognises three grades of Reality.3 The external objects of our ordinary experience have only a tyāvahārikasattā (empirical reality), the objects appearing in dreams and illusions enjoy only a prātibhāsikasattā (illusory appearance), and the Brahman, i.e., the Absolute has the pāramārthikasattā (l'ltimate Reality). The vyāvahārika and prātibhâsika existences are real from a lower stand-point. The Ultimate Reality is the Highest Reality which is devoid of all differences and contradictions. This Reality is further described as 'prapañcasya ekāyanam,' i.e., the basis of the whole world including the things, the senses, and the mind.4 Or again it is described as the 'blūmā' which, though it is the ground of every thing, does not itself stand in need of a ground or support; it is a pratisthita and anāśrita.5 The Self is not affected by the appearance of the duality of subject and object. It is pure consciousness running through all the appearances. It is
1 Indian Philosophy (Dr. C. D. Sharma), p. 145. 2 Lankavatāra-sútra, p. 186. 3 Vedānta-siddhānta-muktāvali, p. 25. 4 Śānkara-bhāṣva, I, 4; VI, 19. 5 Chåndogya-upanişad, VII, 24, I.

Page #35

CONCEPTION OF REALITY indescribable by the categories of thought. It can only be realised by intuition where there is no dualism of the subject and the object, the knower and the known. The subject-object-dualism is ultimately reduced to pure consciousness which is nothing but bliss. Our intellect cannot grasp the Ultimate Reality because it is Absolute and Infinite, while our intellect is limited and finite. We cannot know Brahman but we can become Brahman. He who knows Brahman, becomes Brahman,'1 The appearance of the external world and of the individual souls is due to ignorance or nescience (avidyā). At the time of the realisation of the Self it automatically disappears.
Idealism, as we have seen, emphasises the existence of spiritual, mental or intellectual reality. Some of the idealists say that the Ultimate Reality is nothing but Universal Spirit. Some are of the opinion that the Ultimate Reality is Universal Idea or Intellect. Others lay emphasis on the Subjective Conception. Any how, the idealists do not believe in an external existence or a material reality independent of spirit, consciousness, intellect, or idea. It does not matter much whether they believe in the Universal Intellect or in the Individual Mind.
REALISM The general conception of Realism is that whatever is, is real in the sense that it exists and functions independently of any mind and its interference whatsoever. The mind may or may not be present there. Its existence is quite indifferent to the Real. Realism seems to represent the most primitive and natural tendency of thought to which what is outside, is first to appeal. It takes the clear and distinct view of Reality as it appears. In Western Philosophy, as we find, the first Greek philosophers were realists making either water or air or fire to be the Ultimate Principle of the world existing independently of the mind, and the world with all its complex contents was supposed to owe its origin and growth to this Principle. ARGUMENTS FOR PHYSICAL EXISTENCE
When the Realist says that there is an existence of physical objects independent of intellect or idea, can he give any arguments to prove his statement ? Can he give any reasons why we should
1 Brahma vid brahma eta bhai'ati

Page #36

12
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
believe that the external objects exist ? He presents the following arguments to prove it!:
1. The existence of physical objects can be inferred from sense-data as their cause. If there is no physical object, how can sensation be possible? Every thing which exists must have a cause. The sensation exists, therefore it must have a cause and this cause is nothing but sense-datum in the shape of physical objects. The similarity of the sense-data of one person to those of another, when both are perceiving the same object, is a good reason for believing in physical objects as their common cause. As Russell writes: What reason, then, have we for believing that there are such public neutral objects? ... Although different people may see the table slightly differently, still they all see more or less similar things when they look at the table... so that it is easy to arrive at a permanent object underlying all the different people's sense-data.'
2. It is simpler than any other hypothesis. A man of common-sense can understand the theory of the existence of external objects more easily than any other theory of the Idealists. Its details are answerable to a simple mathematical treatment.
3. We have a strong propensity to believe that there is Physical Reality of external objects. What the plain man believes about the table is that it is a square, brown, hard object which he sees existing now and which goes on existing, being brown and square and hard when no one is perceiving it. If you tell him that it is nothing of the sort, that the squareness, brownness, and hardness disappear when he shuts his eyes and reappear when he opens them, that they are not parts of the Real Table at all, and that the Real Table has no colour, texture, shape, and weight, but only some qualities which neither he nor even the greatest philosopher can even imagine, he will not understand you and certainly will have no strong propensity to believe what you say. He won't believe if you say that it is like a dream where although, there are no physical objects still we see or enjoy them. Because he knows that our dream is contradicted when we get up but the valid knowledge of waking life is not contradicted afterwards. Even our dream is not quite unreal because it has some impressions of our waking life which is quite real.
1 Nature of the World, p. 125 2 Problems of Philosophy, p. 32.

Page #37

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
13
There are other arguments as well that prove the independent existence of physical objects. The intellect discovers but does not make concepts. In the language of James, concepts are not merely functions of the intellect, they constitute a 'coordinate realm of Reality. Philosophy must then recognise many realms of Reality which mutually interpenetrate. Intellect is an organ, not of 'fabrication,' but of 'discernment', a power men have to single out the most fugitive elements of what passes before them... aspect within aspect, quality after quality, relation upon relation. The action of the mind is not creative. Its ideas are not of its own making but rather of its own choosing. It is essentially a selective agency, 'a theatre of simultaneous possibilities. The sense-organs select from among simultaneous stimuli, attention is selective from among sensations, morality is selective from among interests. To reason is to guide the course of ideas.
Thus, the Realists do not regard only one Reality as valid. They establish the theory of the reality of physical objects independent of and entirely different from any mind, intellect, experience, consciousness, individual, or spirit. Consciousness is different from its object. The object of a sensation is not the sensation itself.
The nature of consciousness is quite different from the nature of material objects. Consciousness is the essence of spirit, i.e., mind, while material objects exist outside the mind. How can these two absolutely different realities be identical? If 'Consciousness Alone' is real, what necessity is of the existence of external objects? Why should an external object prove itself as an obstacle in the production of knowledge? If conse blue, what is the necessity of an external object? If consciousness itself is blue, what is the necessity of an external object? If 'Consciousness Alone' is real, there would be no difference between the state of dream and the state of waking iife, inasmuch as it is the External and Objective Reality that makes a distinction between the two.
DIFFERENT TRENDS OF REALISM
We, now, proceed to consider the problems whether Realism takes the existent to be numerically one, two, or many. Realism would be Monistic, Dualistic, or Pluralistic according to its view of the numerical strength of the existent. If it believes in one

Page #38

OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
material reality, it would be called Monistic Realism. If it takes the existent to be two, it would fall in the category of Dualistic Realism. If it admits Reality to be more than two, it would be called Pluralistic Realism. Similarly, some other types of Realism would be dealt with acccrding to their specific characteristics.
14
MONISTIC REALISM
The primitive Greek philosophers such as Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, and Heraclitus, in so far as they each thought one or other of water, air, or fire to be the One Indivisible stuff of Reality, were Monistic Realists. To them all things as the physical objects, the mind, the life, and the rest were the products of any one of these stuffs. Thus, consciousness was considered to be merely a product of matter.
DUALISTIC REALISM
It regards the mental and the physical worlds as two distinct and independent realities. The monistic trend changed its attitude and began to believe in 'life' as a separate and distinct reality. Empedocles believed in the psychical forces over and above the four elements of earth, fire, air, and water. Anaxagoras admitted 'nous' or 'mind' as the central principle of movement and change. Plato and Aristotle may be said to have indulged in Dualism inspite of their insistence on the reality of the world of Ideas or Forms. Aristotle was, perhaps, more pronounced in his Dualism than Plato.
In modern philosophy, it was Descartes who gave a distinct turn to Realism. To him matter and mind are independent existences each having a characteristic diametrically opposed to the characteristic of the other. This Dualism appeared in Locke in a somewhat different shape in his distinction between cogitative and non-cogitative substance. Although, Kant was an idealist in his noumenal outlook, still he became guilty of a Double Dualism— Epistemological Dualism between sense and understanding and Ontological Dualism between mind and noumenal world of thingsin-themselves.1
PLURALISTIC REALISM
The primitive Greek Philosophers were satisfied with one indivisible matter as the basic principle of all that is in the universe.
1 Principles of Philosophy, p 91.

Page #39

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
15
The later Greek thinkers like Democritus and others could not satisfy their impulse of curiosity in this fashion. They thought that the visible objects of the universe are many and independent of one another, and each such object can be divided further and further till we come to a point beyond which our division cannot go. Such units of material objects, which they call 'atoms' must be the ultimate physical principles of the universe. From these ‘atoms' all else (including minds ) have been derived. They are the only reals, self-sufficient, self-existent, and indivisible; and independent of the minds which originate from them. This type of Realism can be called 'Pluralistic Material Realism' or
Atomic Realism.' PRAGMATIC VIEW OF REALISM
Pragmatism means, in the broadest sense, the acceptance of the categories of life as fundamental. Perry remarks that it is the
bio-centric' philosophy. The Pragmatist means by life, not the imaginary or ideal life of any hypothetical being, not the 'eternal' life or the absolute' life but the ternporal, operative life of animals and men, the life of instinct and desire, of adaptation and environment, of civilization and progress. The whole 'experimentalist' tendency in English science and philosophy may be said to have anticipated the pragmatist theory that truth is achieved by the trying of hypotheses. This tendency of Pragmatic Realism is mainly directed against Absolutism.
It regards idea as an exercising force of the function of 'meaning.' To quote Perry, an idea is whatever exercises the function of ' meaning.' Any thing may be an idea, provided you mean with it; just as any thing may be a weapon, provided you do injury with it. An idea is what an idea does. In this sense ideas are modes of conceiving the given, a 'taking it to be this or that. It is a virtual access to an immediate experience of that which it means. By ideas, Pragmatism does not mean 'Platonic essences' but the modes of an individual's thinking. The Pragmatist conceives Reality in the terms of intellectual process and circumstances. CONCEPTION OF NEO-REALISM
Neo-Realism believes that the world is existent and is independent of mind. However, it does not appear exactly in the same form as the Dualistic Realism of Hamilton, who makes no

Page #40

16
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
sensa.'
provision for any mediation of ideas between mind and nature. While Neo-Realism insists like other Realists that things are independent, it also asserts that when things are known, they become immediate objects of knowledge. These immediate objects of knowledge are technically called So things are nothing else than sensa' in a certain relation. The NeoRealist does not postulate mind as a self-conscious substance. He conceives mind as a cross-section of the physical world. Neo-Realism seems to be an ally to Naturalism and Pragmatism as it accepts like Naturalism the truth of the results of physical science and like Pragmatism the practical and empirical character of knowledge. Let us, now, turn to a brief discussion of the conception of knowledge recognised by Neo-Realism.
"
(a) THEORY OR IMMANENCE
The Neo-Realist suggests by his Theory of Immanence that things and minds are not to be regarded as two independent realities but rather as ' relations' into which knowledge as a fact must necessarily enter. As has been observed by Perry: 'Instead of conceiving of Reality as divided absolutely between two impenetrable spheres, we may conceive it as a field of interpenetrating relationships.'
12
(b) THEORY OF INDEPENDENCE
The suggestion of the Theory of Independence is that things are directly experienced, and that in the act of direct experience the things remain as they are without being affected by experience. Experience gives us immediate knowledge of things as they are presented to it but does not determine them.
From the above statement it follows that according to the Theory of Independence, things being independent of one another, the relations which exist amongst things are also external and real, and not subjective and internal. Just as things are outside of mind, so is the relation. This view is quite similar to the Nyaya-Vaiseṣika conception of the external existence of relations. THEORY OF CRITICAL REALISM
If all knowledge were immediate grasp of things then there remains no provision for distinction between true and false
1 Present Philosophical Tendencies, p. 271
2 ibid, p. 311.

Page #41

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
17
knowledge. Such being the case no one would be allowed to deny illusions, hallucinations, and differences in the degrees of accuracy in knowledge. The Critical Realist removes this difficulty. The contention of the Critical Realist is that in our perception things do not enter directly into our consciousness, but only through the mediation of certain elements partly subjective and partly objective, which make the sense-data into the actual objects of perception. These elements are partly of the nature of the subject and partly that of the object and intervene between the subject and the object, as logical entities. These entities are called
character-complex' or 'essence'. The object cannot be apprehended immediately as it is, and this accounts for the stinction between true and false knowledge, between truth and
r, and for illusions and hallucinations and degrees of accuracy in knowledge.
The Critical Realist further maintains that things have their independent existence and are not known in their entirety but only in their partial character. Our knowledge of things is determined by our interest which selects certain qualities of things in preference to the rest. Things are not entirely unaffected by our experience as the Neo-Realist holds. SELECTIVE AND GENERATIVE REALISM
The Selective hypothesis holds that the sense-datum is not an effect which is produced or part-produced by the sense-organ. The function of the sense-organ is to 'select' which sense-datum we perceive. Thus, If I see an object as red while a colourblind person sees it as green, the truth is that both red and green are present in the object; but my retina selects the red for me to see and shuts out the green, while the colour-blind person's retina selects the green for him to see and shuts out the red. The outside world actually has all the qualities which can ever be perceived in it by any organism.
The Generative hypothesis holds that the existence of data is physiologically conditioned. The sense-datum is the effect of two joint causes, viz., the physical object and the sense-organ. Thus, a colour is actually produced by the interaction of the physical object and the organ of sight. If this hypothesis is taken to be true, there will exist no colour when there is no eye. Similar conclusions follow as regards the data of the other senses. Hence,

Page #42

18
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
according to this theory, sense-data exist only when they are being perceived.
Thus, the Selective theory says that a physical object has all the qualities which we or any other existing or possible organism ever has or ever will perceive in it. The Generative theory says that it has none of the qualities which any actual or possible organism ever did or ever will perceive in it.
REALISTIC CURRENTS OF INDIAN THOUGHT
Indian Realism can be classified into two broad divisions: Orthodox Realism and Heterodox Realism. That school which believes in the Vedic Testimony is called Orthodox and that which does not regard the Vedic Authority as valid is called Heterodox. In the following paragraphs we propose to give a brief account of the Orthodox schools of Realism.
PŪRVA-MĪMĀMSA SCHOOLS
Both the schools, viz., Bāṭṭha and Prābhākara believe in two independent Realities. Regarding these schools we do not easily find any reference in the Sutras that directly points out the problem of Realism. But a close study of the Mimāmsā-sūtra in which it is indicated that knowledge is produced when the senseorgan comes in contact with the object, shows quite clearly that the writer believes in the separate and independent existence of knowledge from objects. In the Bhāṣya of Sabara also we find that while criticising the view of the Sunyavādins, Sabara says that the Objective Reality is quite independent of knowledge which in its turn really depends upon the External Reality for its occurrence. Later on, both the schools of Bhāṭṭa and Prabhakara discussed this problem at great length in their respective works. Thus, it is right to say that both the schools of Pūrva-Mimāṁsă are of realistic nature.
SANKHYA SCHOOL
It also falls in the category of Realism. It points out clearly that there are two ultimate entities, viz., Puruşa and Prakrit both of which are eternal and different from each other. Puruşa is nothing but consciousness (cit) while Prakyti is unconscious (jada).1 Puruşa is spectator (draṣṭr-sākṣin) and enjoyer (bhokty), while Prakyti is what is seen and enjoyed (dṛśya and
1 Sänkhya-kärikā, 11

Page #43

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
19
bhogya ). From this account it is evident that Purusa is consciousness or spirit, whereas Prakyti is physical existence. Prakyti is further manifested into different formsl with which we are not concerned here. In short, the Sānkhya system believes in two Realities which are independent of and different from each other. RĀMĀNUJA'S POSITION
According to Rāmānuja, the Conscious Substance (cit-tattra) is knower and is the substratum of knowledge (jñāna). Both are eternal and inseparably connected together.2 Jñāna is all pervading. It is immaterial (ajada) and of self-revealing nature. It is capable of contraction and expansion ( saskoca and vikāśa ). It illumines things as well as itself,3 but it cannot know itself. The Physical Substance is divided into three kinds (1) that which possesses immutable existence (sattva) only; (2) that which has all the three qualities (gunas ); (3) and that which does not possess any one of the three qualities (gunas ). It is eternal. It is distinct from knowledge and is free from consciousness. It is subject to change. Both the Realities, viz., Consciousness and Unconscious objects are eternal and independent. Although Rāmānuja believes in the qualified monism, still. he is quite clear in his view when he says that both these substances will never become one with Brahmin. The individual souls can become similar to Brahman, not same with Brahman. The Physical objects will never become identical with Brahman. Hence, according to his view, the universe is of realistic nature. POSITION OF NVĀYA-VAISESIKA SCHOOL
It is needless to say that the joint system of Nyāya-Vaišeşik a school holds that spirit and matter are two independent substances. It believes in seven categories of Reality. Matter which is an important factor in the concept of Realism has been shown as eternal, non-momentary, and cognisable through one or more means of valid cognition. Now, we pass on to the Heterodox schools of Realism.
1 Sānkhya-kārikā, 21. 2 Tattva-trava, p. 17. 3 ibid., p. 35. 4 ibid., pp. 41, +5. 5 ibid., p. 41 6 l'ikārāspadan.

Page #44

20
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY VAIBHĀȘIKA AND SAUTRĀNTIKA SCHOOLS OF BUDDHISM
The Vaibhāșika school belongs to the sect of Sarvāstivādins. The very name of this sect shows that it believes in the separate and independent existence of the objective world. Both the external and the internal existences in the shape of matter and knowledge are real. Both of them are momentary.
According to the Sautrāntika School of Buddhism, there is an external world which is as much real as knowledge itself. Although the objective world is independent of knowledge or intellect, yet, it is not cognised through direct perception. The Sautrāntikas hold that the existence of the external world (bāhyārtha ) is inferred from the various forms of knowledge which forms would not have otherwise existed. In other words, they believe that knowledge assumes various forms which lead us to infer the existence of an external world corresponding to them.2
According to the Vaibhāsikas, knowledge, consciousness, or intellect is formless, while it has forms according to the Sauträntikas. The former believes in the direct perceptibility of the outside world, while the latter holds it to be entirely inferential. The Vaibhāṣika system may be called Direct Momentary Realism.' The Sautrāntika School may be named as 'Indirect Momentary Realism.' CĀRVĀKA SCHOOL
According to the Cārvāka, consciousness is not a separate Reality. He holds that Reality consists of the objective world only which is constituted by the four Mahābhūtas (Primary Elements ), viz., earth, water, fire, and air. Consciousness is merely a by-product of the peculiar amalgamation of the abovementioned Mahābhūtas, although none of them possesses it separately. This school does not believe in anything which is neither a bhūta nor a bhautika (product of the bhūtas). This system of Realism is purely materialistic.
1 History of Indian Logic, p. 247. 2 Gunaratna's Commentary on Saddarśana-samuccaya, p. 47. 3 Saddarśana-samuccaya, p. 306.

Page #45

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
21
JAINISM
After dealing with the views of the idealists and realists as regards the nature of Reality we, now', propose to proceed to the comparative study of the nature of Reality according to Jainism. How far does Jainism differ in the conception of Reality from Idealism and how far does it join hands with it? What difference it holds from Realism and what type of similarity it has with the realistic view ? What is the ultimate nature of Reality according to the school of Jainism? What is the conception of substance, attribute, and modification? How many substances are real from different points of view ? What is the nature of those substances and how are they related ? What is the conception of oneness and maniness of the substances ? All these questions and the like are to be discussed.
NATURE OF THE UNIVERSE
All the philosophical problems are centred in the conception of Universe. No school of thought denies the existence of the Universe but each tries to prove it by its own point of view. In the Bhagavati-sūtra, a question is asked by Gautama in connection with the conception of Universe. Lord Mahavira replied in a direct manner. The conversation is as follows:
Gautama: “O Lord! what is this Universe ? "
Mahāvīra: "Gautama ! the Universe is composed of the five extensive substances. They are the Medium of Motion, the Medium of Rest, Space, Soul, and Matter."'!
In this conversation Time is not regarded as a separate substance but is included in both the conscious and non-conscious substances. In some chapters of the Bhagavati-sūtra, Time is mentioned as a separate entity. This two-fold classification shows that in the early days of Lord Mahāvīra, there were two schools of thought in Jainism. One believed in the existence of the five extensive substances and the other conceived the Universe as composed of the six substances. This latter school added Time as a separate and independent entity to the five extensive existences without regarding it as an extensive reality. It conceived
1 Bhagavati-sūtra, XIII, 6, 481. 2 ibid., X.XV, 2-4.

Page #46

OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
Time as non-extended. This is a rough estimate of the conception of Universe in the Jaina canons.
NATURE OF REALITY
22
The Jaina thinkers have mentioned the words 'sat', 'tattva', 'artha', 'padartha', and 'tattvärtha as synonyms for the word Reality. They generally did not make any distinction among substance, reality, existence, etc. The other Indian systems did not do so in the same sense. In the Vaiseṣika-sūtra all the six, viz., substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, inherent relationship are called padarthas but the term artha is reserved only for three padarthas, viz.: substance, quality and action. The Naiyāyikas call the sixteen principles by the name The Sankhya system regards Prakyti and Puruşa as tattvas. In spite of being a school of Realism, Jainism did not make any difference among Reality, Existence, Substance, Object, etc.
sat. '2
<
According to Umāsvāti, the definition of Reality is 'sat', i.e. existence. He did not use the term 'tattva' but he used the word 'dravya,' i.e., substance for Reality. We have already seen that there is no difference between substance and reality. Reality is substance and substance is reality. In this way, the primary and essential criterion of Reality is Existence or sattā. That which exists is real. In other words, Existence is Reality or Reality is Existence. Considering from this point of view, it can be asserted that All is one because all exists.' This view is taken to be very much similar to that of the Upanisads. In the Jaina canons there are some references that indicates this view. As we find in the Sthānanga-sutra: One Soul.' 'One Universe.' etc.5 This conception of oneness is considered to be valid only from the view-point of the Sangrahanaya.' This view-point of the Jainas reaches near the Absolute Idealism of Indian philosophy and the 'Experience' of Bradley. Our intellect cannot describe this Reality in whole. It can be realised by intuition which is possessed by an omniscient self. Both the conscious and non-conscious substances are the attributes of this Reality,
1 Vaiseṣika-sutra, I, 1, 4; VIII, 2, 3.
Sacca khalu ṣoḍaśadha vyudhamupadesyate-Nyāya-bhāṣya I, II.
Sat dravyalaksanam, V, 29 (Digambara tradition). Tattvärtha-sutra bhasya, I, 35.
Ege aya; ege loe.-Sthananga-sūtra, I, I, I, 4.
2
3
4
5

Page #47

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
Consciousness
according to Jainism. Existence is neither Alone' nor 'Matter Alone'. When we analyse Reality in this fashion, our stand-point comes in clash with the Absolute Idealism and the Absolute Materialism. The Jainas hold that Existence is all inclusive. If you say that it is nothing but Pure Consciousness, you commit a blunder. If you describe it as Pure Matter, you are guilty. It is neither sheer consciousness nor pure matter. Consciousness and non-consciousness both of them are included in it.
23
CHARACTERISTICS OF 'SAT'
Umāsvāti defines sat as possessing origination, decay, and permanence. When a substance, conscious or unconscious, originates without leaving its own nature, it is called origination. As for instance, jar originates from clay without leaving the nature of clay. Decay is the name of leaving the former mode. As for example, clay leaves its former mode when it becomes a jar. Permanence is the essential characteristic of a substance which remains unchanged in both the conditions, viz., origination and decay. It is neither created nor destroyed. It is eternal. It is changeless. As for instance, the essential nature of clay remains unchanged among its various modes.2
1
In the Jaina canons we do not find the word 'sat' as the criterion of Reality or substance. Only the word 'dravya' has been used there. As it is mentioned in the Anuyogadvāra-sutra that the universal criterion of Reality is 'dravya' (substance) and the particular characteristics of Reality are the jiva dravya and the ajiva dravya, i.e., the conscious substance and the nonconscious substance.3 Umāsvāti developed this canonical conception of substance into 'sat' and made no distinction between 'sat' and 'dravya'. His language was philosophical rather than canonical. Although he mentioned sat' as the criterion of Reality, yet, he did not define sat' in the same manner as it was defined by the other philosophical systems like the Vedanta school and the Nyaya-Vaiśeşika system. These systems define satta' as absolutely permanent having no change
Utpadavvayadhrauvyayuktam sat.-Tattvärtha-sutra, V, 29.
2 Sarvärtha-siddhi, V, 30.
3
Anuyogadvara-sūtra, ajivadavve ya).
123. (Aviseste davve visesie jivadavve

Page #48

24
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY whatsoever. I'māsvāti also defined' sat' as permanent (dhruva) but his conception of permanence was not that of the absolute permanence. According to him, the criterion of permanence is 'not leaving self-essence'. He explained this definition in the following manner : That which neither leaves its existent essence at present nor will leave it in future, is permanent.' The substance during the period of taking new forms and leaving old ones does not leave its essence. In both origination and decay it remains as it is. Its nature remains unchanged. This immutable nature is called permanence.
Now, there arises a question: How is it possible that a substance which leaves the old mode and takes the new form is permanent ? How these two contradictory qualities, viz., change and permanence can remain in the same substance ? How is it possible that a permanent existence changes ? All these questions seem to be contradictory but really speaking, they are not so. Umāsvāti himself says that this conception of permanence can be understood by the terms leaving' and 'not-leaving'3 That which is left is changed and that which is not left is permanent. The modes are temporary because they are left by the substance.
e essential criterion is permanent because it remains unchanged. No substance can be absolutely destroyed. No object is absolutely permanent. The nature of Reality is permanent as well as momentary. Its modes (paryāyas) change but the essential characteristic (dravva) remains unchanged. Kundakunda also defines Reality ( Sattā) in the same way. IDENTITY AND DIFFERENCE
What the Jainas maintain is that the nature of the reals can be understood from experience. It is wrong to admit that any attribute or element that does not belong to the real can be ascribed as belonging to it. This is the fundamental position of almost all the realistic schools.
Our experience tells us that no object is absolutely identical. We experience this also that the differences are not absolutely
1 Tadbhācāvvayaii nityam-Tattvārtha-sútra, V, 30. 2 'Yat sato bhātānnarveti na vyeşyatı tannityam'.-Tattvärtha-sūtra
bhāşya, 1, 30. 3 Arpitānarpitasıdtheh. -Tattvārtha-sútra, 1, 31. 4 Pancāstıkāya, 8.

Page #49

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
25
scattered. Jainism takes this commonsense-view and maintains that the identity is accepted to be true in the midst of all the varying modes or differences. There is no reason to call in question the reality of the changes or of the identity, as both are perceived facts. Every entity is subject to change and maintains its identity throughout its career. Dispassionate study reveals Reality to be a synthesis of opposites--identity and difference, permanence and change, describability and indescribability, oneness and maniness. The Vedāntins start with the premise that Reality is One Universal Existence and that is Permanent Consciousness. The Vaibhāşikas and Sautrāntikas believe in atomic particulars and momentary ideas, each absolutely different from the rest and having nothing underlying them to bind them together. The Naiyayikas believe both to be combined in an individual, though they maintain that the two characters, i.e., universality and particularity are different and distinct. A real according to them is an aggregate of the universal and the particular, i.e., identity and difference and not a real synthesis. The Jaina differs from them all and maintains that the universal and the particular are only distinguishable traits in a real, which is at once identical with and different from both. Reality is neither a particularity nor a universality in an exclusive manner, but a synthesis which is different from both severally and jointly though embracing them in its fold.1 It is Existence. It is 'sattā'. Both identity and difference live in its bosom. They are not different from existence as such. They are in the form of existence or existence is in the form of them. This existence is' sat'. This 'sat' is called 'dravya'. This 'dravya' is known as 'tattva'. This 'tattva' is described as Reality. This type of Reality is 'tattvārtha' or 'padārtha'. CLASSIFICATION OF SUBSTANCE
After having mentioned the real nature of substance, we propose to proceed to know what types of division it contains. It has already been mentioned that if we look at substance from the view-point of savgraha (universality) we have only one substance, one reality and that reality is existence. From this stand-point, we make no distinction between consciousness and unconsciousness, between universality and particularity, between
1 Aşta-sahasri, pp. 147-8.
4

Page #50

26
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
subject and object, and between one and many. All these differences are covered by 'sat'. Hence, from one point of view, 'Sat' is the only substance. This view-point leads to a form of Monism, inasmuch as it takes note of the thread of unity running through plurality which we find recorded in the earlier works of Jaina philosophy. . If we look at substance from the dualistic view-point, we experience it as composed of jiva and ajiva. The jiva is the enjoyer and the ajīva is the enjoyed from the empirical point of view. That which has consciousness is jiva; that which has not consciousness is ajīva. Dr. Radhakrishnan writes in his famous work Indian Philosophy' that which has not consciousness but can be touched, tasted, seen and smelt, is ajīva. This statement is not valid. The real criterion of jiva and ajiva is consciousness and unconsciousness respectively. The Jainas do not mean by ajīva that which can be touched, tasted, seen, and smelt. These four characteristics belong to 'pudgala' only which is rūpin.2 In other words, it is matter which can be touched, tasted, seen, and smelt because matter has gross form. Ajīva is not only matter but something more. The medium of motion, the medium of rest, space, and time also fall in the category of ajiva. The following table will clearly show the real position :
Substance
Conscious 1. Jicāstikāya
Non-conscious
4)īva
Having form
Formless 2. Pudgalāstıkāva.
3. Dharmāstikāya 4. Adharmāstıkāya 5. dkāśāstıkaya
6. iddhāsamaya The last four categories of ajiva are formless. Hence, they cannot be touched, tasted, seen, and smelt. It is the rūpin (having form) only which can be touched etc. Such substance is only' pudgala'. Therefore, the four characteristics of form can be
1 Indian Philosophy, Vol. I, p. 314. 2 Räpinah pudgalāh. Tattvārtha-sūtra, V, 5. 3 Vityāvasthitānyarūpāņi. ibid., 1, 4.

Page #51

27
CONCEPTION OF REALITY ascribed to 'pudgala' (matter ) and not to ajiva' as a whole. 'Pudgala' (matter) is a part of ajīva; and it is needless to say that the characteristics of a part cannot be attributed to the whole. Matter is ' ajiva', of course, but this does not mean that
ajiva' is matter alone. Apiva is something more than matter. Here we want to emphasise the point that the lefinition of 'ajiva' given by Dr. Radhakrishnan is not correct. The correct and complete criterion of ajiva' is unconsciousnes. Hence, from the dualistic point of view, the conscious substare is șiva, while the unconscious substance is ajīva.1 CANONICAL CONCEPTION OF CLASSIFIZATION
In the Bhagavati-sūtra substance is lassified into two divisions. These two divisions are the sames we have already discussed. There is a further classification of he aiva substance. Firstly, it is divided into rūpin' and 'arūrin'. The 'rūpin' substance is pudgalāstikāva alone. Secondly the 'arūpin' one is divided into 'dharmāstikāya' (medium of cotion), adharmastikāya' (medium of rest ), 'ākāśāśtikāya' (sace ). and 'adihāsamaya' (time). The first four 'ajīva' substaces, riz.,' pudgıla' (matter), dharma' (medium of motion ), 'idha rna' (medium of rest), and 'ākāśa' (space) and “jīva' ce ca lied 'astikāya' meaning thereby 'substances having extensin'. Here again it should be noted that the term 'extension 'is not used by the Jaina in the realistic sense of material exension. The Jaina conception of 'extension' is a unique one. The Jainas do not define the term 'extension in the same anse as the other realists of India and West do. The Jaina concetion of extension' (astikāya) is as follows.
As these exist, they are called 'asti' by te great Jinas, and because they have many' pradeśas ’, like boca's, therefore, they are called ' kāyas'. Hence, these are called at ikā juis (extensive substances ).
To be more clear, let us understand wiat is mea nt by a pradeśa'. It has been defined to be that pat of space which is covered by one indivisible atom of matter.3 sich bradeśas'can contain not only the atoms of matter, but th: pa rticles of other
1 Bhagavati-sūtra, XXV, 2; XXV, 4. 2 Dravya-sangraha, 24. 3 ibid., 27.

Page #52

28
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
substances also (which are also called 'pradeśas'). Thus, each substance has its own pradeśas. Now, 'jiva'' pudgala ', 'dharma', 'adharma', and 'ākāśa' have many 'pradeśas', as these consist of many indivisible and inseparable parts. In other words, the particles of these are not separable, but are mixed up or capable of being mixed up. The last substance, viz., 'addhāsamaya' (time) consists of particles which never mix up, and consequently, each of these particles occupies a particular pradeśa'. Thus, time is said to have a single 'pradeśa'. Therefore, 'addhāsamaya' is not an extensive substance. The 'addhāsamaya' substance is also called 'kāla'.
Thus, we can broadly divide substance into three categories: 1. That which is purely conscious, and has no form. “Jiva' alone
is such. 2. That which is unconscious and has got some form. Pudgala'
falls in this category. 3. That which is unconscious and has no form. 'Dharma',
"adharma', 'ākāśa', and 'addhāsamava' are of this
category. Another division is also possible. It consists of 'asti kāya' and 'anastikāya'. 1. That which has more than one pradeśa' whether they are
countable, innumerable, or indefinite is known as 'astikāya'.
Jiva', 'dharma', 'adharma', 'ākāśa' and ' pudgala'
constitute this variety. 2. That which has only one pradeśa' is called 'anastikāya'.
Such substance is 'addhāsamaya' or 'kāla' alone. The following tables will clearly show the scheme :
TABLE I Substance
Conscious
Non-conscious
Non-conscious
Jira
Ajiva
Material
Material
Immaterial
immaterial
Pudgala
Dharma
1 dharma
Ārása
Kāla

Page #53

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
Extended
TABLE 2
Substance
L
Non-extended
Käla
Jiva
Dharma
Adharma
Akāśa
Pudgala
Almost all the realists of Indian thought except the Naiyayikas and Vaiseṣikas divided Reality into two broad categories. These categories are known as spirit and matter, soul and matter, ideas and matter, Puruşa and Prakyti, or subject and object. The materialistic school of Realism is not included in this scheme because it is not dualistic. None of the realists tried to divide Reality exactly in the same sense as Jainism did. So far as consciousness is concerned, Jainism joins hands with the other realists but as regards the conception of non-conscious substance, it differs from them. The Jaina conception of non-conscious substance is not in the sense of matter. It includes some immaterial substances as well.
4. Adharmastikaya-Extensive,
29
Jainism holds that there are not only two categories of Reality, viz., consciousness and matter; but there is a third category as well which is unconscious and immaterial. Neither is it necessary that what is unconscious must be material nor is it essential that what is immaterial must be conscious. There can be a third category which is immaterial but unconscious. It should not be forgotten that matter is that substance which has form, i.e., which can be touched, tasted, smelt, and seen. 'Dharma', 'adharma', ākāśa' and 'kala' are unconscious but immaterial. They cannot be touched, tasted, smelt, and seen.
"
unconscious,
stance in the form of the medium of rest,
To sum up: There are six substances according to the pluralistic conception of the Jainas. They are as follows: 1. Jivāstikaya-Extensive, conscious, immaterial substance. 2. Pudgalāstikaya-Extensive, unconscious, material substance. 3. Dharmastikaya-Extensive, unconscious, immaterial substance in the form of the medium of motion.
immaterial sub

Page #54

30
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
5. Ākāśāstikāya-Extensive, unconscious, immaterial substance
in the form of space. 6. Addhāsamaya (kāla)—Non-extensive, unconscious, immate
rial substance. Now, we propose to define each of these substances in detail. JIVĀSTIKĀYA
The fundamental characteristic of 'jiva' is 'upayoga 'l. Because of its formlessness, it cannot be perceived by the senseorgans. It can be known by introspection and inference. Now, what is ' upayoga'? The criterion of 'upayoga' is consciousness. In the technical language of Jainism, this consciousness is called 'bodha'. When this 'bodha' is evolved in a particular fashion, it becomes knowledge. To explain the term 'upayoga' it is further mentioned that 'upayoga' is of two kinds : determinate and indeterminate.2 Determinate 'upayoga' is further divided into eight categories. These categories are: mati-jñāna, śrutajñāna, avadhi-jñāna, manaḥparyāya-jñāna, kevala-jñāna, matiajñāna, śruta-ajñāna, and avadhi-ajñāna (vibhanga-jñāna ). Indeterminate 'wpayoga' is divided into four categories. These four categories are: Caksurdarśana, acakşurdarśana, avadhidarśana, and kevala-darśana. According to Jainism, there are indefinite jīvas in the universe and each jīva has innumerable pradeśas.3 It is not all pervasive. By contraction and expansion of its pradeśas, a soul is capable of occupying varying proportions of the countless Pradeśas of the universe, just like the flame of a lamp whose light can fill a small room as well as a big hall.'4 As has been observed by I'māsvāti: If the space is divided into innumerable parts, the size of a soul can be so small as to occupy one or more of these parts'.5 One part should not be confined to one pradeśa but it should be taken as having innumerable pradeśas, since the innumerability of the spatial pradeśas is of innumerable kinds. In special cases the size of a single soul can fill the whole universe. "By the contraction and expansion of
I Upayogo laksanam. Tattvārtha-sútra, II, 8. 2 Sa dvividhostacaturbhedah. ibid., II, 9. 3 ibid., V, 7-8. 4 Tattvārtha-sära, III, 14. 5 Asankhyeyabhāgādişu jīvānām. Tattvārtha-sūtra V, 15.

Page #55

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
31
pradeśas, the soul occupies space like the light from a lamp.' It can occupy the smallest possible body, viz., that of a bacterium or the biggest body of a great fish (mahāmaccha). The soul becomes equal in extent to a small or a large body by contraction and expansion. This view about the size of soul is bitterly criticised by the other philosophers of India. No school of Indian philosophy but Jainism regards the soul as equal in extent to a body it occupies.
Such souls are indefinite in number, but there are two broad divisions, viz., worldly souls and liberated souls. The worldly souls are further divided into two classes: moving (trasa) and non-moving (sthāvara).4 The moving souls are again divided into five-sensed, four-sensed, three-sensed, and two-sensed jīvas. The non-moving souls are divided into five categories : those living in the bodies of earth, water, fire, air, and vegetable. The following table will show the classification :
SOUL (jiva)
Worldly (saṁsārin)
Liberated (mukta)
Moving trasa)
Non-moving
(sthāvara)
Five-sensed (man etc.)
Living in the bodies of earth Four-sensed (bee etc.)
water Three-sensed (ant etc.)
fire Two-sensed (worm etc.)
air
vegetable Those jīvas that possess five sense-organs, viz.; those of touch, taste, smell, sight, and hearing are called five-sensed jīvas. Those possessing four sense-organs, viz.; those of touch, taste, smell, and sight are four-sensed. Having three sense-organs, viz., those of touch, taste, and smell are known as three-sensed souls. Those who possess only two sense-organs, viz., those of touch and taste are called two-sensed jīvas. The non-moving jīvas possess
1 Pradeśasamhāravisargābhyāṁ pradipavat. Tattvārtha-sútra, V, 16. 2 Dravya-sangraha, 10. 3 Savśārino muktāśca. Tattvārta-sūtra, II, 10.
ibid., II, 12.

Page #56

32
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY only one sense-organ, viz.; that of touch. They are known as pythvikāya, apkāya, tejaskava, savukāya, and vanaspatikāya. They are in the form of earth, water, fire, air, and vegetable respectively. PUDGALÄSTIKÄYA
It has already been mentioned that 'pudgala' is nothing but matter. Matter is rūpin'. In other words, it has got touch, taste, smell, and colour. It consists of numerable, innumerable, and indefinite parts according as we consider the different molecular combinations. The indivisible elementary particle of matter is 'anu' (atom). It has got only one pradeśa because the criterion of pradeśa itself is based on anu. One atom will necessarily occupy one pradeśa. But it is not necessary that one pradeśa would always be occupied by one atom only because of the contraction and expansion of atoms in molecules.
Matter is of two varieties: in the form of an atom (anu ) and in the form of molecules (skandha). That substance which is the beginning, the middle, and the end by itself and is indivisible should be known as atom. In other words, atom is the smallest possible part of matter. Atom as a unit is inapprehensible by the sense-organs. It is perceptible only in the form of skandha (pudgalāsti kāya). Hence, it is the pudgalāstikāya (molecule ) which can be touched, tasted, smelt, and seen. That is why pudgalāsti kāya is said to be rūpin (having form ), not anu (atom). Atoms are produced only by division. When any molecule is dissolved into the smallest possible atoms, the atoms SO obtained are called effect-atoms (karya-paramānu). Those atoms which cause the formation of four root matters : earth, water, fire, and air are called cause-atoms (karana-paramānu ). Each and every atom is potentially capable of forming earth, water, fire, or air. According to the Jainas, there are no distinct and separate atoms of earth, water, etc. The school of NyāyaVaiseșika does not agree with this view.
Skandha is formed in three different ways: (1) By bheda ( division) (2) By sanghāta ( union )
1 Niyama-sära, 35. 2 Bhedādanuh. Tattvārtha-sütra, V, 27.

Page #57

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
33
(3) By the combined process of division and union taking place
simultaneously.1 The manifestations of pudgala are found in the form of sound, union, fineness, grossness, figure, divisibility, darkness, shade or image, sunshine, and moonlight.?
DHARMĀSTIKĪYA
This substance as the medium of motion is defined by Cmāsvāti as permanent, fixed, and without form. Dharon īstikīya is only one. It is not capable of moving from one place to another. The whole universe (loka ) is the place of dharmāsti kūya.3
Now, what is the nature of this substance? It is helpful in supporting the motion of souls and matter. What does it mean? It means that although the souls and matter have got the capacity of moving, yet, they cannot move unless the medium of motion is present in the universe. The medium of motion does not create motion but only helps them who have already got the capacity of moving. It is the medium through which motion takes place. As for instance, a fish swims ir. water. Here, water does not create swimming but it only helps the fish that has developed the tendency of swimming. As water helps fish in swimming, the jīvāstikāya and pidgalāstikāva are helped by atharinastikuva when the former tend to move. The medium of motion (iharınāstikāja) is an immaterial substanca possessing no consciousness. It is permanent as well as fixed and one. Every thing can penetrate it without any obstruction. It consists of innumerable' pradeśas' because the universal space possesses countless spatial units.
ADHARJĀSTIKAYA
The auxiliary cause of rest to the soul and matter is called the inedium of rest (adharmāstikaya)". It is a single immaterial substance pervading through the whole of the universe. There are countless points of adharmāslikava as those of dharmāstikāvu. Adharmiīstiklīva is as helpful with respect to rest as
1 Bheriusaighītebh va utpadvante. Tattvārtha-sútra, V, 26. ? ibid., V, 24. 3 ibid., 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 13. + Siyama-sāra, 30.

Page #58

34
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
dharmāstikāya is regarding motion. As a tree is helpful to a person who is coming from a far distance in the hot sun and wants to have some rest under it, so is the nature of adharmāstikāyu to help the souls and matter when they take rest. Both these substances have the capability of rest but unless there is the medium of rest, they cannot take rest. Hence, it is called the auxiliary cause of rest, Dharma and adharma pervade all the parts of the universe as oil pervades the whole of a mustard seed. The conception of dharma and adharma as the categories of substance is a unique contribution of Jaina philosophy. ĀKĀSĀSTIKAYA
Know that which is capable of allowing space to the jīvas, pudgala, dharma, adharma, and kāla to be ākāśa, according to Jainism. Ākāśa is eternal, all pervasive, and all the objects of the universe exist in it and it has no form. It is a single substance having indefinite pradeśas. Hence, it is called astikāya. A kāśāstikāya is of two divisions : lokākāśa and alokākāśa. Loka is that place in which dharma, adha;ma, kāla, budgala and jiva exist. That which is beyond this lokāklīsa is called alokākāśa.2 Jainism believes in two varieties of space. One is called lokākāśa or that space in which all other substances exist. This variety of space is called ' universe' in our ordinary language. Jainism does not believe in this universal space only but admits space beyond the universe as well. It holds that the universal space is only lokākāśa. There is alokākāśa as well which is pure space. In this space, no substance of the universe exists; hence, it is called alokākāśa. This division is not in ākāśa itself but it is due to its relation with the other five substances. Hence, ākāśa is a single substance which has indefinite pradeśas. When it is relatively divided into lokākāśa and alokākāśa-lokākāśa has innumerable pradeśas, while alokākāśa has indefinite pradeśas. Having taken innumerable pradeśas, i.e., the pradeśas of lokākāśa from ākāśa as a whole, the remaining pradeśas of alokākāśa are still indefinite 3 Space is self-supported, while the other substances are not so. They are accommodated in it.
i Vardhamāna-purāņa, XVI, 31. 2 Dravya-sangraha, 19. 3 Compare :--Pürnasya purnamuidāya purnamerāraśışyate.

Page #59

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
35 ADDHĀSAMAYA (KĀLA)
Kāla (time) is defined by Nemicandra from two stand-points. Vyavahāra-kāla (time from ordinary point of view) is that which helps to produce changes in a substance and which is known from modifications produced in it, while Pāramārthika, i.e., real kāla is understood from continuity. Let us explain it. According to Jainism, kāla is viewed from two view-points. Really speaking, kāla is nothing but the auxiliary cause of change. This change is understood from continuity. Without continuity we cannot understand change at all. If there is no continuity, what is that which changes ? Hence, continuity is the ground of change. From ordinary point of view, kālā is understood in hours, minutes, seconds, etc., by which we call a thing to be new or old according to changes produced in the same. These two types of time are technically called 'kāla' and 'samaya' respectively. Kāla is eternal and devoid of form. Samaya has a beginning and an end, and consists of varieties, viz , hour, minute, etc. Kāla may be said to be the substantial cause of Samava.
Käla consists of minute particles which never mix up with one another. The universe is full of these particles of time. No space-unit of the universe is devoid of it. Every space-unit contains time-unit in it. Hence, it is said that the particles of time are indivisible, innumerable, and without form. As it is remarked : 'Those innumerable substances which exist one by one in each pradeśa of lokākāśa, like heaps of jewels, are points of time. Hence, time (kāla ) is not one substance but innumerable substances. All are eternal and indivisible. ETHICAL CLASSIFICATION OF TATTVA
Now, we proceed to the ethical classification of 'tattva' which is not less important than the previous one. We find this latter classification in the canons as well as in later philosophical works. In the Sthānānga-sūtra, tattva (padārtha ) is divided into nine categories. In the old philosophical works like the Samayasāra, etc., we find the same classification. These nine categories are as follows:
1. Jiva (soul), 2. ajīva (non-soul), 3. punya (good karma), 4. pāpa (bad karma), 5. āsrava influx of karma), 6. bandha
1 Dravya-Sangraha, 21. ? ibid., 22,

Page #60

36
OL'TLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
(bondage of karma), 7. samvara (prevention of the influx of karma), 8. nirjai ā (partial annihilation of karma), and 9. mokşa (total annihilation of karma).
We have already discussed the nature of jīva and ajīva and established the fact that the whole universe is nothing but jiva and arīva. It is but natural to ask that while the whole Reality is divided into two categories what else remains which makes the latter seven categories necessary. The Jaina thinkers answer this question from an ethical point of view. They say that the whole Reality is divided into jila and ajiza, and we do not deny this. The latter seven categories are necessitated by the consideration of the problem of the conception of mokṣa (emancipation). The worldly jītas are bound by karma from beginningless time and they tend to liberate themselves from this strong karmic chain. They do not like bondage but try to attain liberation according to the best of their present capacity. Hence, liberation (moksa) is our goal. When we accept this category as our lifeaim, we naturally desire to know the obstacles which stand in our way. How those obstacles originate and how they might be removed? What is the nature of those obstacles ? All these questions are answered by the postulation of the latter seven categories. In other words, the latter seven categories are the different conditions and forms of jīva and ajīva. We have described the nature of jīva and ajira. We propose to give, now, a brief account of the nature of the remaining seven categories.
PU VYA
The essential characteristic of a jiva is consciousness, purity, and bliss but through the beginningless chain of karmas, bondage is there and the jīvās enjoy weal (punya) or woe (pāpa). Punva is produced by our auspicious bhāras (activities). The auspicious bhāvas are said to consist of freedum from delusion, acquirement of right faith and knowledge, practice of reverence, observance of the five vows, etc. The manifestation of punva consists in sātāvedaniya (feeling of pleasure), śubha-avus (auspicious life), subhanāman (auspicious physique), and śubha-gotra (auspicious surroundings ).1
1 Sadaedvarohiivnāmagotāni
vain.
Tattvärtha-sútra, VIII, 25.

Page #61

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
37
PAPA
Pāpa is produced by inauspicious bhāras. These bhāvas consist of delusion, wrong faith and knowledge, violence, falsity, stealing, indulgence, attachment, anger, pride, deceitfulness, greed, etc. The manifestation of papa consists in asātā-redanīva (feeling of pain), aśubha-āvus (inauspicious life), aśubha-nārnan (inauspicious body), and aśubha-gotra (inauspicious family surroundings).1
Some writers like Umāsvāti and others have recognised only seven categories. They did not regard punya and pāpa as separate and distinct categories. These two categories were included in asrava and bandha. It has been observed by C'māsvāti that punya and pāpa are nothing but the auspicious and inauspicious influx of karmas.3 ĀSRAVA
Asrava is divided into 'bhīrāsyara' and 'drazvīsrarı'. That modification of soul by which karma gets into it, is to be known as bhīvāsrava. Drarvāsrava is the karmic matter itself which enters a soul. In other words, bhlīzīsrava is nothing but activities, while drary'israru is a peculiar type of matter. Umāsväti did not make such an explicit diference between bhāvāsrava and draivisrava. According to his definition, isruta is nothing but the actions of body, speech, and mind.5 BANDHA
That conscious state by which karma is bound with the soul is called bhāva-bandha, while the interpenetration of the pradeśas of karma and the soul is called dracia-bandha. Now, how this bandha (bondage) comes into existence? That modification of consciousness consisting of kaşayas, i.e., anger, pride, deceit, and greed by which karmas are tied to the soul is the cause of bandh1.6 In other words, it is attachment and aversion that constitute the fundamental cause of handha.
1 Atonvat pīpam. Tattvārtha-sūtra, VIII, 20. ? Jirāīvāsvavabandhasariwaranırja nasistathali. ibid, I, 4. 3 śubhah m asya, aśubhuh pusasia. ibid, VI. 3-4. 4 Dravya-sangraha, 29 5 käyacinmanahka: ma l'ogah. sa usrarak Tattvärtha-sútra, VI 1-2. 6 ibid. VIII 2-3.

Page #62

OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
First of all, therefore, there is an influx of karmic particles through asrava. Then there are some activities of consciousness which are responsible for a peculiar kind of bondage which is called bhava-bandha. After this bhava-bandha, there is a union of the jiva with the actual karmas. This union which consists of the interpenetration of the soul and the karmas is known as dravya-bandha.
38
Bandha is of four kinds: according to the prakṛti (nature), sthiti (duration), anubhāga (intensity), and pradeśa (mass).1
The prakṛti and pradeśa of bondage result from the activities of thought, speech, and body, while the sthiti and anubhāga result from the conditions of attachment and aversion.2
SAMVARA
It is the antagonistic principle of asrava.3 It is also classified into two kinds according to the internal and external nature of it. That modification of consciousness which is the cause of checking bhāva-āsrava is known as bhāva-saṁvara and the other by which dravya-asrava is checked is known as dravya-samvara.
Sometimes it is divided into seven varieties: vrata (vow), samiti (carefulness), gupti (restraint), dharma (observance), anuprekṣā (meditation), parīṣahajaya (victory over troubles), and caritra (conduct). Each of these, again, is divided into various sub-classes.
The above-mentioned classification is from the Dravya-sangraha. The Tattvārtha-sūtra does not mention ' vrata variety. It mentions 'tapas' (penance) in place of ' vrata'. NIRJARA
That modification of soul by which the matter of karma disappears partially is called bhava-nirjarā. The destruction itself is known as dravya-nirjara. Thus, nirjara is the partial destruction of the karmas which are bound with the soul. This type of partial destruction takes place in two ways: In one way the matter of karma disappears in proper time after the fruits of such karma
Dravya-sangraha, 33.
2
3
Asravanirodhah samvarah. Tattvartha-sutra, IX, I.
4 Tapasă nirjară ca. ibid., IX, 3.
1
ibid.
as a

Page #63

CONCEPTION OF REALITY
39 are enjoyed. In the other way the matter of karma is destroyed through penances before the actual period of enjoyment comes.2 MOKSA
That modification of soul which is the cause of the total destruction of karmas is known as bhāva-moksa and the actual separation of the karmic matter is called dravya-mokṣa. After attaining this stage the soul is never bound again. As Umāsvāti says: A person attains kevala-jñāna (omniscience) when first his 'mohaniya ' karmas and then his jñānāvaraṇīya, darśanāvaraņiya, and antarāya karmas are destroyed. After attaining kevala-jñāna the cause producing bondage being absent and nirjarā being present, a person becomes free from the remaining karmas, viz., vedaniya, āyus, nāman, and gotra karmas in due course and thus, being void of all kinds of karma attains final liberation.2
1 Tattvārtha-sāra, VII, 2. 2 ibid., X, 1-3.

Page #64

CHAPTER II
NATURE OF SOUL
TH
HE great problem of the existence of soul had troubled almost all the great minds of the world. There have been such philosophers who did not believe in an independent existence of soul like Carvakas of India and earlier Greek philosophers as Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and the like. Pluralistic Greek thinkers like Democritus and others did not regard mind as a separate entity from material atoms. At the time of Lord Mahāvīra such thoughts were not altogether absent. He attempted in a successful manner to prove the independent existence of soul.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF SOUL
Lord Mahāvīra in the opening presents the views of those opponents who do not believe in an independent existence of soul. "O Indrabhūti! You have a doubt about the existence of soul (jiva), since it is not directly perceived by the senses as is the case with a jar (ghata). And so you argue that whatever is imperceptible does not exist in the world, e.g., a flower in the sky."
Some one may here argue that though anus (atoms) are not within the range of perception, yet, they do exist. So what about them? The answer is that no doubt they are imperceptible to us as anus, but when they are so transformed as to perform the function of a jar, etc., they no longer remain so. Such is not, however, the case with the soul. It never attains a stage when it
can be directly perceived.
66
The soul is not an object of inference, because inference, too, is preceded by perception and is the outcome of the recollection of the universal concomitance. There has not been previously seen any connection between soul (major term) and its linga (middle term), the recollection of which, along with the sight of its linga, can lead us to a conviction about the existence of soul."2
1 Viseṣāvasyaka-bhāṣya, 1549.
2 ibid., 1550-1.

Page #65

NATURE OF SOUL
41
"The soul is not even within the range of scriptural authority, because scripture is not quite distinct from inference. Moreover, the soul is not directly perceptible to any one whose words make up scripture."
There is none to whom the soul is an object of direct perception. Had there been any one of that type, his word would have been looked upon as scriptural authority and on the basis of that scripture, the existence of soul would have been admitted.
“Furthermore, the scriptural authorities are mutually contradictory. Consequently, on that account, too, the doubt is justifiable, You, therefore, believe that the existence of soul cannot be established by any of the means of valid cognition.”'2
The existence of soul cannot be established even by the means of analogy, because in the entire universe there is no object whatsoever that resembles the soul.
Even implication does not help us in proving the existence of soul. There does not exist any such object seen or heard whose postulation can prove the independent existence of soul.
Thus, when the existence of soul cannot be proved by any one of the five means of valid cognition, each of which establishes the existence of an object, it automatically follows that it comes within the range of negation (abhūta), the sixth means of valid cognition whose function is to establish non-existence.
Thus, it is proved that the soul does not exist. This is, in brief, the view of the opponent-the thesis (purva paksa).
Now, Lord Mahāvīra refutes the arguments of the opponent in the following manner:
"O Gautama! the soul is indeed directly cognizable to you also. Your knowledge about it which consists of doubts, etc., is itself the soul. What is proved by your own experience should not be proved by other means of cognition. No proof is required to prove the existence of happiness, misery, etc.
Or, the soul is directly experienced owing to the 'ahampratyaya' (realisation as I') in I did, I do, and I shall do' the realisation which is associated with the functions pertaining to all the three tenses.
1 Visesăvašyaka-bhāşya, 1552. ? ibid., 1553.

Page #66

42
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
If there is no soul, how do you realise 'aham'? How can there be a doubt whether the soul is or not? Or, if there is a doubt, in whose case is this' ahanpratya va' justifiable ?"1
This argument for the existence of soul is advanced from the psychological point of view. The various aspects of cognition, viz., memory, recognition, doubt, judgment, etc., are never possible, if there is no soul. All these psychological functions are centred in a conscious and sentient entity which is not material but spiritual. Cognition, feeling, and conation are not possible unless we regard the existence of a spiritual entity or substance as the source of all these phenomena. All the three aspects of our mental life, viz., knowing, feeling, and willing are not scattered phenomena. The process of memory certainly proves the existence of soul. The four stages of memory, viz., retention, recall, recognition, and localisation are systematically connected with one another and the source of this systematic connection is the soul. A purely material brain cannot work in such a systematic and well adjusted manner.
The problem of doubt and doubter is rather ontological. Just like the Sankhya system that proves the separate existence of purusa on the ground of adhisthāna', Lord Mahāvira proved the existence of soul on the ground of doubt. He argued that without a doubter who is beyond all kinds of doubt but still remains in all doubts, no doubt is possible. Doubt presupposes the existence of a doubter as its ground. That ground is a soul, a self. a sentient being, or a conscious principle. “If the object about which one has doubt is certainly non-existent, who has a doubt as to whether I do exist or I do not exist ? Or, Gautama ! when you yourself are doubtful about yourself, what can be free from doubt?"2
He further says: “The soul which is the substratum (gunin) of attributes is self-evident owing to its attributes (gunas) being self-evident, as is the case with a pitcher. For, on realising the attributes (gunas) the substratum gunin), too, is realised.''3
Substance cannot exist without qualities and qualities have no place absolutely independent of substance. If the qualities are
1 Višeşāvaśyaka-bhāşva, 1554-0. 2 ibid, 1557 3 ibid., 1558.

Page #67

43
experienced, the experience of the substance is apparent. The qualities of soul such as perception, intuition, etc., are quite evident. These qualities cannot have an absolutely independent existence. Hence, the existence of the soul to which all these qualities belong, is quite obvious.
NATURE OF SOUL
It may be that the opponent admits that there is a 'gunin' (substance) which is the substratum of the qualities like knowledge, etc., but he may refuse to believe that this substance is something else than a body. That is to say, he looks upon the body itself as the substance in question, because the qualities are found in the body only. The argument is like this: Knowledge, etc., are the qualities of a body, because they are observed there and there only like other attributes of the body, such as its whiteness, fatness, thinness, etc.
The answer is: The qualities like knowledge, etc., cannot belong to the material body, for the body is 'rupin' (having form) as is the case with a pitcher. The qualities of a substance having form must be with form (rupin). Knowledge, etc., are formless. Therefore, the substance possessing these qualities, too, must be formless, and hence, it cannot be the body which is with form. Thus, that substance which is formless is nothing but the soul. Secondly, sometimes, it is seen that the qualities such as perception, memory, etc., are absent even when the body is present as in sound sleep, death, etc.1 It indicates that knowledge, etc., are not the qualities of body but they belong to a separate substance, i.e., soul.
Thirdly, the body cannot be the cause of knowledge, because it is composed of material elements (bhūtas) which do not possess consciousness. The effect must exist in the cause implicitly. If the material elements do not possess consciousness as one of their qualities, how is it possible that the body becomes conscious? If consciousness is absent in each of the material elements, it will necessarily be absent in the combination also. As oil is absent in each particle of sand, it cannot be produced from the combination also.2 Hence, it is illogical to maintain that consciousness is merely a by-product of the peculiar amalgamation of the four mahābhūtas (primary elements), although none of them
1
Prameya-kamala-martanda, p. 114
2 Śästra-vārtā-samuccaya, 44.

Page #68

44
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY possesses it separately. The intoxicating nature of wine is not absent in those objects by which it is produced. Intoxication is not a mere by-product. It is systematically produced by those objects in which it exists implicitly. The patent nature of intoxication is merely a manifestation of its latent nature. It is not a product which is quite strange. It is not a miracle but an order. Hence, consciousness cannot be ascribed to the body. All the spiritual qualities reside in a separate conscious substance. A thing which is absolutely non-existent cannot come into existence like sky-flower or a horn on the head of a hare. A thing which is existent cannot be absolutely non-existent iike the material elements. If consciousness is absolutely non-existent, it can never come into existence. It exists in the soul because the soul is the principle of consciousness.
Fourthly, a person who does not accept the existence of soul, annot make a negative judgment in the case of an absolutely non-existent object. Even the existence of sky-flower is not absolutely negative, for both sky and flower exist. The conjunction (samyoga ) of sky and flower is non-existent, not the objects themselves. Hence, the negation of soul itself proves the existence of soul. If there is no soul, whose negation is this?
Fifthly, the word jiva is synonymous with the word soul. This word 'jiva' is significant, for it has a derivation ('nyutpatti') and it is a singular whole ('siddha pada'). Whatever is a singular whole and has a derivation is here seen to be one having a meaning. Pitcher, etc., may be mentioned as instances; so is the word 'jiva'. Therefore, it, too, has a meaning. What is not significant and has no meaning, is wanting in derivation, and besides, it is not a singular whole. 'Dittha,''sky-flower', etc., are words of this type ; for the former has no derivation, whereas the latter is not a singular whole. Such is not the case with the word 'jiva'. Therefore, it is significant and has a meaning.2 This meaning is nothing but the concept of soul. This argument is etymological in nature. DEFINITION OF SOUL
The defining characteristic of a soul is jīvatta which means 'cetanā'. When we use the word consciousness as the criterion of
1 Sastra-vārtā-samuccaya, 76. 2 Višeșāvasyaka-bhāsya, 1575.

Page #69

NATURE OF SOUL
45
soul, we only mean 'cetancē' by it. It is the 'cetanī' alone which cannot exist in any substance other than the soul. Hence, the main line of demarcation between jita and ajiva is cetanā. Existence, origination, decay, permanence, etc., are the general characteristics of all the substances, therefore, when the Jainas define 'jīva' as a substance possessing cetanā or consciousness, they do not exclude all these general qualities (sādhirana dharmas). These qualities are included in consciousness itself. The definition of a particular substance consists of only those special qualities which are not found in other substances. When a substance is taken as a whole, or in other words, if we want to refer to all its characteristics we analyse its complete nature. That analysis is not a definition. It is proper to call it a description.
Consciousness consists of knowledge and intuition (jñāna and darśana) as its constituents. In the Tattvārtha-sūtra the definition of soul in the shape of 'upavoga' is very liberal. It includes bliss and power in it. Strictly speaking, a soul is that substance which possesses 'four infinities' (ananta catustaya). These four infinities are infinite knowledge, infinite intuition, infinite bliss, and infinite power. A liberated soul possesses all these infinities. The worldly jīvas do not possess them in their perfection, because they are obscured by the veil of four destructive (ghātin) karmas, viz., jñānāraraṇīya (covering the faculty of knowledge), darśanīvaraṇīya (covering the faculty of intuition), mohaniya (covering the faculty of bliss), and antarāya (covering the faculty of power). The liberated souls as well as the omniscients are absolutely free from these four kinds of karmas, 2 hence, they possess the 'four infinities' in all perfection. Thus, the definition of soul consists in the possession of the four infinities. DIFFERENCE BETWEEX DARŠANA AND JNĀNA
The difference between intuition (darśana; and knowledge (jñāna) consists in this that in the former, the details are not perceived, while in the latter, the details are also known. In the technical language of Jainism, darśana' is named as 'nirākāra
1 Tattvārtha-śloka-vārtika, p. 318 2 Mohakşayājjñanadarśanāvaraṇāntarā vakşayācca ketalam. Tattvārtha
sūtra, X, I

Page #70

46
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
upayoga', while 'jšīna' is called ' sīkīra-upavoga'. 'Before we know a thing in a detailed way, there is the stage where we simply see, hear, or otherwise become conscious of it in a general way, without going into its ins and outs. We simply know it as belonging to a class. This is the first stage of knowledge. It may be called detail-less knowledge or indefinite cognition. If this stage is not experienced, there can be no knowledge of the thing.'! This statement of Herbert Warren is correct to some extent, because 'to know a thing as belonging to a class' is the first stage of jñāna which arises after darśana according to some Jaina thinkers. They say that the cognition of a thing as belonging to a class is 'avagraha jñāna' (sensation). According to them, darśana is the primitive stage or the first stage of cognition where we are only aware of an object. This simple' awareness' without any reference to a particularity or generality may be named as darśana. In this awareness, the knowledge contains only existence', i.e., 'sattāmātra'. This kind of knowledge originates just after the contact between the subject and the object. This state of cognition is the preceding stage of sensation proper. In other words, according to these thinkers, sensation is divided into two categories or two stages. The first stage where we have only awareness of an object is called darśana (sensation of existence). The second stage where we have a sensation of an object as belonging to a class is called jñāna (sensation proper).
There are some thinkers who define darśana as the cognition of generality. Such thinkers regard at'agraha (sensation) as a st of darśana.3 The difference between darśana and jñana, however, consists in this that in the former the details are not perceived. while in the latter the details are also known. In other words, darśana is indeterminate, while nana is determinate; darśana is nirākāra while jñāna is sākāra. JNĀNA-UPAYOGA
Iñāna-U pavoga is of two kinds: stabhāra-iiāna (natural knowledge) and vibhāva-jñāna (non-natural knowledge;. Natural knowledge is perfect and independent of the senses. It is direct
1 Jainism, p. 29. 2 Pramāņa-naya-tattvāloka, II, 7 3 Sanmati-tarka-prakarana, II, 21 4 Nānutaogo ditiho sahāt'anavil zrbhār'anānani tti. Vivama-sāra, 1o.

Page #71

XATURE OF SOU'L
47
as well as immediate. It is the innate attribute of soul. It is pure and perfect. The Jainas call it kevala-jñāna.
Non-natural knowledge is of two kinds: Right knowledge and wrong knowledge. Right knowledge is further divided into four kinds : 1. Sensory knowledge ( muti-juunu). 2. Scriptural knowledge / śruta-jana). 3. Limited direct knowledge (avadhi-jicīna ). 4. Direct knowledge of mind (manah-parycīya-jñün).
Wrong knowledge is of three kinds : 1. Sensory wrong knowledge ( mati-aiñāna) 2. Scriptural wrong knowledge (śruta-ajñāna). 3. Limited direct wrong knowledge (wibharga-jñāna).
Knowledge is the innate attribute of soul. It is pure and perfect. But, on account of the operation on the worldly soul of knowledge-obscuring karma in varying degrees, it is manifested to a greater or less extent. When knowledge-obscuring karma is altogether destroyed, the pure and perfect knowledge shines forth. This type of knowledge is called stabhāra-jñāna.
As long as the soul is in its worldly condition and is not altogether free from knowledge-obscuring karma, its knowledge is impure and imperfect, and so it is called vibhuva-jñāna.
Vibhāva-jñāna is of two kinds: right knowledge and wrong knowledge. The conditions of rightness and wrongness are dependent on our belief. External matter is not responsible for them. The knowledge combined with right belief is called right knowledge. The knowledge combined with wrong belief is wrong knowledge.
Again, right knowledge has been sub-divided into four kinds : (1) Sensory knowledge: Knowledge of the self and non-self
by means of the senses and mind. (2) Scriptural knowledge: Knowledge derived from the rea
ding or hearing of scriptures. (3) Limited direct knowledge: Direct knowledge of matter
in varying degrees.
1 Jatsutrulhayo inbarvajašca
Tattvārtha-sútra, I, 32.

Page #72

48
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY (4) Direct knowledge of mind: Direct knowledge of another's
mental activities. The first three kinds are wrong as well as right. The fourth one is never wrong. Knowledge, thus, is divided into eight kinds :1. Perfect or natural knowledge. 2. Right sensory knowledge. 3. Wrong sensory knowledge. 4. Right scriptural knowledge. 5. Wrong scriptural knowledge. 6. Right limited and direct knowledge. 7. Wrong limited and direct knowledge. 8. Direct knowledge of mind. DARGANA-UPAYOGA
Darsana-upayoga is also of two kinds : Natural (svabhāvadarśana) and the opposite of it, non-natural (vibhāva-darśana). That which is perfect and independent of the senses is called natural.
Non-natural one is said to be of three kinds : 1. Visual intuition (caksurdarśana ) 2. Non-visual intuition (acaksurdarśana ) 3. Limited direct intuition ( avadhi-darśana )
In visual intuition, the object is visible undefinedly.
In non-visual intuition, the object is undefinedly tangible to the other four senses and to the subtle sense, i.e., mind.
In limited direct intuition, there is direct tangibility of material objects just preceding their knowledge, without the assistance of the senses and mind.
Darśana, thus, is divided into four kinds : 1. Perfect or natural intuition (kerala-darśana ) 2. Visual intuition (caksurdarśana) 3. Non-visual intuition (acaksurdarśana ) 4. Limited direct intuition (avadhi-darśana ) TEMPORAL RELATION BETWEEN INTUITION AND
KNOWLEDGE
As regards the temporal relation between intuition and knowledge, there is no unanimity among the Jaina philosophers. The Canonical conception of the above-mentioned problem is that two conscious activities cannot occur simultaneously. Even two

Page #73

19
NATURE OF SOUL perfect conscious activities, viz., perfect intuition and perfect knowledge are not an exception. This fact is recorded in the Āvaýyaka-niryukti as 'the omniscient cannot have two conscious activities simultaneously'! Therefore, as regards the Canonical conception, it is free from doubt that intuition and knowledge whether it is sensory or extra-sensorv-cannot occur simultaneously. Regarding the occurrence of intuition and knowledge in imperfect personalities, all the thinkers are unanimous, inasmuch as all of them admit the impossibility of the simultaneous occurrence of intuition and knowledge. But with respect to the case of perfect personalities. there is a great controversy among them. The opinions of these thinkers can be classified into three varieties. Some of them hold that the intuition and knowledge (both extrasensory) of an omniscient person occur simultaneously, some stick to the Canonical conception and regard them as successive and not operating at the same time, while others assert that they are mutually identical. Let us deal with all the three. SIMULTANEITY OF INTUITION AND KNOWLEDGE
It has been observed by I'māsvāti that the conscious activities (upayoga) manifesting themselves as sensory cognition, scriptural cognition, limited direct cognition, and direct cognition of mind ( inati, śruta, utadhi, and manah parruva) occur successively, and not simultaneously. The conscious activities of the omniscient, possessing perfect knowledge and intuition which compreliend all objects and are independent and pure, occur simultaneously at every moment.? (māsvāti, thus, upholds the view of simultaneous occurrence of intuition and knowledge in the case of an omniscient being. Kundakunda also holds the same opinion. It is stated by him that the knowledge and intuition of an omniscient person operate at the same time even as the light and heat of the sun occur simultaneously:3 Pūjvapada is also of the same opinion. According to him, knowledge and intuition occur in succession in the imperfect who is under the influence of obstructive karma, while in the perfect who is completely free from the veil
luogū.
-Ivasvaka
1 saidassa kecalissa jugaran to natthi
niryukti, 973. 2 Tattvārtha-sútra-bhāsva, I, 31. 3 Siyama-sāra, 159.

Page #74

50
OUTLINES OF JAIXA PHILOSOPHY
of obscuring karma, they occur simultaneously. Akalanka also supports the same view. He says: 'If the knowledge and intuition of the omniscient were to occur in succession, his perfection would be conditional and accidental. To the omniscient who has destroyed all the relevant karmic veils, the universal and the particular reveal themselves simultaneously. The same position is possessed by Vidyānandi who holds that the awareness of the generic form is intuition, and the comprehension of the specific characters is knowledge. The knowledge-obscuring karma and the intuition-obscuring karma obstruct these faculties. Because of the presence of these two, people like us are not in a position to possess intuition and knowledge in all perfection. There is no reason why the universal and the particular should be revealed only in alternate succession and not simultaneously when the two types of karma are destroyed simultaneously due to a particular kind of purification of the self.3
SUCCESSIVE OCCURRENCE OF INTUITION AND KNOWLEDGE
Now, we proceed to the problem of the successive occurrence of intuition and knowledge in the omniscient. Jinabhadra is a great advocate of this view. He has very elaborately dealt with the problem in his Višeşāvaśyaka-bhāşya and Visesaņa-vati. He has mentioned all the three positions and advanced arguments for and against all of them. His own opinion is in favour of the successive occurrence, since he sincerely recognises the validity of the scriptural texts. He argues that if perfect intuition and perfect knowledge are identical and not separate, what is the sense in recognising two separate veils of karma, viz., intuition-obscuring karma and knowledge-obscuring karma ? Moreover, the scriptural conception of five types of knowledge and four types of intuition is condemned by those who are not prepared to accept the successive occurrence of intuition and knowledge. The view of the simultaneous occurrence of intuition and knowledge is also invalid, since two conscious activities
i Sarvärtha-siddhi, II, 9. 2 Aştaśati on Aptamimānsā, 101. 3 Aşta sahasri on Apta-mimāṁsā, 101. # Višeşāvaśyaka-bhāşya, 3093.

Page #75

XATURE OF SOUL
51
cannot occur at the same instant. Now, the opponent may argue that the simultaneous occurrence of the two in the imperfect is not possible, since he is under the influence of the veil of obstructive karma and thus, not completely free from it; but in the case of the perfect who is completely free from obstructive karma, it is not an impossibility. This argument, according to Jinabhadra, is also futile. The faculty of the self is qualitatively the same whether it is partially free or completely free. The cognition of the self is of the same type whether it is imperfect or perfect. The only difference between the two is that perfect cognition comprehends all the objects with all their modes, whereas imperfect knowledge does not claim to comprehend all of them. Thus, Jinabhadra supports the alternative occurrence of intuition and knowledge of the omniscient on the basis of scripture. INTUITION AND KNOWLEDGE AS IDENTICAL
Now, we come to Siddhasena who did not recognise the intuition and knowledge of an omniscient being as two separate faculties. According to his logical mind, both these faculties are identical as regards the case of the omniscient. He observes:
We can distinguish between knowledge and intuition up to direct cognition of mind (JanahparvĀva). In omniscience, however, knowledge and intuition are identical'. 3 He elaborates the remark in a systematic and logical way. When perfect knowledge dawns just after the complete destruction of the relevant karma, perfect intuition also must dawn immediately after the complete destruction of the veil of the relevant karma. And as it is unanimously admitted that both the destructions are simultaneous, it logically follows that both perfect intuition and perfect knowledge also occur at the same time. As it is maintained that there is no sensory cognition, i.e., the senses do not serve any purpose as regards the cognition of the omniscient who has completely destroyed the karmic veil that obscures
1 Visesăvasvaka-bhāsva, 3006. 2 ibid., 314-5. 3 Maņapajjavaņāṇanto rānassa ya darisanassa ya riseso.
kevalaņāņam puna darsanam ti ņānam tu ya samānam,
---Sanmati-tarka-prakarana, II, 3. 4 Sanmati-tarka-prakaraņa, II, 5.

Page #76

52
OUTLINES OF JAIXA PHILOSOPHY
cognition, so also it should be admitted that there is no separate faculty of intuition in one who has completely destroyed the relevant karmic veil. The contention that knowledge is determinate and distinct, whereas intuition is indeterminate and indistinct is true only in the case of an imperfect person. As regards a person who has destroyed all the relevant karmic obstructions, such distinction has no meaning. In his case, there is no distinction between determinate knowledge and indeterminate knowledge. The difference of distinct and indistinct, determinate and indeterminate, is true only in the case of the knowledge of imperfect beings, and not with regard to the knowledge of perfect ones. He further argues: If it is admitted that the omniscient intuits the unknown and knows the unintuited, the conception of all perfection would be ridiculous.3 According to the view of the successive occurrence of intuition and knowledge in the omniscient, a perfect person knows a fact that was not comprehended before, and intuits a feature of an object which was not cognised previously, since his cognition occurs in succession. In a different language, for the omniscient some aspect of an object remains unknown for ever. If such is the case, what is the charm in admitting omniscience? Furthermore, in the scriptures, omniscience has been described to have beginning but no end. Those who have any regard for the commandments of scripture must realise the significance of this fact. If it is held that at the time of perfect intuition, knowledge is not possible, and at the moment of perfect knowledge, intuition is an impossibility, it would mean to admit the break of continuity of both of them, but this is absurd, since it goes against the scriptures that prescribe non-break. If the destruction of intuition-obscuring karma and knowledge-obscuring karma takes place simultaneously, and the problem arises which of the two, perfect intuition and perfect knowledge, should spring forth first? Naturally, the priority cannot be given to any one of them. Nor is it proper to maintain the simultaneous occurrence of both,
1 Sanmati-tarka-prakaraņa, II, 6. ? ibid., II, 11. 3 ibid., II, 13. • Prajnapana-sutra, XVIII, 10. 3 Sanmati-tarka-prakarana, II, 7-8

Page #77

XATURE OF SOUL
53
for two conscious activities never synchronise. If the removal of the obstruction of both intuition and knowledge takes place at one and the same moment, does the question at all arise as to which of the two arises first? NATURE OF WORLDLY SOUL
Vādideva describes the nature of the (worldly) soul in the following manner :
The soul which is proved by direct experience (pratvaksa) etc., is the knower (pramātā). It is essentially conscious, changing, agent, direct enjoyer, equal in extent to its own body. different in each body, and the possessor of material karmas.?
All these characteristics serve specific purposes. He intends to refute all those schools that do not agree with his conception of soul.
The first characteristic of the soul that it is proved by direct experience is meant to refute the view of the Cārvāka that does not regard soul as a separate substance. The arguments for the separate existence of soul have already been given. CONSCIOUSNESS AS THE ESSENCE OF SOUL
The second characteristic that it is essentially conscious, is meant for refuting the view of the Vyāya-Vaiseșika school which regards consciousness as an accidental quality of soul. Caitinva (consciousness) which one would expect to be regarded as the very essence of ātman (soul) is treated by the Vaisesikas and Naiyāvikas as an adventitious (aupādhika) quality3 which comes temporarily into the soul as a result of the working of the machinery of cognition. Caitanya or jñāna is, thus, something different from ātman (soul). This view is refuted in the following way:
If jñāna is supposed to be absolutely distinct from ātman, the jñāna of Mr. Caitra is in the same position with respect to his ātman as the jñāna of Mr. Maitra, that is to say, both the jñīnas
i Sanmati-tarka-prakarana, II, 9. 2 Pramātā pratraksādiprasiddha ātā.
Caitanyasvarūpah parāmi kartta säkşául, hoktă stade haparimānah pratıkşetrar bhinnah paudgalıkādrstacariscāvam. - Pramāna
naya-tattvāloka, VII, 55-6. * Caitanyawarpādhikamātmanonyat'
-Anva voya-vvavaccheda-dvātrimsıkā, S

Page #78

54
OUTLINES OF JAIXA PHILOSOPHY
would be equally strangers to the ātman of Mr. Caitra, and there is no reason why his jñāna should serve him better than the jñāna of any other person in determining the nature of things. In fact, there is no such thing as his own jñāna, all jñānas being equally foreign to him. An explanation may be offered by the other side: Jñāna is absolutely distinct from ātman, but it is connected with ātman by samavāya-sambandha (inherent relationship) and hence, the jñāna of Mr. Caitra is not in the same position with respect to hiin as the jñāna of Mr. Maitra; for the former is connected with him by samavāya relation, while the latter is not so. But this explanation can be easily refuted. According to the Vaiseșika, samavāya is one, eternal, and all-pervasive, and therefore, it is impossible that the jñāna should reside in Caitra and not in Maitra, and since the souls are also all-pervasive according to this school, the jñāna which takes place in one ātman takes place in all the ātmans as well and any knowledge which Caitra has acquired will belong to Maitra also.
Granted that it is possible for jñāna to be connected with ātman by samavāva relation. But a question still remains to be answered: By what relation is the samavāva connected with jñāna and ātman ? If the answer is that it is connected by another samavāya, that would mean an unending series of samavāvas and it will lead to an intinite regress. If the answer is in the form of
itself,' why should not jñāna and ātman be connected of themselves without requiring a samavāva relation to accomplish the connection ?
The Vaisesikas and Naiyāyikas advance another argument that the distinction between ātman and jñāna is essential owing to their being related as karty (agent) and karana (instrument), ātman being the karty and jñāna the karaña. The Jaina thinkers hold that the position of jñāna is different from that of an ordinary karana such as a scythe ( dātra). Jňāna is an internal
ana, while the scythe is an external karana.? Now, if an internal karana as jñāna could be shown to be absolutely distinct like scythe from karty (ātman), the argument of absolute distinction between ñāna and ātman would stand valid, but not
i Samavāvas vaikatrānnityatrādu vāpakatrăcca, 2 Syādväda-mañjari, p. 42.

Page #79

XATURE OF SOU'L
otherwise. We say: "Devadatta sees with the eyes and lamp.”1 Here 'eye' and 'lamp' are both karanas, but on that account the two are not in the same position of absolute distinction with respect to Devadatta. Hence, jiāna is not absolutely distinct from ātman as an ordinary karana. It is identical with the soul, having different types of modifications ( paryāvas ).
Now, the opponent asks that if jñāna and ätman are one, how is their relation of karty and karana to be accounted for? The answer is given by the analogy of a serpent who makes a coil of his body by his own body. It may be said that the conception of karty and karaṇa in the case of the serpent is simply imaginary. How can it be said to be imaginary, when we actually see the effect, viz., the coil, which is a new state of rest different from the former state of motion ? o amount of imagination could make us believe that a pillar was going to wind itself into a coil.
Next, consider the word caitanya. It is the abstract noun from cetana which means cītman. Thus, caitanya means the bhūta, svarūpa, or nature of ātman. Now, how can the bhāva (nature) of a thing be absolutely distinct from the thing?
The opponent again argues that ātman is no doubt cetanī but that is not without a cause, but is owing to cetană coming to reside by samavāva relation in ātman as is shown by actual experience pratiti). The counter argument is in the following manner: If you are prepared to accept the evidence of pratiti, you must admit that ātman is by nature upayogātmaka, i.e., of the nature of conscionsness. Nobody is aware of being first acetana, and afterwards becoming cetana in consequence of the connection with cetanā, or of cetanā coming to reside by samavaya relation in him who was at first acetana. On the contrary, he is always aware of himself as the knower (jñātā.).
It may be further held that the consciousness 'rnatīnaham' (I have knowledge) would prove a distinction between jñāna (knowledge and aham (self), for the former is that which is possessed and the latter is that which possesses. This contention is also untenable. Who possesses the consciousness jñānatānaham' in the theory of the opponent? Not the soul, because it is
1 Dipena cakşusā Deradattah paśyati. 2 Sarpa ātmāna nātunanā iestuvati. - Syādvāda-manjari, p. 43.

Page #80

56
O'TLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
supposed to be jada, i.e., essentially devoid of jñāna in itself like a pitcher (ghata). By this theory, it cannot be asserted that Ātman is jada, and yet is able to become conscious. Hence, that substance which has the consciousness as 'jñānavānaham' cannot in itself be jada by nature. Therefore, ātman is not in itself jada by nature which afterwards comes to possess jñāna by samavāya relation, but it is essentially conscious. SOUL AS A CHANGING ENTITY
The soul is said to be changing. This characteristic is meant for refuting the theory of the Sänkhya and other systems that regard soul as an absolutely permanent entity. They do not admit it as changing. According to the Sānkhya system, purusa (soul) is devoid of form, conscious, enjoyer, permanent, omnipresent, static, inactive, devoid of three guņas ( sattva, rajas, and tamas,) and subtle. Now, if purusa is permanent, i.e., apariņāmi, he is above modifications of any sort; he is not liable to undergo bondage ; for the same reason, he is devoid of action ( kriyā) and cannot transmigrate from one life to another. Hence, there is no occasion for moksa (liberation) in his case. Therefore, purusu is neither bound nor liberated. He does not transmigrate. It is the prakyti (primordial matter) that is bound, liberated, and reborn.'l The Jaina asks: If prakyti is bound and liberated, what is that which binds it? If prakrti itself is bound and liberated, there will be no difference between bondage and liberation, because prakrti is always present. Hence, no question of bondage and liberation will arise in this case. If the response of puruşa is necessary to influence prakyti, the response is not possible without parināma, i.e., modification or change of puruşa. The mere presence of prakrti could bring about no change in purușa unless purusa was capable of action. According to the Sārkhya system, it is prakyti which is said to be subject to pleasure and pain (sukha and duhkha). Purusa is reflected in buddhi (intellect) which is a factor in the evolution of prakrti. It is the effect of this reflection which is responsible for regarding puruşa to be subject to pleasure and pain. This theory of the Sānkhya school also proves pariņāma in puruşa. Without puruşa separating from his original character, he could not be said to be subjećt to pleasure
1 Sankhya-kārıkā, 62.

Page #81

NATURE OF SOUL
57
and pain. And the moment it is admitted that the original character is lost and a new one acquired, the operation of losing one and acquiring the other is a kriya which makes puruşa a karty (agent) which is contrary to the Sankhya tenets. When it is proved that purușa is active, i.e., he loses one character and acquires another one, it goes without saying that puruşa is pariņāmin, i.e., active and changing, and not inactive and absolutely permanent.
Moreover, if pleasure and pain of which we are all undeniably conscious as belonging to ourselves, i.e., to our atman, do not belong to alman, they will have to hang in the air, since buddhi is incompetent to possess them, it being held to be jaḍa (unconscious). Hence, atman is active and changing having consciousness as its essence.
SOUL AS AGENT
The Sankhya school does not regard atman or purusa as agent, active entity. Purușa, according to this school, is merely a silent and passive spectator. This view has been already refuted. Pleasure and pain cannot belong to an unconscious entity. Puruşa is subject to pleasure and pain because consciousness belongs to purusa only. When it is proved that pleasure and pain belong to purușa, it is obvious that purusa is active, because an inactive entity cannot be subject to pleasure and pain. Moreover, consciousness itself is active because the term consciousness implies knowledge or intelligence which is active in character.
SOUL AS ENJOYER
The
The fifth characteristic of soul is its direct enjoyment. Sankhyas maintain that purusa is enjoyer in an indirect manner, i.e., through buddhi. The Jainas say that material buddhi cannot enjoy anything. Purusa is the karty and bhokty (agent and enjoyer) directly and not through buddhi. Enjoyment is the function of a conscious substance. Puruşa is conscious, hence, enjoyment belongs to puruşa and not to buddhi which is unconscious. Moreover, puruşa cannot be reflected in buddhi because purușa is immaterial, while buddhi is material, and it is evident that an immaterial substance can never be reflected in a material substance. Hence, the soul is the direct enjoyer of all actions performed by it.
8

Page #82

58
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
SOUL AS EQUAL IN EXTENT TO ITS BODY
The soul is said to be equal in extent to its own body. This characteristic has been given to refute the view of the Naiyayikas, the Vaiseṣikas, the Sankhyas, the Mimāṁsakas, and the like who hold that a soul is omnipresent like ether. They believe in the existence of many souls but do not admit that they are equal in extent to their own bodies. They say that all the souls are all-pervasive, i.e., present everywhere. To admit a soul to be equal in extent to its own body is a unique conception of the Jaina. The doctrine which advocates the vibhutva of atman (a soul is everywhere) is a doctrine which on the face of it, says the Jaina, is contrary to our experience. A thing must be where its quality is found, e.g., a pitcher exists where its form exists and not elsewhere.1 It may be argued: Do we not smell from a distance? The answer is: 'No.' The particles which possess the smell fly to our nose and then we smell. But it may be asked: Does magic not work at a distance? The reply comes: 'No.' The presiding deity of the magical formula or practice who resides elsewhere is working there. This view of soul as equal in extent to its own body may be justified by means of the following syllogism: A soul is not all-pervasive, because its qualities are not found everywhere; that thing whose qualities are not found everywhere is not all pervasive like a pitcher; the soul also is such; therefore, it is not all-pervasive. The heterogeneous example is ether which is all-pervasive because its qualities are found everywhere. The point is this that the measure of a soul is only as much as that of the body it occupies. That is to say, there is no soul outside the body it occupies, for its attributes are found only in that body. To give an illustration, the attributes of a pitcher exist only in a pitcher and not outside it. As an alternative argument it may be said: That is non-existent there where it cannot be realised by any one of the means of knowledge. For example, a piece of cloth does not permeate a pitcher which is separate from it. The soul is not realised outside the body. Consequently, it should be taken to be non-existent there.2
Yatrawa yo dṛṣṭagunah sa tatra kumbhadivannisprati... Anyayogavyavaccheda-dvātrimśikā, 9.
2 Viseṣāvaśyaka-bhāṣya, 1586.
1

Page #83

59
To refute this conclusion of the Jaina, the Naiyayika urges in the course of his answer that the adṛṣṭa (karma) of our atman is supposed to act even at a distance and it cannot be there hanging in the air without an underlying substratum; consequently, our atman must be supposed to be existing even there. Since adṛṣṭa works everywhere, the underlying substance, viz., atman must also exist everywhere.
NATURE OF SOUL
The Jaina gives a counter argument. He denies that adṛṣṭa is acting there and everywhere. Things, according to him, have their own nature-a fact which is ultimate and does not admit of question or explanation-and that nature is not caused by adṛṣṭa. Fire burns because it has got the nature of burning. We cannot say that fire burns, because adṛṣṭa is there. It burns of itself.
Secondly, to say that the natures of the things are determined by adṛṣṭa is to leave no room for Gcd.
Thirdly, since they hold that atmans are many, if each of them is vibhu (all-pervasive) also, as they believe, what a wonderful clash and interpenetration of atmans would ensue? Moreover, each of them would enter the atman of God Himself, and each would thereby become a creator; for they believe that God is the creator of this universe.
It may be further urged: Unless an atman was vibhu, how could it draw to itself the particles of the body in which it has to dwell in the next life? The Jainas reply that it is not necessary for the atman to be vibhu for drawing the particles of the body, because if it is so, our body will be equal in extent to the whole universe, for our atman is all-pervasive. If we accept this argument that to draw the particles of the body, the soul must be all-pervasive, our body would be of a horribly vast size, because our soul will draw to itself all the particles of the universe.
The Naiyayika gives a further argument: If we believe that the soul is body-sized, as a consequence, it will be savayavu, i.e., having parts and therefore a karya (product), just like the body itself. The Jaina, however, is prepared to accept the logical consequence. More accurately he says that atman has pradesas, though not avayavas in an ordinary sense. He believes that ātman is savayava, is pariņāmin, and does change from time to time, for it is a substance having the qualities of origination, decay, and permanence. He does not believe in the absolute changelessness

Page #84

60
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
of atman, or for the matter of that, in absolute changelessness of anything whatsoever. He further points out that for some time after a body is cut, its parts continue to throb and retain the atman in them. After that, they rejoin the atman of the body from which they are cut. The particles which are cut retain their connection with the soul as the threads of a lotus-stick remain united even when the stick is cut into two.
It should be noted that Jainism is the only school of Indian philosophy that holds that atman is body-sized. The only other school which holds an analogous, though not the same doctrine, is the school of Rāmānuja, according to which, the jñāna of atman, though not the atman itself, undergoes contraction and expansion.
VARIETIES OF SOULS
Jainism believes that each body possesses a different soul, and hence, there are many souls. It is also held that one body can be occupied by more than one soul but one soul cannot occupy more than one body.
Here a Vedantin may say that many varieties of the soul are unwarranted, for the soul is everywhere the same. Like the sky, it is all-pervasive. On account of illusion, we think that there are different souls in different bodies. Really speaking, it is one.
This view is refuted as follows: As regards the sky, it is all right to hold that it is only one, for the sky, even while permeating all the corporeal bodies, is seen to be uniform-free from any distinctions. Such is not, however, the case with the soul in question. It is not observed to be uniform, for it differs from body to body (pinda to pinda). Moreover, the difference in characteristics presupposes the difference in those having the characteristics. Hence, the soul is not one in number.1
Here is the illustration: The living beings in this world differ from one another, for there is a difference in their characteristics. As a parallel example, we may mention water pots, etc. Whatever is not different from another object does not differ in characteristics from it. As for example, the sky is everywhere Moreover, if there were only one soul, then there would be nothing like happiness, misery, bondage, and emancipation.
the same.
Viseṣāvasyaka-bhāṣya, 1581.
}

Page #85

NATURE OF SOU'L
бI
But they do exist. Therefore, all the souls are different and their number is not one but many.1
How do the characteristics differ in each body? The soul has upayoga as its characteristic. This wpa yoga has indefinite varieties, for it differs from body to body, some having the uikarsa, i.e., the maximum upayoga, some having the apakarsa, i.e., the minimum upayoga, and some having upavoga between these two extremes. Therefore, souls are of indefinite kinds owing to the unlimited varieties of upayoga.
Furthermore, if the number of soul is only one and not more, the soul cannot be an agent, an enjoyer, a thinker, and a mundane being. That which is one in number, is not a doer, etc. This fact is corroborated by the example of the sky.
Thus, owing to oneness there is no possibility for happiness, misery, bondage, liberation, enjoyment, thinking, etc. So it follows that there are many souls and not only one and these souls are equal in extent to their own bodies which they happen to occupy at a particular time. SOUL AS THE POSSESSOR OF MATERIAL KARMA
The soul has been said to be the possessor of material karmas. This characteristic is meant to refute a two-fold belief. First it attacks those philosophers who do not regard karma or adrstu as a valid existence. The Cārvākas of Indian thought fall into this category. Secondly, the adjective material' is directed against those thinkers who do not regard karma or adysta as material. They are the Naiyāyikas, the Vaišeșikas, etc.
Lord Mahāvīra says: “O long-lived Agnibhūti!. You entertain a doubt about the existence of kasma, which is a multitude of paramānus (atoms), for you think that its existence cannot be established by any one of the pramānas (means of knowledge). You argue that karma is not directly perceived, because it is super-sensuous as is the case with the horn on the head of a hare. Other arguments that you advance are the same as mentioned by your brother Indrabhūti in the case of soul.
But these lines of argument are faulty. This karma is certainly pratyaksa to me. Moreover, its existence is such as can
1 Višeşāvasvaka-bhāsya, 15$2. 2 ibid., 1583.

Page #86

62
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
be realised by you by means of inference. Hence, it is not justifiable to believe that no pramāna can establish its existence. The karma is either good or bad. The good karma makes us experience happiness, whereas the bad karma misery.”'l
There is a kāyaṇa (cause) for experiencing happiness and misery, since it is a kārya (effect) as is the case with a sprout. It is no use arguing that since the karma is not pratyaksa to everybody, it should not exist. There is no such rule that what is pratyaksa to one, should be necessarily so to another. A lion is not pratyaksa to all beings. But on that account, it is not true to say that a lion does not exist. Therefore, the karma does exist, since it is directly perceived by an omniscient being.
Moreover, the karma is pratyaksa to the doubter, too, since he realises its kārya, as is the case with material atoms, which though not directly realisable, are pratyakşa, since their kārvas (effects) like a pitcher, etc., are directly perceived.
This point of cause and effect is further explained. Just as a sprout which is a karya, has a seed for it, so happiness and misery, which are well known to every individual, have a cause, because they are kāryas. And this cause is nothing but karma and so it exists. A question may be raised: A garland, sandal paste, a woman, and the like are the causes of happiness, whereas a serpent, poison, a thorn, etc., are those of misery. All these causes of happiness and misery are seen—are the objects of the sense of sight. So, why should we believe karma to be their cause—the karma which is not seen ? To admit a thing not seen in the place of one that is seen is not justifiable.
This question is out of place owing to tyabhicāra (irrelevancy). It is a matter of common experience that persons having the same means for enjoying happiness, do not get the same type of happiness. It is the same case with those who have the same or similar means to suffer misery. This difference in each case, cannot be without a cause which is not seen. This very unseen cause is karma.
Furthermore, just as the body in youth is preceded by a body in childhood, so is the body in childhood preceded by another body. The body which is prior to that in childhood is karma.2
1 l’ytti on Viseşāvaśyaka-bhāsya, I6II. : Visesāvasyaka-bhāsya, 1614.

Page #87

NATURE OF SOUL
63
The opponent asks: If on the ground that we can see the body, etc., which are the effects, the karma is proved to be their cause, then, on the ground that the effect has a physical form, the karma also will have to be admitted as something having a physical form. The Jaina thinkers reply: Karma has indeed a physical form.
The following four illustrations are conclusive for the fact that karma has a physical form: I. Karma has a physical form because of the experience of pleasure, pain, etc. That has a physical form in association with which pleasure, etc., are experienced, just as the food one eats. There is no experience of pleasure, etc., in association with that which is without a physical shape, just as in connection with the ether. 2. That in association with which a burning sensation arises is found to be something having a physical form, just as in association with fire, there is the rise of a burning sensation. So, pain occurs when one is in association with karma. Therefore it has a form. 3. There is an addition of our strength by means of external objects. Only a physical strength can have an addition by means of the physical substance, just as a pot gets strength by means of oil, etc. Such is the case with our strength which is karmic (product of karma) and on account of its being karmic, it can have an addition by means of external objects. 4. Karma has a physical form because it undergoes change in a way different from soul. The pariņāmitva (change) of karma is inferred from the pariņāmitta of its kāryas (effects) like body, etc. If the effect is mutable, the mutability of its cause is automatically recognised, just as the mutability of milk is recognised from the pariņāma of its kārya (curd) in the form of butter-milk (takra).
Now, if we agree that karma is mirta, how could the murta karma be connected with the amūrta jīva (formless soul); either by means of the samavāya (inherent relationship) or by the san yoga (combination )? Is a mirta ghata (pot) is connected with the amurta īkāśa (ether) by means of the saw yoga and an object like finger is connected with kriya (action) like contraction

Page #88

64
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY by means of the samavāya, so here also karma is connected with jiva.
How could the amūrta soul be favourably or adversely affected by the mūrta karma ? The answer is: It can be affected in the way as vijñāna, etc., are affected by a drink of wine, medicine, etc.
Or, tlie mudane soul is not absolutely amūrta, because it has assumed an alteration in the continuous chain of karma, which has no beginning. Now, since karma is mūrta and ātman is similar to karma to a certain extent, cītman is also mūrta to a certain extent even though it is amurta by its svabhāva. Consequently, the soul can be affected by the mūrta karma.

Page #89

CHAPTER III CONCEPTION OF MATTER
'D OES matter exist ?' It is a very complicated problem in the
sphere of philosophy. The idealists maintain that the universe is a spiritual reality. Matter does not enjoy any separate existence independent of spirit or thought. The realists do not agree with this view. They explicitly say that the material reality is absolutely independent of the spiritual reality. It does not depend upon thought for its existence. It is as real as thought itself. REALITY OF MATTER
Jainism, being a school of realism, certainly believes in an independent and separate existence of matter. When the idealist perceives various effects of material elements, he entertains a doubt whether material elements (bhūtas ) exist or not. The Jaina thinkers maintain that the doubt about a non-existent object is totally unjustifiable as in the case of sky-flower and hare-horn where non-existence is certain. The point is that our doubt is justifiable in the case of existent objects only. We entertain no doubt in regard to an absolutely non-existent object. The doubt is only possible in the case of existent objects like tree and man ( sthānu and puruṣa). If we raise any doubt as regards a non-existent object, we will have to raise a doubt in the case of sky-flower and hare-horn also.
To establish the existence of self, we say that I think therefore I am' or 'I doubt therefore I exist. Similarly, what is the harm if we say that I doubt about the existence of external objects therefore they do exist' or 'all things which are distinctly perceived are true.' As Descartes, the father of modern (Western) philosophy says: I think therefore I am'-'cogito ergo sum. In the same way, I perceive all things clearly and distinctly therefore they are true.'
To support the belief that doubt springs up even in absolute non-existence, the opponent may advance an argument like this: Just as in a dream, a poor fellow raises a doubt and questions

Page #90

66
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
whether there is an elephant or a mountain before his house, though in fact, nothing like them exists there; so also, at other places, doubt can be raised in spite of the absolute non-existence of objects.
This argument of the opponent is totally baseless. In dreams, doubt arises on account of various reasons. As for example, when an object is seen or experienced formerly, the remembrance of that experience gives rise to doubt. Similarly, it is some past experience which brings a dream into existence and on the basis of that previous experience, we reject the dream. Thus, doubt arises from an existent object and not from absolute negation. If such were not the case, the doubt should also have to arise from objects like the sixth element (sastha bhūta), etc., which has never been existent so far.
The causes that bring dreams into existence are as follows? :1. Previous experience-Certain acts like bathing, taking food, etc., that have once been experienced are perceived again in dreams due to some reason. 2. Observation-When objects like elephants, horses, etc., are perceived in a dream, the dream is said to have been caused by the observed objects. 3. Attentive consideration-A dream representing acquisition of a beloved, etc., is called the dream of the object which is attentively considered. 4. Hearing--When places like heaven and hell which are only heard of, and not seen, are perceived in a dream. 5. Disturbance of health–Ill health caused by physical disorders is also one of the causes of dreams. 6. Deity-When one beholds a deity adverse or favourable in a dream, the dream can be called deity-caused. 7. Watery place—This is also one of the causes when one dreams in the midst of a watery region. 8. Meritorious act--A dream is said to be good according to the auspicious actions that may be its cause. 9. Sinful act-- A dream is called bad according to the inauspicious actions that may be its cause.
1 Viseșå vaśyaka-bhāsya, 1703.

Page #91

CONCEPTION OF MATTER
67
According to the neurological theory, a dream is a partial awakening. It is the activity of disconnected cells or neurograms that have remained in a state of relative irritability or readiness to respond. Delage, a French writer on dreams, has summed up his psychological theory of dreams in the statement that the dream is a perseveration of the unadjusted. This means that the dream is the working out of a problem which was unsolved during the working period. According to the psycho-neurological theory of Morton, a dream is an apperceptive trial and error process. This means that a dream is a series of attempts to perceive and interpret a stimulus. These attempts are unsuccessful or only partly successful. The theory advanced by Sigm Freud may be summed up briefly in the statement that a dream is a symbolical fulfilment of repressed infantile sex-wishes. Freud distinguished between the manifest and latent content of dream, and pointed out that the manifest content is symbolical to the latent sexual wishes. These sexual wishes are really of a childish or undeveloped nature. Thus, according to the Freudian theory, a dream is an expression of unsatisfied needs. The theory that a dream represents a mental conflict has been suggested by Rivers and others. According to Adler, present problems are responsible for dreams. Jung is of the opinion that We experience our past events in dream. According to him, dreams are a sort of memory.
All these psychological theories as well as the views expressed by the Jaina thinkers establish firmly that dream is not nonexistent. Its contents are past experiences and the like. Thus, when dream itself is existent, how can the opponent hold the physical world to be non-existent like dream? Hence, the existence of material objects cannot be unreal. Therefore, matter does exist. MEANING OF PUDGALA'
The Jaina writers have used the term 'pudgala'exactly in the sense of matter. ' Pudgala' is one of the six substances recognised by Jainism. The term pudgala' has been used in the sense of soul by the Buddhist writers. How does the Jaina explain the word 'pudgala'? The word pudgala' has two parts: 'pud' and 'gala. The first part 'pud' means 'to combine' and the second part 'gala' means 'to dissociate. Hence, the etymological

Page #92

68
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
meaning of the word 'pudgala' is: that substance which undergoes modifications by combinations and dissociations. This definition of pudgala’ is very significant. It is 'pudgala' alone that undergoes modification by combination and dissociation. This process of combination and dissociation does not occur in substances other than 'pudgala.' One form of matter is changed into another by combinations and dissociations of material constituents. The selection of the word 'pudgala' is full of deep meaning. It is worthy of note that the use of this word in the sense of matter is quite peculiar to Jainism.
DEFINITION OF MATTER
Matter has four chief characteristics associated with it, viz., touch, taste, smell, and colour. Each and every element of matter possesses these four characteristics.
Touch-Eight kinds of touch have been described in the Jaina works. They are named as soft ( mydıı), hard (kathina), heavy (guru), light (laghu), cold (sita), hot (uşna), smooth (snigdha), and rough (rūkṣa ).2 Modern psychology recognises only four principal kinds of touch, viz., cold, hot, painful, and general.
Taste- It is of five kinds: bitter (tikta), sour (katuka), acidic (āmla), sweet ( madhur), and astringent ( kaṣāya).
Smell-Smell is of two kinds: good smell and bad smell (surbhigandha and asurbhigandha).
Colour-Five kinds of colour are described: blue (nila), yellow (pita), white ( śūkla), black ( krsna), and red (lohita).3
Thus, the four characteristics are divided into twenty categories. (8 kinds of touch plus 5 kinds of taste plus 2 kinds of smell plus 5 kinds of colour=20 kinds). That is why it is mentioned in the lyākhyā-prajñapti-śataka that 'pudgala' is characterised by five kinds of colour, five kinds of taste, two kinds of smell, and eight kinds of touch.
1 Tattvārtha-sūtra, 1, 23. 2 Tattvārtha-rājavārtika, 1. 23, 7. 3 ibid., 1, 23, 8-10. 4 V'yākhyā-prajñaptı-sataka, XII, 5, 450,

Page #93

CONCEPTION OF MATTER
69
It is further maintained that the foregoing twenty are the principal divisions. In fact each of these can be further subdivided into numerable, innumerable, and indefinite ways.1
PARTS OF MATTER
Matter consists of numerable, innumerable, and indefinite parts according to its different combinations. The scientific division of matter is like this:--
I. Concrete matter. 2. Invisible matter. The concrete form is called Matter and the invisible form is known as Energy. Matter is further divided into solids, liquids, and gases. All the three forms of matter consist of molecules and atoms (skandhas and skandha deśas.) Atoms are again an assemblage of indivisible elementary particles as protons, electrons, and their combinations.
The Jaina thinkers also regard matter to be of two kinds : concrete or perceptible skandhas (molecules ) and imperceptible or subtle anūs (atoms.) When we say that atoms (aņus) are imperceptible, we only mean that they are imperceptible explicitly. The contact or relation between our sense-organs and atoms is present but on account of the lack of capability of the senseorgans or nerves to send the message to the brain in an explicit form, we are unable to perceive them distinctly. In other words, there is a sensation of atoms but we are not aware of it, i.e., we have no perception of atoms.
Matter is said to consist of numerable (sarkheva ), innumerable (asankheva), and indefinite (ananta) parts (pradeśas.) This statement seems to be contradictory, since the number of the universal spatial units (lokākāśa-pradeśas ) is only innumerable, whereas the material units may be indefinite. How can an idefinite number of material particles be accommodated in innumerable particles of the universal space ? This question would have been quite valid if all the indefinite particles of matter were in a free state. But they are not so. Even an ordinary person has the experience that a tiny piece of fuel on combustion gives
1 Sarvārtha-siddhi, 1, 23. 2 Tattvārtha-sútra, 1, 10.

Page #94

70
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
rise to an enormous volume of smoke-particles. A scientist knows that a quantity of water when converted into steam occupies a volume about 1700 times greater than the original volume. Therefore, there is no possibility of contradiction between the conception of the universal spatial particles that are innumerable ( asankheya) and that of indefinite (ananta) particles of matter.
Now, how can we justify the conception of numerability, innumerability, and indefiniteness of material particles ? It is said that in one pradeśa, i.e., in one unitary cell of space only one atom of matter will find place if it is in a free state, but in an aggregate form any number of atoms can occupy one or more units of space. The same idea can be expressed in a different language: One atom occupies one unit of space, but two atoms in a state of combination may also be accommodated in the same unit. Two free atoms will occupy two units, but two atoms forming a diatomic molecule can cover one as well as two units. Three atoms can be located in a single unit if they are all in a state of condensation; they can occupy two spatial units if two atoms are in a state of condensation and one is free; they occupy three spatial particles if they are all free. And this process is to be continued to infinity.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONCEPTION OF THE VAISEȘIKA AND THAT OF THE JAINA
The Vaiseșikas regard nine substances as the constituent elements of the universe other than qualities, actions, etc. They are: earth, water, fire, air, ether, time, space, soul, and mind.
Of these nine substances, earth, water, fire, and air are included in the Jaina category of pudgala ( matter ), since pudgala is defined as a substance possessing touch, taste, smell, and colour as its qualities. The Vaisesikas regard air as without colour, taste, and smell. It has the characteristic of touch only. This conception of the Vaisesikas is not tenable, because even an elementary student of physics knows that air can be converted into a 'bluish liquid' by continuous cooling, just as steam can be
1 Tattvärtha-sūtra, V, 14. 2 Sarvārtha-siddhi, V, 14.

Page #95

CONCEPTION OF MATTER
71
converted into water. This is a concrete proof that air has colour. And since it has colour it must possess both taste and smell.
They regard fire as devoid of taste and smell and possessing touch and colour only. This belief is also blind, for the scientists have clearly demonstrated that fire is a material substance. When the energy of molecular agitation in a substance becomes very acute, its temperature rises and we get the sensation of fire. It is a form of energy and we know that energy and matter are identical. Hence, all the characteristics of matter are associated with fire, because fire is composed of material particles raised to a high temperature.
The exponents of the Vaiseșika system regard smell to be existent only in earth. We agree that our nose in general cannot perceive water, fire, or air but on this ground, we are not entitled to hold that odour is not associated with all these forms of matter. The human nose is not sensitive enough to detect the smell of these forms. Several cases are known where our olfactory organ fails, for instance, an ant at once smells sugar or a cat smells milk, whereas we cannot perceive these smells so quickly and from such a distance.
In the light of this discussion, we can say that with regard to the conception of matter, the position of the Jainas is sound and scientific. The Jaina thinkers did not regard earth, water, fire, and air as separate and independent entities but included all these forms in matter. They held that earth, water, etc., are the various combinations and forms of matter. These various combinations should not be regarded as separate substances. FORMS OF MATTER
Having dealt with the general characteristics of matter, we, now, proceed to its specific forms. Matter has two chief forms: Indivisible elementary particles and their combinations. In the technical terms of Jainism, the indivisible elementary particles are called anus and the combinations of these particles are known as skandhas. We translate anui as atom and skandha as molecule for our present purpose. We will not mind some minute differences between the word atom of modern chemistry and our technical term anu. Skandha (molecule ) is defined as an

Page #96

OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
aggregate of atoms. It possesses a gross form and undergoes processes of association and dissociation.
72
ANU
The last particle of matter, which cannot be further divided by any means whatsoever, is an anu or a paramāņu.1 In the Tattvärtha-rajavārtika, anu is defined as the smallest material particle. There is nothing smaller than paramānu.2 In the Pañcastikāya-sara, the following properties are associated with atoms:3 The substance that has a single taste, a single colour, a single smell, and two kinds of touch; which is the cause of sound while itself unsounding; which is different from molecules though constituting them, is called atom.
Jaina philosophy maintains that the perception of the atoms of matter is not possible to ordinary persons. It can be the subject of direct experience to a person endowed with the faculty of intuitional perception. Since atoms are quite real entities, five physical attributes (I taste plus I colour plus I smell plus 2 touches) are always associated with them. The properties of hardness and softness, heaviness and lightness are not associated with atoms. As Kundakunda remarks: Of the eight kinds of touch, hardness and softness, heaviness and lightness are the qualities of molecules, not of the individual atoms.' In fact, the properties of hardness and softness, heaviness and lightness can be associated only with molecules. These properties are generated by the loose or compact aggregation of atoms, and because all atoms have the same mass, there arises no question of light and heavy or hard and smooth amongst the elementary particles of matter. This difference of light and heavy or hard and smooth in mass is found only amongst molecules.
We have already mentioned that all atoms are not found in a free state. Some of them are in the various forms of molecule and some are found as separate entities, i.e., in a free state. Now, how do the atoms living in the forms of molecule become liable to
1 Sarvärtha-siddhi, V. 25.
2 Tattvärtha-rajavārtika, V, 11, 2.
3 Pañcāstikaya-sāra, 88.

Page #97

CONCEPTION OF MATTER
73
pass to a free state? ‘The atoms are produced only by division of matter; not by the process of union or combination.'1 SK4NDHA
Skandha (molecule ) has been already defined as an aggregate of atoms. It possesses a gross form and undergoes processes of association and dissociation as we have seen. The same idea is expressed more lucidly in the following manner:
Molecules are formed in three different ways: 1. By division or dissociation (bheda) 2. By union or association ( sanghāta ) 3. By the united process of dissociation and association taking place simultaneously. I. Dissociation occurs on account of two causes, viz., internal and
external.3 The former cause is in the molecules themselves as the phenomenon of radio-activity and the like. The examples of the latter cause are the dissociation of molecules in solution, the breaking under high temperatures, the breaking under high pressures, the breaking under artificial
bombardment, and the like. 2. Association has been defined thus : The union of separate
entities is association ( sarghāta.)4 The assemblage of atoms
to form molecules is an instance of association ( sanghāta.) 3. The united process of dissociation and association is defined as
follows: By simultaneous dissociation and association, molecules occupying two spatial particles, etc., are produced. Just when one molecule breaks, the remaining part is
associated by another molecule. The advanced researches in physical chemistry have also revealed three processes of molecule-formation. The following lines will clarify the point:
The question to be answered is, in what ways are atoms united in the molecule? The electronic theory of valency is able to supply a very satisfactory answer. According to this theory,
1 Tattvārtha-sūtra, V, 27. 2. ibid., 1', 26. 3 Sarvărtha-siddhi, 1, 26
ibid. 5 ibid.
IO

Page #98

74
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY there are three methods of linking atoms. The linkage may be electrovalent, co-valent, or co-ordinate.
Molecules with an electrovalent linkage are ionised even in the solid state, X-ray analysis of the crystal indicating that the elementary particles making up the crystal lattice are ions and not atoms or molecules. Nearly all inorganic salts are electrovalent compounds.
The second arrangement, i.e., co-valent linkage is found in organic compounds. The atoms attain stability by a process of sharing electrons. For instance, in the case of the methane gas CH, the carbon atom attains a stable arrangement by sharing four electrons with the four electrons of the four hydrogen atoms.
The third type of linkage, the co-ordinate linkage, involves the sharing of two electrons but both are supplied by the same atom. The process of the formation of a co-ordinate linkage resembles both transference and sharing. Therefore, the three modern processes are transference, sharing, and combined transference and sharing.1 PERCEPTIBILITY OF MOLECULES
The Jaina thinkers maintain that not only atoms are imperceptible but that certain types of molecules are also imperceptible. As Pūjyapāda says: Out of molecules composed even of an infinite number of elementary particles (anus) some are visible and some invisible.'2 The question, therefore, is: How the invisible molecules become visible, i.e., what is the process by which the imperceptible molecules are perceived ? The answer is as under:
If a molecule breaks and the broken part then attaches itself. to another molecule, the resulting combination may be coarse enough to be perceived. The point is that the imperceptible molecule becomes perceptible by the combined process of division and union, i.e., dissociation and association. For instance, the molecules of hydrogen and chlorine gas are invisible to the eves but when each of them breaks and then combines to form two molecules of hydrochloric acid, the product becomes visible. Regarding other sense-perceptions, the same rule can be applied.
1 Cosmology: old and new, p. 183. 2 Sarvártha-siddhi, V, 28. 3 ibid.

Page #99

COXCEPTION OF MATTER
75
UNION OF MATTER
Molecules are formed in three different ways, as we have already indicated. Of these three ways, one way is purely divisional. The remaining two ways are not so. Association or union plays an important rôle in determining their nature. Now, what is this union or association? How does matter unite? It is said that the pudgalas unite by virtue of the properties of snigdha' and 'riksa' associated with them.' 'Snigdha' and rūksa' are two kinds of touch. The former is known as smooth and the latter as rough.
The pudgalas cannot unite in an arbitrary way. There are certain conditions which restrict the freedom of association. They are as follows: 1. The ultimate elementary particles at the lowest energy-level of
smoothness or roughness do not unite at all. 2. The ultimate elementary particles of matter (atoms) with
equal degrees of smoothness or roughness and of the same kind cannot unite with an atom of their own kind. In other words, an electron would not combine with another electron or a positron with a positron if both the particles are at the same energy-level, but an electron can unite with a positron or vice versa under the same conditions. This is one opinion. According to the other opinion, the paramāņus of opposite kinds cannot unite even if the degrees of smoothness or roughness are equal. Thus, while the latter view denies the possibility of union for all combinations of particles at the same energy-level, the former view recognises such a possibility if the union is
between the particles of opposite kinds. Consequently, according to the latter view, a smooth or a rough elementary particle of a higher level combines with another of a similar or a dissimilar type if they differ in their degrees of smoothness or roughness by two units. The former view does not recognise this as a necessary stipulation for the union of the particles of dissimilar types, nor does it accept the conception of
1 Tattvārtha-sūtra V, 32. 2 Cosmology: old and new, p. 216 3 Svetāmbara view. · Digambara view.

Page #100

76
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
a higher level. According to this view, a smooth or a rough atom combines with another of a similar type if they differ in their degrees of smoothness or roughness by two or more units. With regard to dissimilar types, this difference is not necessary. They can unite in an equal condition except in the case of the lowest type. The following table will show the difference underlying these two views :
FORMER VIEW Energy-Level
Similar
Dissimilar 1. Lowest Lowest
... No union
No union 2. Lowest 1' More
Union 3. Lowest 2'' more
Union 4. Lowest 3", etc., more 5. Higher equally higher
Yo union 6. Higher I'more 7. Higher 2'' more
... Union 8. Higher 3", etc., more
LATTER VIEW Energy-Level
Similar
Dissimilar 1. Lowest Lowest
No union
No union 2. Lowest I more 3. Lowest 2" more 4. Lowest 3", etc., more 5. Higher equally higher 6. Higher I'more 7. Higher 2 more
... Union
Union 8. Higher 3", etc., more ... No union
No union. The latter view can be explained in a different method also. A smooth elementary particle combines with another similar particle differing in energy-level by two units. A rough elementary particle combines with another rough elementary particle differing again in energy-level by two units. A smooth particle can also unite with a rough particle and vice versa. Particles at the lowest energy-level do not unite. The union of the various particles of different energy-levels may form an odd or an even series (as 3, 5, 7, 9, II, etc. or 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc.).1
The result of union is that an elementary particle or a molecule in the process of association with a higher degree of
1 Gommața-sāra : Jiva-kānda, 615.

Page #101

CONCEPTION OF MATTER
77
smoothness or roughness absorbs the one with a lower degree into itself. In other words, in the molecules of numerable, innumerable and indefinite atoms, the atoms with greater degrees of smoothness or roughness when uniting, alter the atoms of lesser degree to their own kind.'1 The union between dissimilar particles of equal degrees of smoothness and roughness produces a neutral particle. SIX SUB-CLASSES OF MATTER
Broadly, matter is divided into two classes : atoms and molecules. Matter is divided into six classes also.2 These classes are not different from atoms and molecules. They are, in other words, their sub-divisions : 1. Solids--Earth, stone, and the like are the solid forms of
matter. This class is called sthūla-sthula. 2. Liquids—Butter, water, oil, milk, and the like are the liquid
forms of matter. They are known as sthūla. 3. Energy-It manifests itself in the forms of heat, light, electri
city, and the like. It is called sthūla-slīksma. 4. Gases-Air, etc., are the forms of gases. This class is known
as sūksma-sthūla. 5. Fine Matter--It is responsible for thought-activities and is
beyond sense-perception. This type of matter is called
sūksma. 6. Extra-Fine Matter--The forms of single elementary particles
are composed of extra-fine matter. It is called sūksma
sikşma. MATTER AND SOU'L
Does matter influence soul (jira)? The Jaina system admits that matter does influence a worldly soul. How does it influence? It forms the physical basis of the bodies, speech, mind, and respiration of the souls. The same idea is expressed in a definite form in the following lines :
Matter is the cause of the making of bodies. One kind of molecules called āhāra-vargaņā, forms the first three types of bodies, viz., the organic body of men and animal beings, the
1 Gommata-sāra : Jiva-kānda, 619. 2 Niyama-sāra, 21.

Page #102

78
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
body which is possessed by the beings of heaven or those of hell and sometimes by human beings and animals also in an extraordinary condition, and a subtle body which is developed by advanced mystics and the respiration. Tejc-vargaņā forms the fourth type, viz., the electric body. Speech and mind are formed by two special types of molecules called bhāṣā-vargaņā and manovargaņā, respectively. The inner subtle body, i.e., kārmana-sarira which is the root cause of all mental and physical activities is constituted by kārmana-varganā.
Pleasure, pain, life, and death are also experienced through the agency of matter. Moreover, one piece of matter is capable of producing physical and chemical changes in another piece of matter. For instance, bronze is purified by ashes, water is clarified by an organic substance 'kataka,' and so on. It is needless to say that the whole super-structure of modern science is built upon physical and chemical changes in matter. FIVE KINDS OF BODIES
We have stated that bodies are constituted by matter and such bodies are of five kinds : 1. Audārika-A body which is gross and physical is called
audārika body. The organic body of human beings, animal beings, and vegetable kingdom is of this type. It is
full of blood, bones, etc. 2. Vaikriya-That which is possessed by the beings of heaven
and those of hell and by human beings as well as animals possessing an extraordinary power (labdhi) is called vaikriya body. It is invisible and is capable of transforma
tion in different shapes and sizes. 3. Ahāraka-A subtle body which is developed by an advanced
yogin is called āhāraka body. It can be projected, i.e.,
sent to great distances on special occasions. 4. Taijasa-It is composed of electric matter and is a necessary
link between the audārika body and the kār mana body.
It possesses the power of digesting the food we take. 5. Kārmana-The inner subtle body which is the seed of all
mental and physical activities is called kārmana body. It is composed of eight kinds of karmas.
1
Jiva-kānda, 606-8.

Page #103

CONCEPTION OF MATTER
79
We can perceive only the first of these five kinds with our sense-organs. The remaining bodies are subtle. The succeeding body is subtler than the preceding one in order. The taijasa and kārmaņa bodies are not obstructed by any material form. They are beyond any kind of check and can travel the whole universe. Both these bodies are associated with a worldly soul from beginningless time. Each and every jiva possesses at least these two kinds of bodies. At the time of transmigration, only these two bodies are possessed by the souls. The mundane soul can possess four kinds of bodies at the most at a time.'l The following scheme will clearly indicate the point : At least two bodies: Taijasa and kārmaņa. Three bodies: Taijasa, kārmana, and audārika
or Taijasa, kārmana, and vaikriya. Four bodies : Taijasa, kārmana, audārika, and vaikriva
or Taijasa, kārmaņa, audāri ka, and āhāraka. From the above scheme, it is evident that no soul possesses five bodies at any one time. Of course, alternatively, it can possess all the bodies at different times. It is also obvious that one soul cannot have both the āhāraka and vaikriya bodies at the same time, while taijasa and kārmana are always present so long as the soul is in bondage. MANIFESTATION OF MATTER
Some effects of matter in the forms of body, mind, etc., have been mentioned. There remain still some important effects as the manifestations of matter. We propose to describe them here. They are in the forms of sound, union, fineness, grossness, figure, divisibility, darkness, shade, heat, and light. SOUND
Some Indian systems of thought like the Vaišeşika, etc. associate sound with ether. Jainism does not accept this view and explains the creation of sound as due to the violent contact of one material object with another. A single molecule in an isolated form cannot produce sound. It is on account of this
1
Tattvartha-sútra, II, 38, II, 41-4

Page #104

80
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
theory of sound that the system regards an individual atom as unsounding by itself. The atom is defined as having a fine form, the cause of elements like earth, fire, water, and air and unsounding. The cause of sound has been pointed out to be the striking of molecules against one another.
The scientists also regard sound as a product of matter. Experiments in the sphere of science have shown that 'sound does not travel in vacuum.' If sound were generated by the ether as is supposed by other schools, it should be heard in the vacuous space also, for the ether is present everywhere. In the opinion of a scientist, it is a common experience that a source of sound is in a state of vibration. For example, the prongs of a tuningfork, a bell, the strings of a piano, and the air in an organ pipe are all in a state of vibration when they are producing sound.'?
Sound is classified into two chief divisions : sound incorporated in languages and sound which does not find place in any language. The former is further divided into two categories : articulate utterance or speech and sounds made by creatures, etc. The latter, i.e., the sound which does not find place in any language, is further classified into two sub-divisions : sounds produced by human beings with the help of musical instruments and natural sounds such as the roar of the thunder or the rippling of water, and the like. Musical sound is further classified into four categories : musical sound of a stretched instrument such as a drum, musical sound of a stringed instrument such as a violin, musical sound of a reed instrument such as a bell, and sound produced from a wind instrument such as an organ pipe. The next table will show the scheme of the classification in a lucid manner.
1 Pañcâstikāya-sāra, 85-6. 2 Text-book of Physics, p. 219.

Page #105

CONCEPTION OF MATTER
81
SOUND
Language
Noise
1. Speech
Musical
3. Natural
2. Inarticulate
Utterance
4. Stretched
instruments
5. Stringed
instruments
6. Reed
instruments.
7. Wind
instruments.
Expressed in the form of the above table, we have seven classes of sound: I. Speech or articulate utterance. 2. Inarticulate utterance. 3. Natural noise. 4. Noise of a stretched musical instrument. 5. Noise of a stringed musical instrument. 6. Noise produced from a reed instrument of music. 7. Noise produced from a wind instrument of music.
UNION
It is classified as under:
UXION
I. Forced
2. Natural
3.
3. Matter with
matter
4. Matter with
12. Having
beginning
13. Beginning
soul
less
5. Karmic 6. Physical
7. Fasten- 8. Paint- 9. Dovetail 10. Ligamen- 11. Union of ing ing joint
tary joint bodies 1. Forced-Union produced by the efforts of the body, speech, or
mind of a person.

Page #106

82
OUTLINES OF JAIXA PHILOSOPHY
2. Natural—Union produced without any effort of a person. 3. Matter with matter-Union of one kind of matter with another
kind of matter. 4. Matter with soul-Union of matter with spirit. 5. Karmic-Union of karmic matter with subtle bodies. 6. Physical--Physical combinations. 7. Fastening-As the fastening of a chain to a chariot. 8. Painting-As the painting over a canvas or mural painting. 9. Dovetail joint-As joints in pieces of timber. 10. Ligamentary joint-Such joints as of a living body. 11. Union of bodies--Union of bodies more than one in
number. 12. Natural union having beginning——That natural union which
has a beginning as has resulted from a definite cause, such as the union of different colours in a rainbow, is called natural union having a beginning. Formation of the clouds, production of lightning, etc., are included in this
class. 13. Beginningless union-Eternal union such as the union of the
different parts of substances like the medium of motion, the medium of rest, space, and the like.
FINENESS AND GROSSNESS
Each of these manifestations is of two categories: extreme and relative. The atoms furnish the example of extreme fineness in matter and the universe itself constitutes the example of extreme grossness in matter, since it is the biggest molecule or compound of matter. There is nothing smaller than atom and nothing bigger than the universe in the world of matter. Material objects vary relatively to each other in quantity. For instance, a cocoanut is bigger than an orange and so on. FIGURE
Figure is nothing but the shape of a body. It may be regular, circular, triangular, rectangular, and the like; or it may be an irregular body like the shape of clouds.
1
Tattvårtha-rāja-vārtika, V, 24, 14-5.

Page #107

CONCEPTION OF MATTER
DIVISIBILITY
It is of six kinds : 1. Separation-as sawing a piece of wood. 2. Grinding-as making wheat into flour. 3. Parting—as the separate parts of a broken pitcher. 4. Chaffing--as the separation of chaff from rice or pulses. 5. Layers—as the separation of layers in a sheet of mica. 6. Smithereen-as a blacksmith smites with his hammer.
DARKNESS
It is opposite to light and is generally the cause of invisibility of objects. It is a positive reality existing independent of light. The Naiyāyikas and the Vaiseșikas maintain that the existence of darkness should not be regarded as separate from light. They think that darkness is nothing more than the negation of light. In other words, they do not regard darkness as a positive reality. They believe that darkness is nothing but the negation of light. The Jaina thinkers do not agree with this view of the Naiyāyikas and the Vaisesikas. They say that darkness has an independent existence. Modern scientists also believe in the conception of
dark rays. Without the presence of these 'dark rays' photography in pitch darkness would have been impossible. SHADE
It is of two kinds : virtual image produced by a plane mirror which shows the object laterally inverted and uninverted image like shadow or image of a modern cinema screen. The obstruction of light is the cause of the production of shadows.?
Regarding the formation of shadows, the physicists hold that an opaque obstacle in the path of the rays of light casts a shadow because the rays are obstructed and are unable to enter the region of the shadow. The images formed by lenses and mirrors are of two kinds called virtual and real. The example of a virtual image is the image seen in a looking glass, whereas the example of the latter is the images on a cinema screen. In the case of a virtual image the rays appear to come from the image, whereas in the case of a real image the rays do actually come from it. Thus, it is
1 Tattvārtha-raja-vārtika. 1. 24, IS 2 Sarvartha-siddhi, V, 24.

Page #108

84
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
clear that energy manifests itself in the form of shadows and images, virtual and real.1 HEAT AND LIGHT
Heat is the sunlight, the light of fire, that of electric lamp, and the like. Light is the moonlight, the light of jewels, or the light of the glow-worm. The former predominates in heat-rays and the latter in light-rays. Science also regards heat and light as two separate manifestations of energy.
1 Cosmology: Old and New, p. 88.

Page #109

CHAPTER IV
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
THE HE relation of knowledge with soul, in Jainism, is not like that in the system of the Naiyayikas and Vaiseṣikas, as we have already seen. The Jaina writers have defined knowledge as the essence of soul. Soul has other characteristics also as we have mentioned, but the Jaina thinkers always emphasised knowledge to be the chief characteristic possessed by soul. Kundakunda has stated that although from the empirical point of view there is difference between soul and knowledge, yet, from the transcendental point of view it is sufficient to say that soul is knower and nothing else.1 In this way, he apparently amalgamated all the characteristics of soul in the conception of knowledge. He went further and clearly stated that absolute bliss is absolute knowledge. Bliss and knowledge are identical. He further said that there is no difference between the knower and his knowledge. In the Jaina Canons also we find such expressions to the effect that from one point of view soul is knowledge and knowledge is soul. Kundakunda further said that from the empirical point of view the omniscient perceives and knows the whole of reality; and from the transcendental point of view he perceives and knows the self only. (Here the self includes all the knowledge of reality.) In this way, we conclude that knowledge plays an important part in the conception of soul, emancipation, etc. We intend to give a brief account of the Jaina theory of knowledge.
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE IN THE JAINA CANONS
Knowledge is divided into five broad categories in the Jaina Canons. The conception of five-fold knowledge is very old. We come across some descriptions in the Canons which show that the conception of five-fold knowledge is pre-Canonical. Even before Lord Mahāvīra this division existed. Kesikumāra, a monk
1 Samaya-sara, 6-7.
2
Pravacana-sara, I, 59-60.
3 Samaya-sāra, 10. 11; 433.
4 Niyama-sara, 158

Page #110

86
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
following the tradition of Lord Parsvanatha, the twenty-third Tirthankara of Jainism, mentioned five kinds of knowledge as abhinibodhika-jñāna, śruta-jñāna, avadhi-jñāna, manaḥparyayajñāna, and kevala-jñāna.1 It clearly shows that Lord Mahāvīra had accepted the tradition of the conception of knowledge as it was in existence before him.
Now, how does this conception evolve in the Canonical period? What additions are made? We find three stages of evolution in the Canons :2
1. At the first stage, knowledge is divided into five categories according to the above tradition as under :3
Abhinibodhika
Jñana
3
Śruta Avadhi Manah- Kevala paryaya
Avagraha Iha
Araya Dharaṇā.
2. The second stage of evolution presents two broad divisions of knowledge, viz., pratyakṣa and parokṣa. These two categories are further divided into various sub-divisions.
The scheme according to the Sthananga-sutra is as follows:
1 Rāja-praśniya, 165.
2 Introduction: Nyāyāvatāra-vārtika-vrtti, p. 58.
Bhagavati-sutra, 88, 2, 317

Page #111

Jiiāna
Prutyaksa
Parokşa
kerala
Nokovala
Abhinibodhika
Sruta
Avadhi
Alanahparyaya
Śrutanihsrta
Asutunihsrta
ategories, not five. This two-fold division is generally accepted
This table shows that knowledge is divided into two main
Bhava pratya jika
Ksavopu- samka
Rjuonati
Popula- mati
Arthi- t'agraka
l'yanja- Arthū- 'yanjanāvagra- vagrahu nāvagraha
ha
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Angapravista (12 in number)
Angavāka
A vasvaka
Avasvakawatirkta
Kalika
Uthalika
Kalika vrátika
87

Page #112

88
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
by the Jaina logicians who discussed the theory of knowledge on the ground of logic. In the Tattvārtha-sūtra, first of all knowledge is divided into five categories and then these categories have been included in two categories, viz., pratyaksa and paroksal as the means of valid knowledge. This latter division clearly indicates that Umāsvāti was also influenced by the second stage of evolution. 3. The third stage is as follows:
Jiana
Srutu
Aradhi
Kevala
Abhinkbodhika
Janak- paryaya
Pratyakşa
Parokşa
Sruta
Indryapratyakşa
Vondriyupratyakşa
Iohinibodhika
I. t'adhi. 2. Jank
paryaya 3. Kevala.
SrletaIzzhsrta
śrutanihsyta
I. Srotron
driya. 2. Cakşurin
dnya. 3. Ghrūnen
driya. 4. Rasanen
driva. 5. Sparsen
driya.
4tagraha Ihả dãyu Dhãi đã
Tranjana- vagraha
Hythivagraha
utpattihi
t'aina yrki Karmajā
Pāvināmiki
P
latz: utā: adhamanah paryayakevaläni jäänana, I, 9..dye paroasai!, I, II.
Pratyakşamanyat, I, 12.
.

Page #113

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
89
On this stage of evolution, sensory knowledge has been placed in both the categories, viz., direct knowledge and indirect knowledge. On the second stage, sensory knowledge as wel scriptural knowledge was placed in the category of indirect knowledge which as a matter of fact is in the true spirit of Jainism. The third stage that has its root in the Yandi-sūtra, seems to be influenced by the general tendency of Indian philosophy that regards sensory knowledge as direct. The later Jaina logicians and philosophers also took this view in the name of laukika pratvakşa. The gist of the third stage is : 1. Avadhi, manaḥparvava, and kevala-jñānu are really direct. 2. Śruta-jšiūn. is always indirect. 3. Mati-jñāna produced by the sense-organs is really indirect but
is regarded as direct for practical purposes. 4. Jati-jñāna produced by the mind is always indirect.
Thus, these three stages of evolution of the conception of knowledge in the Canons show that all the classifications of the logical period as well as the schemes of division of knowledge of the earlier philosophers were rooted in the Canons. We shall explain the various categories of knowledge, viz., aragraha, iha, etc., while dealing with the logical conception of knowledge. DESCRIPTION OF THE MEANS OF COGNITION IN THE JAINA CAVONS
It is wrong to say that the Jaina Canons discuss the categories of knowledge only and not the means of valid knowledge. We come across many references where the means of valid knowledge are independently discussed. In the Bhagavati-sūtra, Lord Mahāvira says: 'There are four means of valid knowledge, viz., perception (prutyaksa ), inference ( anumina), analogy ( 11 pamūna), and authority (āgamu)...'
It apparently indicates that the ancient Jaina thinkers certainly believed in the separate and independent discussion of the means of valid knowledge. Their deliberations were not confined to the categories of knowledge only. They discussed the means of valid cognition as well like other systems of philosophy. Generally, such means are regarded as four in number, but in some places we find three also. As it is mentioned in the
1 Bhagavati-sūtra,, 43, 192.
I 2

Page #114

90
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
Sthānānga-sūtra : Determination is of three kinds, viz., perception, authority, and inference.1
In spite of this type of separate discussion and description of the means of valid knowledge, we are not entitled to maintain that the Canons made an absolute difference between the categories of knowledge and the means of valid knowledge. Both are related as well as synthesised in some places LOGICAL CONCEPTION OF KNOWLEDGE
When we look at the Tattvārtha-sūtra, we come to know that Umāsvāti made no difference between the categories of knowledge and the means of valid knowledge. In other words, he did not differentiate jñāna and pramāņa. He observes: Jñāna is of five varieties, viz., mati, śruta, avadhi, manahparyaya, and kevala. All these varieties are pramāņa. He did not mention any particular characteristic except 'rightness' regarding the conception of pramāņa. He took jñāna (right knowledge ) and pramīņa as identical.
The later philosophers defined pramāņa independently and strictly. They did not conceive knowledge as the means of valid knowledge in a general form but added some specific characteristics to it. Mánikyanandi says: That jñāna is pramāņa which has the determination of itself as well as of the object not known before. It enables us to get the desirable and give up the undesirable. Hence, it can be nothing but knowledge.3
Hemacandra writes in the Pramāna-mīmāṁsā: The valid judgment about an object is pramāna. In anothei language, a means of knowledge is the authentic definitive cognition of an object.4 Vādideva says: That jñāna is pramīna which has the determination of itself as well as of the object. It is able to tell us what is desirable and what is undesirable. Hence, it can be knowledge only.
On the basis of these various definitions of pramāna, we can understand what type of knowledge is pranīna and what type of knowledge is not pramiina. The gist of all these definitions is that it is a right knowledge or a valid judgment which is pramīņa
1 Sthănânga-sītra, 185. 2 Tattvārtha-sūtra, I, 9-10. 3 Parikṣā-mukha, I, I-2.
Samyagaythanıynzrah pranānam, I, I, 2. 5 Pramăna-naya-tattvāloka, I, 2-3.

Page #115

THEORY OF KYOWLEDGE
91 and not a wrong ore. In other words, all pramūna is iñūna but all jñāna is not pramūna. The word 'determination' is meant for refuting the conception of the Buddhists who regard indeterminate knowledge as the means of valid cognition. According to the Jainas, indeterminate knowledge is no knowledge at all. It is only an indeterminate perception or intuition (darśana ). The determination of knowledge is essential, because if the knowledge itself is not self-conscious, it cannot determine the object. The Jainas believe in the self-illuminating nature of knowledge, therefore, no question of infinite regress arises. The conception of self-determination of knowledge through the medium of soul can be compared with the doctrine of Transcendental l'nity of Apperception of Kant. VALIDITY OF KNOWLEDGE
We have seen that knowledge must be valid, if it is to be justified in being called pramāna. Now, the question is: How can the nature of validity be determined? The Jaina thinkers say that 'the validity is either determined intrinsically or extrinsically.' 1 They believe in both the types, viz., intrinsic validity and extrinsic validity. The determination of validity is in some cases achieved by a cognition by itself. As for instance is the habitual cognition of one's own palm induced by a repeated course of experience or the direct achievements of results such as by the acts of bathing, drinking, etc., there occurs cessation of heat, thirst, etc.; and this alone gives final satisfaction to the subject and a person does not feel an urge for further scrutiny of his cognition. This shows that validity is self-determined, i.e., intrinsic.
On some occasions, the experience of validity is secured by means of an external datum. We may point for instance to the primal perceptual cognition unconfirmed by repeated experience. Since such cognition has not as yet been ascertained to stand in unfailing correspondence with the object, its validity is determined ( 1 ) by a subsequent confirmatory cognition of the same object, or ( 2 ) by a cognition of its pragmatic consequences, or (3) by the cognition of an object invariably or universally concomitant with it. This establishes the fact that validity is determined by other means. It is called extrinsic validity.
1 Prīmānyanıscayah Tatah parato ci. Pramăna-mimāṁsâ, I, 1, 8.

Page #116

92
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
The Mimāmsakas do not hold to extrinsic validity but intrinsic validity only. Hence, the view of the Mimāṁsakas is not complete according to the Jaina conception of validity. CLASSIFICATION OF THE MEANS OF VALID KNOWLEDGE
The means of valid knowledge are of two kinds. Is this twofold classification to be understood in the terms of what has been propounded by the Buddhists, viz., perception and inferencel or in a different way? The Jaina classification is certainly different. Their two kinds are named 'direct and indirect."? From the practical point of view they are called perceptual and nonperceptual. According to the Cārvāka, there is no other means of knowledge than perception (pratyakṣa or direct knowledge ). In order to refute his view, it is said that there is means of valid knowledge other than perception and it is proved by the determination of the validity and invalidity of knowledge, by the knowledge of other men's thoughts, and by negation. The realisation of the distinction between valid and invalid cognitions, of another man's thought, and the negation of what transcends sense-intuition are not possible without the help of other means of valid knowledge such as inference.
Furthermore, the validity of even perceptual cognition can be established only on the evidence of its unfailing correspondence with the fact. Why should the Cārvāka not acknowledge the validity of non-perceptual cognitions, arising either from verbal testimony ( authority) or from a logical ground (inference ) known to be necessarily concomitant with a fact, on the identical ground of unfailing correspondence with the fact? Hence, non-perceptual cognition is as valid as perceptual cognition.
The Vaiseșikas as well as the Sārkhya thinkers contend that there are three means of knowledge, viz,, perception, inference, and authority. The Naiyāyikas accept analogy in addition to the three. The Prābhākaras accept the four and add implication as the fifth. The followers of Bhatta (Kumārila ) accept negation as an additional means and thus assert six such means in all. All
1 Pratyakşananumānam ca. Nyāva-bindu, I, 3 2 Pramanan drikā. Pratyakşam paroksar ca. Pramāņa-mimāṁsā,
I, I, 9-10. 3 ibid., I, I, II.

Page #117

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
93
these means of valid knowledge except negation are included in perceptual and non-perceptual cognitions accepted by the Jainas as we shall see later on. As regards negation, it is not different from perception. Since reality partakes of the nature of both being and non-being, negation cannot have an object of its own. As a matter of fact, reality is made up of both being and non-being as its constitutive elements, since it has being in respect of its own nature and non-being in respect of the nature of another. It is evident that a perceptual cognition determines by way of affirmation and negation, its object in the following way. When we say that the jar is not on the ground,' we simply mean by it the perception of a surface of the ground and not a perception of the jar. The surface of the ground itself is the negation of the jar. The experience of negation is not additional which compels us to admit an independent means of cognition in the form of negation or non-existence. The position is as follows:
“A positive real that is determined as 'this is exclusively of such and such a character is not capable of being understood without the concomitant cognisance of the negation of what is different from it."?
The Mimāṁsakas might contend: Well, let reality be accepted as partaking of the nature of both being and non-being, but that does not affect our position in the least, as we, too, have proved this very truth. Our contention is that only the positive element of being with which a sense-organ comes in contact is the field of perceptual cognition and as regards the element of non-being, it cannot be so. The latter is consequently held to be cognised by a separate means, viz., negation. How can then it be maintained that negation would have no separate object? The Jaina refutes this contention as under:
If the element of non-being be not different from the element of being, why should it not be liable to apprehension by perceptual knowledge? If, again, it be different, still it has to be admitted that jar and the like are perceived when a surface of land is perceived as in the form of the non-being of jar and the like. It is a universal rule that the non-apprehension of the non-being of
1 'Bhitali ghato năsti.' • Śloka-vārtika · Abhāva, 15

Page #118

94
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY anything is necessarily concomitant with the apprehension of its being.
Moreover, this so-called means of valid cognition is of no use being of the nature of mere negation of the five positive means of knowledge. And thus, it is the reverse of cognition and as such how can it function as a means of valid cognition? It follows, therefore, that negation as a means has no object, since there is nothing like pure non-being separate from the double nature of the real. The conclusion, therefore, is that it cannot be an additional means of valid cognition.
Now, we propose to give the specific definition of each of the kinds :
"That which is direct or immediate is perceptual cognition.'
The directness or immediacy is defined as: consisting in either its independence of the services of another means or in apprehension of its content as 'this.'2 CATEGORIES OF PERCEPTION
The most significant thing to be noted in this connection is that the Jaina philosopheis divide perceptual knowledge into two categories. In the first division they put that perceptual cognition which is directly related to soul. This perception is
ed direct perception, immediate perception, transcendental perception, extra-sensory perception, or real perception. The second division is known as empirical perception. pragmatic perception, or sensory perception. DIRECT PERCEPTION Now, we propose to give the definition of direct perception :
The perfect manifestation of the innate nature of a soul, emerging on the total annihilation of all obstructive veils, is called direct perception.'4
1 l'iśadah pratyakşam. Pramāņa-mimåmsă, I, I, 13.
Spastam pratvakşam. Pramāna-naya-tattvåloka, II, 2.
l' sadam pratyakşamiti. Pariksa-mukha, II, 3. 2 Pramānantarána pekşedantayā pratibhāso tā vaisadvan.
Pramāņa-mimamsā, I, I, 14. Pratityuntarārvavad hänena izsesavattayā vā pratibhāsanar
vaiśadyam. Pariksă-mukha, II, 4. 3 Tad dviprakāram să muvātahārıkaṁ pāramārthikan ca.
Pramāņa-naya-tattvåloka, II, 4. Tatsarvathāvaranatilaye cetanasva svarī pāvirbhāvo mukhvan ketalam. Pramāņa-mimārsā, I, I, 15.

Page #119

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
95
The self has consciousness as its essence which is luminous by its very nature. The manifestation of the luminous nature of self, which is nothing but the sell as manifested, is styled pārmārthika pratyaksa, i.e., transcendental intuition or direct perception. It is the highest kind of all cognitions. It is characterised as pure and perfect in the scriptures, since it is independent of the services of external instruments such as sense-organs and mind. It emerges on the disappearance of obscuring veils which results from the total purging of all the destructive karinas. The soul is manifested in its pure nature and perceives the whole of reality in a direct and immediate manner. Hence, it is called omniscience ( kevala-jñāna).
Omniscience is not the only instance of transcendental knowledge, but there are other varieties also.
Owing to the variation of the degrees of the destruction of obstructing veils, the transcendental knowledge admits of two varieties, viz., limited direct perception and direct perception of the modes of other minds.'1 They are nothing but clairvoyance and telepathy.
Pure perception occurs on the complete destruction of all possible veils. But when there is variation in the degrees of the annihilation of veil, there occur two varieties of extra-sensory intuition, viz., avadhi-limited intuition and manah paryaya- direct perception of the modes of minds. Avadhi means 'limit' or 'that which is confined' and so it is said: 'Avadhi is limited to the objects having form,'? i.e., colour, taste, smell, and touch. It is of two kinds according as it is congenital or acquired by merit. Of these, the first belongs to the denizens of heaven and hell just
in the sky belongs to birds. The second variety is possible for man and animals.
The mind is a particular substance and its modes are the different changes of state emerging into acts of thought. And the knowledge of these states is called manaḥparyaya-jñāna. CLAIRVOYANCE
The self, according to Jaina philosophy, has inherent capacity to know all things irrespective of time and space. Temporal and
1 Tataratamyavadhimanahparyayau ca. Pramāņa-mimamsă, I, I, 18. 2 Rapışvavadheh. Tattvārtha-sútra, I, 28.

Page #120

96
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
spatial distance is immaterial if the self were in its perfection. To put it in a different language, the self is inherently capable of cognising all things together with all their characteristics irrespective of temporal distinctions, i.e., past, present, and future, and spatial differences, i.e., here, there, near, far, and the like. It is only because of karmic obstructions that this capacity is obscured. Pure perception occurs on the total destruction of all karmic obstructions. But when there is variation in degrees of this destruction, there occur different varieties of perception. As regards the occurrence of normal perceptions, they are derived from the senses and mind. Regarding the occurrence of super-normal perceptions, the Jaina holds that they are derived directly from the self. They are not dependent on the senses and mind. Nevertheless, there is variation in degrees of their occurrence. Perfect perception occurs on the complete annihilation of all possible veils. But when there are differences in the subsidence and annihilation of these veils, there occur two varieties of super-normal perception, viz., clairvoyance and telepathy.
Clairvoyance is confined to the objects having form. Only those things which have shape, colour, etc., can be perceived through the faculty of clairvoyance. This faculty differs in scope and durability with different persons due to the difference of destruction and subsidence of karmic veils. The highest type of clairvoyance can perceive all the objects having form. With regard to space, it extends over a space that could be occupied by innumerable space-points (pradeśas ) of the size of the universe. As regards time, it pierces into innumerable cycles of time, both past and future. It cannot perceive all the modes of all the things. It know's only a part of them. The lowest type of clairvoyance can cognise the object occupying a very small fraction of space. In the technical language of the Jaina, it can extend to a very small fraction of an 'angula' (a measure ) and know the things having form that lie therein. As regards time, it can penetrate only a small part of time which is less than a second. Regarding the modes, it can know only a part of all the modes of its object.
1 Sandı-sūtra, 10

Page #121

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
97
Clairvoyance is of six types: First, a clairvoyance which continues to exist even if a person leaves a particular place and goes elsewhere. This type is called anugāmin. Second, a clairvoyance that does not continue to exist in the aforesaid situation. It is diametrically opposed to the former. This variety is known as ananugāmin. Third, a clairvoyance that increases in its scope and durability as time passes. It is called vardhamāna. Fourth, a clairvoyance which embraces deterioration as regards its scope and durability. It is called hiyamāna. This type is opposed to the third one. Fifth, a clairvoyance that neither faces growth nor embraces deterioration. This variety is known as avasthita. Sixth, a clairvoyance that sometimes increases and sometimes decreases with respect to its scope, durability, etc. It is known as anavasthita.
TELEPATHY
Let us turn to the nature of telepathy. Jind, according to the Jainas, is a particular material substance, as we have already stated. Its modes are the different changes of state emerging into acts of thought. Every state of our thought is a particular mode of mind. As our state of thought changes, so also the mind changes. Thus, every state of our thought is reflected in the different modes of our mind. In another language, a state of thought is nothing but a particular mode of mind itself. The direct apprehension of the modes of mind is called telepathy in Jaina philosophy. A person possessing the faculty of telepathy can directly cognise the states of our thought. This cognition of the states of thought is nothing but a direct perception of the modes of the stuff of which the mind is made up.
Telepathy is confined to the abode of human beings. Its emergence is conditioned by a particular capacity possessed by one having a particular mode of right conduct. The faculty of telepathy is not acquired by an ordinary person. It is conditioned by a strict mental and physical discipline. The person possessing the faculty of telepathy is necessarily a homeless ascetic. His character must be of a higher type. Such conditions
1 Anugāmyanan ugāmivardhamanahiyamānārasthitānavasthitavhedāt
saờvidhah. Tattvārtha-rāja-vārtika, I, 22, + ? Āvaśyaka-niryukti, 76.

Page #122

98
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
are not set down in the case of clairvoyance. The faculty of telepathy is far more superior to that of clairvoyance. The Jaina thinkers recognise two varieties of telepathy: rjumati and vipulamati. The latter is purer and everlasting, i.e., lasts up to the dawn of omniscience, whereas the former is less pure and sometimes trembles too. The latter perceives less number of objects than the former but apprehends them more vividly. It is only he who is at the upward stage of spiritual advancement is possessed of the latter, whereas the former is possessed by one who is sure to descend the spiritual ladder. The latter is more lucid than the former.
CLAIRVOYANCE AND TELEPATHY
As regards the subject matter, both clairvoyance and telepathy have reference to material objects. Such being the case, what is the line of demarcation between the two ? The difference of clairvoyance and telepathy consists in the difference of purity, scope, subject, and object. The perception of telepathy is more lucid than the perception of clairvoyance. The person possessing
power of clairvoyance also perceives mind, but the person possessing the faculty of telepathy perceives the same more lucidly. The scope of clairvoyance varies from an extremely minute part of an angula up to the whole inhabited universe. But the scope of telepathy is limited to the sphere inhabited by human beings only. With regard to the difference of subject, the acquisition of clairvoyance is possible for living beings in all the possible states. But the faculty of telepathy is possible only for a human being possessed of self-restraint and of noble conduct occupying a certain stage of spiritual development. In other words, only those who are possessed of super-normal powers acquire this type of perception and not any one else, and again it is possible only for a few and not for all of them. As regards the difference in reference to objects, the jurisdiction of clairvoyance is limited to material objects and that again not covering all their modes, but that of telepathy extends to by far the minuter
parts. 3
1 Tattvārtha-sútra, I, 25. : ibid, I, 26. 3 Commentary on Pramāņa mimāṁsā, I, I, 19.

Page #123

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
99
OMNISCIENCE
Let us turn our attention towards the nature of omniscience. It is the highest type of perception which falls in the category of extra-sensory perception. It is the perfection of the cognising faculty of the self. It is the pure manifestation of the real nature of the conscious principle. The perfect manifestation of the innate nature of the self, arising on the complete annihilation of all obstructive veils, is called omniscience.
The self, as has already been mentioned, possesses consciousness as its essence. It is luminous by its very nature. The manifestation of the luminous nature of the conscious principle is nothing but the self as manifested in the act of knowledge. It occurs on the annihilation of the perception-obscuring veils. The person possessing the super-normal faculty of omniscience perceives all the substances with all their modes. Nothing is unknown to him. His knowledge is pure and perfect due to the total destruction of all possible obstructions.
Now, there arises a question: If the self is luminous by its very nature, why should it be subject to obscuration. And if obscuration is possible, it must be subject to obscuration for all time. Though luminous in nature, the moon, the sun, and the like are liable to be obscured by a veil of dust, by fog, by a patch of cloud, and so on. The case of the self is exactly parallel to these cases, when it is found to be obscured by different veils of karma. The destruction of the obscuration of the self is possible by the practice of a particular course of meditation and the like in the same way as the obscuration of the sun, the moon, etc., is removed by a blast of wind.
ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF OMNISCIENCE
The Jaina thinkers advance the following argument to prove the existence of omniscience. “The proof of omniscience follows from the proof of the necessity of the final consummation of the progressive development of cognition.'? The progressive development of knowledge must reach its completion somewhere,
1 Tattvārtha-sútra, I, 30. 2 Prajñātrśavaizsāntvadisiddhestatunidhih. Pramāna-mimāṁsā,
I, I, 16.

Page #124

100
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
because this is the way of all progression, as seen in the progression of magnitude. Just as heat is subject to varying degrees and consequently reaches the highest limit, so also cognition which is subject to progressive development owing to the various degrees of destruction of the obscuring veil, reaches the highest limit, i.e., omniscience when the hindrance of the obscuring karma is totally annihilated.
The Mīmāṁsakas are not prepared to accept the possibility of the occurrence of omniscience. To refute the theory of omniscience, the Mimāmsaka asks: What does omniscience mean? Does it mean the cognition of all the objects of the universe ? Or does it mean merely the comprehension of certain principal objects ? As regards the first alternative, does it mean the knowledge of all the objects of the universe in succession or simultaneously. In the former case, there can be no omniscience, inasmuch as the objects of the world in the shape of past, present, and future can never be exhausted. This being the fact, the cognition conditioned by them also can never be complete. Because of the impossibility of the knowledge of all the objects of the world there cannot be omniscience. In the latter case also there can be no omniscience. It is an established fact that all the objects of the world are impossible to be known at one and the same time. How is it possible to comprehend contradictory things like heat and cold at the same time by a single cognition : Besides, if all the objects are known at one and the same instant by an omniscient soul, in the next moment it would become unconscious having nothing to cognise. And further, the omniscient person would be tainted by the attachment, etc., of others in cognising them. Consequently, he would cease to be omniscient, since attachment and the like are obstructions to right cognition. Thus, it is established that omniscience does not mean the cognition of all the objects of the universe either successively or simultaneously. On the other hand, it cannot be admitted that omniscience means the cognition of certain principal objects, since only when all the objects of the universe are known, the distinction of principal objects from subordinate objects can be established. Furthermore, it is an impossibility to have the cognition of the past and future which are, really speaking, non-existent. If the omniscient cognises the past and future which

Page #125

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
101
are non-existent, his knowledge would be illusory and wrong. If the past and future are known as existent, they are converted into the present. If the past and future are known by the omniscient as present, his knowledge again would be illusory. Hence, logically no existence of omniscience can be established.1
All these objections advanced by the Mimāṁsaka are refuted by the Jaina as follows: Our ordinary perceptions are produced by the sense-organs, and hence, they are incapable of cognising the past, the future, and the like. But such is not the case with the omniscient. The perception of an omniscient self is not produced by the sense-organs; hence, it can know supra-sensory objects. It is not produced in succession but simultaneously, and hence, it cognises all the objects of the universe at the same time. It is beyond the limitations of space and time that are the necessary conditions of the perception produced by the senses. As regards the objection that contradictory things like heat and cold cannot be cognised at the same time by a single cognition, the Jaina asks the Mimāmsaka : Why contradictory things cannot be cognised by a single cognition ? Is it because they cannot be present at the same time, or because they by their very nature cannot be comprehended by a single cognition, though they are present at the same time? The former view is not tenable, because contradictory things like heat and cold do exist at the same time. The latter position is also not capable of being defended, because when there is a flash of lightning in the midst of darkness, there occurs a simultaneous perception of two contradictory things, viz., darkness and light. Regarding the objection that if the omniscient knows all the objects of the universe at one instant, in the next moment he would become unconscious having nothing to cognise, the Jaina thinker replies that this type of objection would be valid if both the perception of the omniscient and the whole world were annihilated in the following instant. But, really speaking, both of these are ever-lasting. Hence, it is not an absurdity to hold that the omniscient self perceives all the objects of the universe by a single cognition. With respect to the objection that the omniscient would be tainted by the attachment, etc., of others
1 Prameya-kamala-mārttaņda, pp. 254. 2 ibid., pp. 260-1.

Page #126

IO2
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
in cognising them, and consequently, he would cease to be omniscient, the reply is: Mere knowledge of desires, aversions, etc., is not sufficient enough to make a person tainted unless the self is transformed in that very mode. The omniscient self cannot be affected by desires, etc., in the least. Hence, it cannot be tainted by the attachment, etc., of others by merely knowing them. Besides, desires and aversions are produced by our impure mental states and senses and not by the self which is pure and perfect. The omniscient self is pure and perfect. Hence, it cannot be tainted by the imperfections of sensory cognition. It is further urged that the omniscient is not capable of perceiving the past and future, inasmuch as they are non-existent. On the other hand, if they are perceived as existent, the perception of the omniscient person is illusory. The Jaina says: The past and future are perceived by the omniscient not as present, but as past and future. Hence, no question of illusion arises. The past things are as much existent and real in relation to their own time as the present things are existent and real in relation to the present. The same argument can be applied to the future. The omniscient knows the past as existing in the past and the future as existing in the future. Because of the absolute destruction of the obscuring veils of karma, the cognition of an omniscient person is not produced by the senses, but it is produced directly by the self. Hence, the omniscient directly perceives all the objects of the past, present, and future. In other words, the limitations of space and time are only for sensory perception. They cannot obstruct the perception of an omniscient person. To summarise, an omniscient self directly and immediately perceives all the objects of the universe, past, present, and future, subtle and remote, by a single ever-lasting cognition without the assistance of the medium of external senses and mind. Omniscience is the culmination of the faculty of cognition of the conscious principle.
EMPIRICAL PERCEPTION
Now, we come to empirical perception. Empirical perception is conditioned by the senses and mind and is limited.' The
Heśatuh
sarı yazahārikamniti.
Pariksă
1 Indrzvanındriyanımittari
mukha, II, 5.

Page #127

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
103
perception which has for its condition the senses and mind is called empirical perception, i.e., sānivyavahārika pratyaksa. The meaning of the phrase "conditioned by the senses and mind' is to be understood in both distributive and collective senses. It is said to be conditioned by the senses when the senses play a major part and the mind exerts influence in its generation, and it is said to be conditioned by the mind when it is generated by the mind alone endowed with a particular kind of purity. SENSES
The senses are touch, taste, smell, sight, and ear having respectively for their characteristic the capacity of apprehending touch, taste, odour, coloured shape, and sound. Each of these again is of two kinds : physical and psychical. The physical sense is of material atoms possessed of definite shape like ear, eye, etc. The psychical sense is of two kinds; attainment (labdhi) and conscious activity (upayoga.) Attainment means acquisition of the capacity of manifestation of the sense-activity. Conscious activity is a particular modification of the self due to attainment.1 MIND
Mind is the organ of apprehension of all objects of all the senses. All the objects of the senses are apprehended by the mind and so it is called the organ of apprehension of all the objects. It is also designated as non-sense (anindriya), quasisense (no-indriva,) subtle sense (sūksma-indriya ), or inner sense (antah-karaṇa).
Mind is also of two kinds, just like the five senses. These kinds are: physical and psychical. The physical mind is nothing but matter transformed into it. The psychical mind is the conscious activity.
An objection is raised here that the statement about the empirical perception it is conditioned by the senses and mind' is inadequate. Thus, for example, visual cognition has for its additional conditions the presence of object and light. In
1 Sparśarasagandhar pasabdagrahanalaksanāni sparśanarasanaghrāna
caksuhśrotrāṇindnyāni uraiyabhārabhedani. Dravyendriyaniı niyatārāräh pudgalāh. Bhūtendriyani labdhyupavogau. Pramāņa
mimamsā, I, 2, 21-22-23. 2 Sarruthagrahapuri manah. ibid., I, 2, 24.

Page #128

104
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY answer to this, it is said: “The object and light are not the conditions of cognition, because of the lack of concomitance in difference (vyatireka) between the two.' The meaning is that the external object and light are not the direct conditions of visual cognition, though we do not deny that they are remote (vyavahita ) conditions, just as time, space, and the like are. Of course, it is admitted that they are of direct service to the cause of removal of the knowledge-obscuring karma and also of direct service by benefiting the sense of vision. The question is: Then why should not they be held to be the direct conditions of visual cognition ? The answer is : Because there is no concomitance in difference between them which is the most essential form of universal relationship. For instance, it is observed that the perception of water takes place in mirage ( maricikā) in the desert in spite of the absence of sensation of water in it and the cats and owls have, notwithstanding the absence of light, perceptual cognition of objects in a place steeped in a thick pall of darkness.2 CATEGORIES OF EMPIRICAL PERCEPTION
Sensory as well as mental perception is of four kinds, viz., sensation (avagraha,) speculation (ihā,) determinate perception ( avāya,) and retention (dhāraņā).3 SENSATION
Sensation is the cognition of an object, which follows in the wake of indeterminate awareness upon the contact of the senseorgan with it. Sensation is the first stage of knowledge which catches the general feature of an object after the contact of the object with the sense-organ. SPECULATION
Speculation is inquisitive pursuit for the knowledge of specific details of the perceived datum. On the sensation
1 Nārthālokau jñānasva nimittamaryatire kāt. Pramāna-mimāṁsā,
I, 2, 25. 2 Compare - Tadanvavaujativekānuvidhānābhūvācca, keśondukajñāna
vannaktancarajñānavacca. Parikṣā-mukha, II, 7. 3 Etaddvitayamavagrahehāvāyadhāraṇābhedādekaśaścaturvikalpakam.
Pramāņa-naya-tattvāloka, II, 6. 4 Akşārthayoge darśanānantayamarthagrahanamavagrahah Pramāna
mimāṁsā, I, 1,26. 5 Ivagyhitavıśesakāúkṣaṇamiha. ibid., I, I, 27.

Page #129

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
105
of an objective datum, for instance, a sound, there arises a doubt whether the sound emanates from a conch (saikha) or a horn (śriga) and the mind is driven to consider the specific points of agreement and difference in the form of the judgment it is perceived as sweet and agreeable which qualities belong to the sound of a conch and not as harsh and shrill which are the qualities of the sound of a horn' The difference between doubt (samsaya) and speculation (ihã ) lies in the fact that doubt is the antecedent form of speculation while speculation stands above doubt. In doubt (samśaya) there is uncertainty of a specific object, whereas in speculation iha) there is some sort of certainty that does not fall in the category of doubt.
DETERMINATE PERCEPTION
Determinate perception is the determination of the specific characteristic which was the object of speculation. Determinate perception is the final determination of the specific characteristic regarding the object of speculation as illustrated by the proposition 'the sound must be of a conch and not of a horn.'
RETENTION
Retention is the condition of memory. The condition is the causal stuff capable of change into the effect as memory which consists in the recollection of a past event. It is nothing but the latent mental trace left over as a legacy by our previous experience.
NON-PERCEPTUAL COGNITION
Now, let us turn to non-perceptual cognition. Non-perceptual cognition is what lacks immediacy and lucidity. The subdivisions of non-perceptual knowledge are as under:
The varieties of the same are recollection, recognition, inductive reasoning, inference, and authority.'!
1 Thitavršeşaninayocavah. Pramāņa-mimamsā, I, I. 28. 2 Smythetudbāranā. ibid., I, I, 29. 3 dorsalah parokşam. ibid., 1, 2, I.
Ispastan parokşam. Pramāņa-naya-taltvāloka, III, 1. 1 Smarana pratyabhunatarkinumanagamabhedatastat pancapvakāram.
ibid , III, 2.
1.4

Page #130

106
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
RECOLLECTION
Recollection is a cognition which has for its condition the stimulation of a memory-impression (retention ) and which refers to its content by a form of the pronoun 'that.'1
When requisite conditions such as the elimination and subsidence of obstructive veils, observation of similar objects, and the like (similarity, contiguity, and contrast of modern psychology) are at work to bring it to maturation, recollection occurs. And so the clause which has for its condition the stimulation of a memory-impression' has been stated. The phrase 'which refers to its content by a form of the pronoun that’ is inserted for setting forth its mode of communication.
It is Jainism alone that regards recollection (smyti) as a valid and independent means of cognition among all the philosophical systems in India. As a consequence, it has to face many objections from the side of opponents. How can recollection be a means of cognition when it is not cognisant of a datum perceived at present, and thus is found to lack an objective basis? This is an objection. The answer is: It is certainly possessed of an object that has been experienced in the past. The reality of the object, and not its actually felt presence is the condition of validity of â cognition. If it be contended, on the analogy of perception, that the object must be felt as present in order that the cognition may be valid, one might with equal force contend that perceptual cognition is invalid, since it is found to lack the criterion of referring to a fact that has been experienced in the past. If the opponent thinks that the revelation of the relevant object is the criterion of validity, it is found to be equally present in the case of recollection (memory) also. Another objection is that how can a dead object be the generating condition of recollection? The Jaina answers: It is your delusion that makes you think so. For validity of cognition, it is not necessary that the object must be the generating condition. For instance, light which comes into being on the operation of its own conditions reveals the objects jar and the like, though not generated by them, so also does a cognition reveal its object, though it is not produced by the object.
i l'asanodbodhahetukä tadityihira smytih. Pramāna-mimāṁsā, I, 2, 3.

Page #131

THEORY OF KXOWLEDGE
107 RECOGNITION
Recognition is a synthetic judgment born of observation and recollection as typified by such forms as 'that necessarily is it,'
it is like that,' 'that is dissimilar to that, this is different from that,' and the like.1
Observation is perceptual cognition. Recollection is an act of memory. These two are the conditions of recognition which is a kind of synthetic judgment. 'This is necessarily that jar,' and the like are the cases of judgment of identity. “This is like that,' e.g., 'the gayal (gatava) is like the cow' is the judgment of similarity (analogy ). This is dissimilar to that,' e.g., 'the buffalo is different from the cow' is the judgment of dissimilarity. * This is less than, more than, farther than, nearer than,' etc., are examples of the judgment of difference. Recognition is neither perception alone nor analogy exclusively. INDUCTIVE REASONING
Inductive reasoning is the knowledge of universal concomitance conditioned by observation (upalambha) and non-observation (anupalambha )
Observation means the knowledge of existence of the major term (sādhva ) on the existence of the middle term (linça).
Non-observation stands for the knowledge of non-existence of the middle term where there is no major term.
Now, it should not be maintained that such knowledge of universal concomitance is derived exclusively from perceptual cognition. It is beyond the capacity of perception to derive the knowledge of universal concomitance, since our empirical perception is limited, whereas the knowledge of universal concomitance is unlimited. In other words, perception is not discursive and owes its genesis to the influence exerted by a datum that is present in a limited sense.
Nor can it be maintained that such knowledge is obtained by inference, since inference itself is not possible in the absence of
i Darśanasmaranasabhavan tadecedar tatsadyśani tadvilaksanavi
tatpratrvogitrādısankalanari pratyabhijñānam. Pramāņa-mimāmsā,
I, 2, +. 2 C palambhānu halainbhanumittarit t''äptiānamihah. ibid., 1, 2, 5.

Page #132

IOS
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
universal concomitance. In other words, the knowledge of universal concomitance has been apprehended as an antecedent condition of inference. Such being the case, how is it possible that the knowledge of universal concomitance, i.e., inductive reasoning can be obtained by inference? It follows, therefore, that reasoning is a separate means of knowledge which serves to give knowledge of universal concomitance which is not apprehended by any other recognised means. It is known as tarka or ūha.
Now, what is universal concomitance? Hemacandra defines it in the following terms: 'Universal concomitance consists in the
occurrence necessarily' of the determinant concomitant (major term-vyāpaka) on the occurrence of the determinate concomitant (middle term-uvāpva), or the occurrence of the determinate concomitant exclusively in the !ocus' where the major term occurs.' 1
The uniform characteristic of both the middle and major terms has been regarded as follows: The major necessarily exists in the locus in which the middle occurs, and as for the middle, it occurs exclusively in a locus where the niajor exists. If this necessary restriction were reversed, the concomitance between the middle and major terms will not be necessary ( universal).2 INFERENCE
Now, we define inference which comes next in order. Inference is the knowledge of the probandum ( sūdhya) on the strength of the probans (sādhana ).3
The knowledge of the probandum, which is of the nature of authentic cognition of a real fact, and which arises from a probans either observed or expressly stated, is called inference (anumāna).
It is of two kinds: for one's own self (subjective) and for others ( syllogistic ). SUBJECTIVE INFERENCE
Subjective inference consists in the knowledge of the probandum from the probans ascertained by one's own self, as having the sole
1 yaptırova baka sya l'vāpye suti bhita eva, vy s va a tatraita
Bhävah Pramāņa-mimamsā, I, 2, 6 2 Linge lingi bhavatyeva linginyeretarat penah, nivamusva izparyāse
sambandha lingalinginoh. 3 Sadhanät sādhvarijñānamanumānam. ibid , I, 2, 7.

Page #133

and solitary characteristic of standing in necessary concomitance with the probandum.1
THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
Necessary concomitance with the probandum means the impossibility of the probans apart from the probandum. The knowledge of the probandum from such a probans definitely cognised by the arguer himself as having for sole and solitary characteristic of inseparable relation with the probandum is called subjective inference.
Inseparable relationship is further defined as consisting in the universal necessity of synchronous and successive occurrence of simultaneous and successive events.2 Synchronous events are those which are the co-products of the same set of causal conditions such as colour and taste of a fruit and the like. Successive events are those which occur in succession, as for instance, the appearance of kyttikā and śakața; or which are related as effect and cause, e.g., smoke and fire. The necessity of the simultaneity of synchronous events and the necessity of the succession of successive events, is what is meant by inseparable relationship or universal concomitance. The triple characteristic of the Buddhists and the quantuple characteristic of the Naiyayikas are nothing but an elaboration of universal
concomitance.
109
PROBANS
The probans (sadhana) is of five types: essential identity, cause, effect, co-inherent in the same substratum, and opposite.3 Of these, the essential identity is illustrated by the attribute of 'being a product' or 'audible' with regard to the inference of impermanence in a word. Word is impermanent, because it is a product or because it is audible.
1
The cause is illustrated by the attention of a particular type of cloud with regard to the inference of shower of rain.
2
3
Svartham saniścitasādkṣāvinābhāvarkalakṣanāt sadhanat sadhyajñānam. Pramāņa-mimāmsā, I, 2, 9.
Sahakramabhāvinch sahakramabḥāvanıyamôvinābhāvah.
ibid., I, 2, 10
Svabhavah karanam karyamekārtha samavāvi virolhi ceti pañcadha sadhanam. ibid., I, 2, 12.

Page #134

IIO
OUTLINES OF JAIXA PHILOSOPHY
The effect is illustrated by such instances as the appearance of a particular type of flood serving as the probans of rainfall, smoke serving as the probans of fire, life serving as the probans of consciousness.
The co-inherent in the same substratum is illustrated by colour and taste belonging to one and the same fruit, by the emergence of sakata and kyttikā, by the moon-rise and the sea-tide.
As regards the opposite, it is what is opposed to the negatum or to the effect, etc. As for example, there is no touch of cold herein, as fire is present: the causal conditions of cold with their powers unfrustrated cannot be present here, as fire is present in this place. SYLLOGISTIC INFERENCE
Subjective inference has been defined. Now, we propose to give the definition of syllogistic inference. Syllogistic inference is definite cognition resulting from a statement of a probans having the characteristic of necessary concomitance with the probandum.' The definite authentic cognition of a fact that arises from a statement of a person having the sole and solitary characteristic of necessary concomitance with probandum, is designated as syllogistic inference'. In other words, it is the knowledge of the probandum derived from the communication made by another person.
The syllogistic statement has two different types. The first type is due to the consideration of the logical possibility on the necessary occurrence of the probandum. In other words, when the possibility of probans is understood to be necessarily dependent on the occurrence of the probandum, the first type is there. The second type arises from the consideration of the impossibility of the probans in the absence of the probandum. Take some concrete example: The hill is on fire, because the logical possibility of its being possessed of smoke is intelligible only on that condition; or, because the fact of its possession of smoke would become logically impossible in the absence of fire. The difference of syllogistic inference is conditioned merely by this difference of form and not a real difference. In other words,
1 Yatho bta dhanibhithanara! narartham. Pramāna-mimārisā,
II, I, I.

Page #135

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
III
the difference between these two is not in respect of ultimate intention but is merely formal. For this very reason, the statement of both the propositions is not necessary. PARTS OF THE SILLOGISMI
Philosophers of different schools hold diferent views with regard to the constitution of the syllogism. For instance, the Sankhyas maintain that a syllogism consists of three parts, viz., thesis, reason, and example. The Jimāmsakas assert four parts with the addition of application. The Vaivāyikas assert five parts with the addition of conclusion. Such being the case, the question naturally arises : What is the proper form of a syllogism ? The Jaina thinkers answer: 'The thesis and reason constitute a syllogism adequate for a knowledgeable person.'l In obligation to the pledge of edification of a pupil or any layman, the syllogism may have five propositions also, viz., thesis, reason, example, application, and conclusion. As has been remarked by Bhadrabăhu: "The syllogism is said to consist of five parts or of ten parts in the alternative. We denounce neither but accept both as legitimate.'? THESIS
Now, we set forth the definition of thesis that comes first in order: Thesis is the statement of the theme to be proved.'3 It is called pratijā or paksu. This hill is possessed of fire' is a typical illustration. REASON
The definition of reason is as follows: Statement of a probans ending in an inflexion (vibhakti) unfolding the character of probans is called reason.?! A particular type of statement unfolding the character of probans is known as reason. The inflexion is either the fifth or the third case-ending in Sanskrit and such words as 'because' or 'since'prefixed to it in English. As for instance, (this hill is possessed of fire) 'because it has smoke or smoke is impossible in its absence.' The existence of
1 Etütrin preksa pravogah. Pramīna-mimārsā, II, I, 9. 2 Kaithar pajichuyaiuri da suhu di sai'i'ahii na palikuthan tz
Da'araikālıkā-niryukti, 30. 3 Sädhyanirdesah pruijit Pramana-mimarisi, II, I, II. 4 Sūdhunathbhreyaijakainihakivaitai sidhanai'acanari hetuthibid, II,
I, I2

Page #136

OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
smoke is logically justifiable only on the condition of its positive concomitance with fire or the existence of smoke is logically impossible unless the said concomitance be a fact.
112
EXAMPLE
Example is the statement of an illustration.1 It is a statement which sets forth an illustration. It is also of two kinds on account of the difference of illustrations. The statement of an illustration based upon similarity of attribute is called 'homogeneous example' (sadharmya dṛṣṭanta). Whatever is possessed of smoke is possessed of fire, as for example, an oven' is a typical instance. 'Heterogeneous example (vaidharmya drṣṭanta) is the statement of an illustration in dissimilarity. 'Whatever is possessed of the absence of fire is possessed of the absence of smoke, as for example, a lake' may be cited as a typical case.
APPLICATION
Application is the act of bringing the probans into connection with the minor term (dharmin.)2 The proposition 'it is possessed of smoke' is a typical example of the same.
CONCLUSION
Conclusion is the predication of the probandum.3 proposition Therefore it is possessed of fire' is an illustration.
The complete form of the proposition of the syllogism is like this: This hill is possessed of fire, because it has smoke; whatever is possessed of smoke is possessed of fire as for example, an oven; it is possessed of smoke, therefore it is possessed of fire.
Or
This hill is possessed of fire because smoke is impossible in its absence; whatever is possessed of the absence of fire is possessed of the absence of smoke, as for example, a lake; it is possessed of smoke, therefore it is possessed of fire.
1
2
The
3
Dṛṣṭantavacanamudaharanam. Pramāņa-mimämsä, II, 1, 13
'Hetoh sadhyadharminyupasamharanamupanayah yatha dhumaścātra
pradese. Pramāṇa-naya-tattväloka, III, 49-50.
Sadhyadharmasya punarnigamanam, yatha tasmādagniratra
1bid., III, 51-2.

Page #137

THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE
AUTHORITY
We have dealt with recollection, recognition, inductive reasoning, and inference. The fifth division of non-perceptual cognition, viz., authority still remains to be defined. We now propose to
deal with it.
The knowledge produced by the word of a reliable source is called authority.1 It is also known as 'verbal testimony' or 'word.' The reliable source is that person who knows the object as it is and describes it as he knows it. He who possesses right knowledge and makes a right judgment is said to be reliable or upta. Such a reliable person cannot tell a lie. His proposition is always true. Hence, he is authority. His word' is also known as testimony. The authority is of two kinds: ordinary and extraordinary, i.e., laukika and alaukika, respectively. The ordinary authority is father, etc. The omniscient is an example of extraordinary authority.
1
113
The Agika conception of knowledge can be covered by the logical division of cognition in the following style: Avadhi-jñāna (clairvoyance), manaḥparyaya-jñāna ( telepathy) and kevala-jñāna ( omniscience) are styled as transcendental perception. Matijñāna (sensory and intellectual knowledge) is occupied by empirical perception, recollection, recognition, inductive reasoning, and inference. Śruta-jñāna (scriptural knowledge) is called authority, verbal testimony, scriptural testimony, or 'Word.'
15
Pramana-naya-tattvaloka, IV, 1.

Page #138

CHAPTER V RELATIVITY OF JUDGMENT
ACCORDING to Jainism any object that is real has three
fundamental characteristics, viz., origination, decay, and permanence. Every object that seems to be permanent is liable to both origination and decay. In the same way, every thing that seems to originate and perish has an aspect of permanence. All things including the flame of a lamp which is generally believed to be momentary and space that is believed to be permanent are subject to the law of origination, decay, and permanence. The Taina thinkers reject the definition of permanence (nitvatva ) given by other schools. They do not believe in absolute changelessness. According to the Jainas, the permanent is that which continues to exist in spite of origination and decay. They argue what would origination and decay belong to, if nothing continues ? A continuous reality must be posited for the very possibility of origination and decay. Modes, i.e., origination and decay and essence, i.e., permanence exist together in a substance. Neither is origination possible without decay and permanence, nor is decay possible in the absence of origination and permanence, nor is permanence tenable without origination and decay. All the three retain their respective existence on the basis of mutual co-operation. They are not heterogeneous elements, as generally supposed, but they possess the nature of homogeneous elements. Jainism differs equally from those who hold that all is absolutely permanent, and those who hold that all is absolutely momentary, and also from those who hold that some things are absolutely permanent and some absolutely momentary. According to Jaina philosophy, all are both permanent and momentary. This criterion belongs to all objects. Moreover, all objects are interrelated to each other. The individual form of an object cannot be established unless the knowledge of its inter-relations is assumed. When we speak of a human being, the relative knowledge of objects other than the human being springs up of itself. Similarly, when we speak of Europeans, the idea of non-Europeans springs up naturally. Similarly, when we speak of Indians, the

Page #139

RELATIVITY OF JUDGMENT
115
idea of non-Indians spontaneously springs up. The idea of virtue suggests the idea of vice and so on. Thus, the knowledge of one substance or object suggests the relative knowledge of other substances or objects. Lord Mahāvīra, keeping this in view, said that a man who knows only one object with all its properties, knows all things. He, who knows all things with all their properties, knows one thing.1 Thus, the Jaina philosopher advocates the doctrine of non-absolutism. Every judgment of a Jaina thinker bears the conception of non-absolutism in its heart. He makes no judgment that goes against the spirit of non-absolutism.
TRACES IN THE CANONS
The theory of non-absolutism is not an innovation of the later philosophers who propounded the sacred teachings of the Great Teacher Lord Mahavira. The Lord himself preached this philosophical doctrine and the later followers put it into a systematic and logical form. While describing the nature of soul (jiva), Mahāvīra addressed Gautama: "O Gautama! from one point of view the soul is permanent, from another point of view the soul is not permanent. From the view-point of substance the soul is permanent, from the view-point of modes the soul is not permanent."2
Lord Mahavira emphasised the identity of soul and knowledge from one stand-point. In the Acārānga-sūtra it is said: Soul is knowledge and knowledge is soul...3 From another point of view he emphasised the difference of various modes and according to those modes, the soul was classified. We find in the Bhagavatisutra: "O Lord! how many kinds of soul are there?" "O Gautama! the soul is said to be of eight kinds, viz., dravya-ātmā (from the point of view of substance), kaṣaya-ātmā (from the point of view of passion).....
"11
Similarly, the medium of motion is said to be one as well as many. From the stand-point of substance (dravya), the medium
Je egam janai se sarvam janar. Je savam jāņa se egam jāņai. 2 Goyamā! jīvā siya sāsayā siya sasaya bhavaṭṭhavãe asa savā
3 Je aya se vinnāyā..... Bhagavati-sutra, XII, 10, 467.
4
1
Acaranga-sūtra, I, 3, 4, 122. asasaya Goyama davvatthayae Bhagavati-sutra, VII, 2, 273

Page #140

116
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
of motion is one and from the view-point of units (pradeśas) it is innumerable.1 The same method can be applied to the medium of rest, etc.
CAUSE AND EFFECT
In other
Whether the effect exits in the cause or is it a new outcome? Those philosophers who admit that the effect is not a new product but that it does exist in the cause, are known as 'Satkāryavadins.' Those thinkers who do not believe in this doctrine but hold that the effect is entirely a new outcome and that it does not exist in the cause, are called 'Asatkāryavādins.' The schools of Indian philosophy believing in the theory of satkaryavāda' are Sankhya, Yoga, and Vedanta. The Asatkāryavādins are Cārvāka, Buddhism, Nyaya-Vaiseṣika, and Mīmāmsă (one sect). Jainism does not regard these views as valid in their absolute forms. According to its doctrine of non-absolutism, the effect is neither absolutely identical with the cause nor absolutely different from it. The cause remains in the effect as an essence and not as a mode. The effect is new in the shape of a mode and not as the essence. words, the essential quality remains unchanged, while the mode is changed. When we say that the effect is new, we mean only that the mode is new. When we admit that the effect is not new, we mean by this that the essence is the same. That which exists can never be absolutely non-existent and that which does not exist at all can never come into existence. An existent object cannot be destroyed and a non-existent object cannot be originated. Hence, from one point of view, the effect does not exist in the cause. It is a new outcome. From another point of view, it can be maintained that the effect does exist in the cause. Both these stand-points are right so far as they are not absolute. We cannot define the theory of causation in an exclusive manner. Unless the doctrine of causation in the form of sad-asatkaryavāda' is accepted, it is not possible to have a true picture of reality.
Thus, the so-called opposites such as existence and non-existence, permanence and non-permanence, identity and difference, oneness and maniness, etc., can be attributed to an object from various points of view. These opposites should not be taken to be absolutely heterogeneous. They can remain in the same
1 Prajñāpanā-pada, III, 56.

Page #141

RELATIVITY OF JUDGMENT
117
object without contradicting each other. Besides, the object requires these opposites to depict its complete and real picture. In the absence of these opposites, the existence of an object is impossible. When we say that an object exists, we only mean by this statement that in a certain respect it exists. When we make a statement that an object does not exist, we only mean that from a particular point of view, it does not exist. We cannot say that it absolutely exists or it does not exist absolutely. As it is remarked: Everything exists in its own individuality, and does not exist in the individuality of another. Were it not so, everything would be alike existent, and thus, there would possibly be no individuality at all.'1
ANEKANTA, ANEKANTAVADA, AND SYADVADA
According to Jainism, a particular object can be viewed from different points of view. It can be existent, non-existent, one, many, identical, different, and the like. It possesses indefinite attributes. These attributes or characteristics ( dharmas) are not conceptual but they really exist in the object. We select some of the aspects when we make any judgment. Anekanta is the name of the ontological nature of Reality, according to which every object possesses indefinite aspects. When we speak of a particular aspect, we have to use the word syut,' i.e., from a particular point of view or as related to this aspect, this object is such and not otherwise. As for instance, when we speak of the aspect of existence of a pot, we choose the existence' aspect of that pot which possesses many other aspects as well. We make a statement about the aspect of existence, i.e., in relation to the aspect of existence, the pot exists. Take another example: Mohan is a father, brother, uncle, etc., according to various relations. is the father of his son, the brother of his brother, and so on. When his son calls him, he uses the word 'father.' Now, Mohan possesses many aspects like those of father, brother, etc. In relation to his son, he is father. Thus, Mohan is a father as related to his son, i.e., relatively Mohan is a father. Thus, 'Syādvāda,' i.e., the theory of the relativity of propositions is the theory of the relativity of judgment. When an object, which is anekānṭātmaka (possessing many characteristics), is expressed in a particular
He
1
*
Sarvamasti searupeņa pavarupeņa nāsti ca. Anyatha sarvasat cam syāt svarūþaṣṣāpyasambhovah.

Page #142

118
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
form of judgment, the expression is known as Syādväda. We can express the characteristics of an object from different points of view and these points of view are expressed by the word 'syāt.' As it is said: 'The judgment about an object possessing many characteristics is called 'Svadrāda.''1
The theory of 'Svādruīda' is also called ' Anekāntavāda' because the relativity of judgment is nothing but a relative judgment about an object that possesses indefinite aspects or qualities. In other words, the relative judgment is not possible unless the object for which that judgment stands, is anekāntātmaka Hence, the judgment that stands for an object possessing many characteristics (anekāntātınaka) is also known as Anekāntavāda. As it is maintained: 'In the term 'Svādvāda', the word 'svāt' expresses many aspects of an object, hence, Svādvāda' is called Anekāntavāda','2
Thus, the object itself is anekānta, i.e., the substratum of many characteristics. The judgment about the object is 'Syādvāda' because every characteristic is expressed with the word 'syāt'. This judgment is also called Anekāntavāda', since it expresses the object that possesses many characteristics. SEVEN-FOLD JUDGMENT
The object has been described as a possessor of indefinite characteristics. When we select one of the characteristics with its contrary aspect and judge it, this kind of judgment has seven forms, hence, it is called seven-fold judgment.3 The following are the seven propositions with reference to the concrete illustration of pot :1. Relatively the pot does exist. 2. Relatively the pot does not exist. 3. Relatively the pot does exist and does not exist. 4. Relatively the pot is indescribable. 5. Relatively the pot does exist and is indescribable. 6. Relatively the pot does not exist and is indescribable. 7. Relatively the pot does exist, does not exist, and is indescri
bable.
Daw
1 A nekāntātmakārthakathanan syādtāłaḥ. Laghiyastrava-tikā, 62. 2 Anya-yoga-vyavaccheda-dvātrimsıkı, 5. 3 Pramāņa-naya-tattvaloka, IV, 14.

Page #143

RELATIVITY OF JUDGMENT
119 In these propositions, the word 'relatively' is most significant. Every judgment bears the stamp of relativity, by which the notion of absolutism is refuted. All our judgments are relative, i.e., non-absolutistic. The proposition relatively the pot does exist'shows that from a particular point of view, the pot does exist. This particular point of view is determined by four factors. These factors are the substance, place, time, and mode as related to the pot. The explanation of these determining factors is as follows: (a) The substance of the pot is the clay of which it is made.
Viewed from the point of view of this particular substance,
the pot does exist. (6) The place of the pot points to the locality where it is lying.
As viewed from the point of view of a particular room, the
pot does exist. (c) The time of the existence of the pot is the present time in
which it exists. As viewed from the point of view of
eight o'clock, the pot does exist. (d) The mode of the pot points to the form or shape. Viewed
from the point of view of a particular form such as its contracted neck, the pot does exist. To be more clear, the proposition 'relatively the pot does exist' means that the pot does exist as far as its own individual form is concerned by reason of its substance, place, time, and mode. Its substance points to the clay of which it is made, its place is the locality in which it stands, its time is the present time in which it exists, and its mode points to its particular
form such as its contracted neck. The proposition 'relatively the pot does not exist' means that the pot does not exist if looked at from the point of view of the absence of the characteristics of its substance, place, time, and mode. To elucidate, the pot does not exist with reference to another substance such as gold, etc.; with reference to another place such as some other room, etc., with reference to the time preceding its manufacture or succeeding its destruction, i.e., the past and the future times; and with reference to other modes such as a broad neck, etc. In this proposition the pot is looked at from the point of view of the absence of the four determining

Page #144

120
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
factors that are ascribed to the aspect of existence. But it is not a proposition contradictory to the first proposition. It does not deny the existence of the pot in so far as its specific properties are concerned but denies its existence when other properties that are not positively present in it, are taken into consideration. This proposition stands from the point of view of the predominance of the aspect of non-existence.
The third proposition relatively the pot does exist and does not exist'is maintained on the ground that the pot does exist in reference to its own substance and does not exist with reference to the substance of other things. It does exist in its own place and does not exist in other places. It does exist in the present time and does not exist in the time preceding its manufacture or succeeding its destruction, i.e., the past and the future. The pot does exist in reference to its own form or mode and does not exist in reference to the modes or forms of other things. According to this proposition, the first part of the judgment is true from the point of view of the existence of the individual properties of the pot and the second part is true from the point of view of the non-existence of other properties in it. It means that the pot does exist from the standpoint of its individual properties and that it does not exist from the view-point of the absence of other qualities in it.
The fourth proposition relatively the pot is indescribable'is true if both the points of view of the previous propositions are assumed simultaneously. When both the views of existence and non-existence are taken at the same time, it becomes indescribable.
The fifth proposition relatively the pot does exist and is indescribable' means that the pot exists in regard to its existent form but it becomes indescribable if both its existent and nonexistent forms are considered simultaneously. It is indescribable. yet, it exists.
The sixth proposition relatively the pot does not exist and is indescribable' means that the pot does not exist in regard to its non-esistent aspects but looked at from the point of view of its existent and non-existent forms simultaneously it becomes indescribable. Here the point of view refers to the combination of indescriba bility and non-existence.

Page #145

RELATIVITY OF JUDGMENT
121
The seventh proposition relatively the pot does exist, does not exist, and is indescribable' means that the pot does exist owing to its own properties, does not exist in regard to its nonexistent characteristics, and is indescribable if both the points of view are assumed simultaneously. Here the point of view is dominated by the combination of indescribability, the existence, and the non-existence of the pot.
The point is that when the truth of a particular aspect of a thing is to be ascertained, it should not be examined only from one point of view. The Jainas hold that every aspect of an object can be viewed from seven stand-points, every one of which is true but the whole truth about that aspect lies in the combination of all these seven views. This seven-fold declaration of judgment in regard to everything, is a peculiar and unique method of the Jaina dialectic. Just as existence is applied to everything, so also the terms permanent and non-permanent, one and many, describable and indescribable, and the like can be applied to it. The propositions will be the same with the change of these words. For instance, relatively the pot is eternal (in view of its substance), relatively the pot is not eternal (in view of its changing forms). and so on.
The gist of the seven-fold judgment of the Jaina dialectic is as under: 1. Thesis (positive). 2. Anti-thesis (negative). 3. Aggregation (both positive and negative respectively). 4. Synthesis (both positive and negative simultaneously). 5. Thesis and synthesis (positive, and both positive and negative
simultaneously). 6. Anti-thesis and synthesis (negative, and both positive and
negative simultaneously). 7. Aggregation and synthesis (both positive and negative
respectively, and both positive and negative simultaneously).
Or I. Existence. 2. Von-existence. 3. Existence and non-existence.
16

Page #146

122
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY 4. Indescribability. 5. Existence and indescribability. 6. Non-existence and indescribability. 7. Existence, non-existence, and indescribability.
First of all we take the aspect 'existence. Then we come to the anti-aspect' non-existence. After it we put both 'existence' and 'non-existence' together respectively. Then we put both these existence' and 'non-existence' together simultaneously. We cannot describe both 'existence' and non-existence' simultaneously, since our proposition will necessarily have either of the two first. Hence, we call it indescribable. These four propositions are fundamental. When we add the first proposition to the fourth, the fifth proposition is there. Adding the second to the fourth, we derive the sixth one. Similarly, when we add the third proposition to the fourth, we naturally have the seventh category. The scheme is as under:
1. Existence. 2. Non-existence. 3. Existence and non-existence.
4. Indescribability. 1+1=5. Existence and indescribability. 2+4=6. Non-existence and indescribability. 3+4=7. Existence, non-existence, and indescribability.
This is the general view of the method of the Jaina dialectic. This dialectical method follows the theory of relativity of judgment, i.e., Syādvāda. In other words, Syādvāda can be represented only by this type of dialectical method. Syādvāda is said to be the foundation of Jaina philosophy. It is so important that the Jaina thinkers did not hesitate to put it on an equal status with omniscience (kerala-jñāna). As it is said: 'Both Syādvāda and kevala-iñāna illuminate the whole reality. The difference between them is only this much that while the former illuminates the objects indirectly, the latter illuminates them directly.'1
Every proposition of the dialectical seven-fold judgment is of two kinds: complete ( sakalādeśa) and incomplete (vikalādeśa).2
i Apta-mimāṁsā, 105. 2 Pramāņa-naya-tattvāloka, IV, 43

Page #147

RELATIVITY OF JUDGMENT
123 COMPLETE JUDGMENT
We know that an object possesses indefinite characteristics but it is not possible for us to describe all of them. To overcome this difficulty, we use only one word that describes one characteristic of that object, and hold the remaining characteristics to be identical with it. By this method we can describe all the characteristics of an object by the description of a particular aspect only. This type of proposition is called complete judgment. The identity of other aspects with a single aspect of an object is proved by the identity of time, etc.
The word 'existence' in the proposition relatively the pot does exist’ includes all other aspects of the pot through the identity of time, quality, substratum, relation, contributory part, residence of substance, association, and word. (1) Time ( kāla)-Time indicates that at the time when the
quality of existence is predicated of the pot, the qualities of redness, hardness, etc., can as well be predicated of it. In other words, the pot has many qualities or characteristics at the same time. Therefore, from the view-point of time, all the qualities of the pot are inseparate from one another. Thus, time bridges the difference existing in the various qualities and takes 'existence as identical with all the
qualities. (2) Quality ( ātma-rūpa) - Just as existence is the quality of the
pot, so also redness, hardness, etc., are its qualities. Hence, with regard to qualities, existence is not different
from redness, hardness, etc., in the case of the pot. (3) Substratum (artha) - In the same substratum where the charac
teristic of existence resides, the other qualities also reside. Hence, with reference to substratum, all other qualities are
identical with existence. (4) Relation (sambandha)--Just as the quality of existence is
related to the pot, so also the other qualities are related to it. Hence, from the view point of relation all other
qualities are not different from existence. (5) Contributory part (upakīra )-The part which the quality of
existence plays in regard to the pot, is also played by the
1 Syâdvăda-ratnākara, IV, 44.

Page #148

124
OL'TLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY other qualities of the pot. Thus, so far as the contributory part is concerned, there is no difference between existence
and all other qualities. (6) Residence of substance (guni-deśa )-In that place where the
pot exists, the quality of existence resides. In the same place the other qualities also reside. Hence, with reference to the residence of substance, the quality of existence is
identical with all other qualities. (7) Association ( samsarga) - Just as the quality of existence is
associated with the pot inseparably, so are all other qualities. Hence, from the point of view of association. there is identity in all different qualities. This is the identity of association.
(8) Word (sabda -Just as the quality of existence is signified by
the word 'is, so are the other qualities signified by it. Just as we propose a judgment relatively the pot is existent' so also we propose another judgment relatively the pot is red, hard, etc. Here, just as the quality of 'existence'is signified by the word 'is,' so are the other qualities signified by it. This is the indentity from the
stand-point of word. All these eight stand-points can be applied to the other qualities also in the same manner as they are applied to the quality of existence of the pot. This kind of judgment is called complete judgment. It is also called 'pramāņa-saptabhangi,' i.e., the seven-fold judgment of pramāņa.? INCOMPLETE JUDGMENT
While describing the nature of complete judgment, we saw that all qualities are identical with one quality attributed to it. In the case of incomplete judgment, the order is reversed.2 Every judgment presupposes some difference in every aspect or quality. In regard to a complete judgment, time, quality, etc., establish identity among various qualities, whereas with regard to an incomplete judgment, time, quality, etc., prepare the ground
1 Ratnākarávatārikā, IV', 44. 9 Tada parirastu vikalideśah. Pramāņa-naya-tattvāloka, IV, 45.

Page #149

RELATIVITY OF JUDGMENT
125
for difference among various qualities. This kind of judgment is called naya-saptabhangi.'
"
DEFINITION OF NAYA
Pramana or complete judgment describes the object with all its qualities. Naya or incomplete judgment holds any one of the qualities of that object and leaves the rest untouched. This does not mean that it rejects all other qualities except one. The point is that a particular naya (view-point) selects one of the indefinite number of qualities for its purpose, not rejecting the other ones but leaving them for other view-points (nayas). A judgment which accepts only one quality and rejects the remaining ones is fallacious (nayābhāsa).
If we look at an object from indefinite points of view, we can say that there are indefinite kinds of naya because the object is composed of indefinite characteristics and one naya knows only one characteristic. Looking at it from a specific point of view, it is maintained that nava is of two kinds: dravyastika (dealing with generality) and paryāyāstika (dealing with particularity).1 Dravyastika is the view of looking at the identity of things (abheda), while paryāyāstika is the view which looks at the difference of things. Man speaks of something either from the stand-point of identity or from that of difference. Statements of things from the former point of view are put under the head of draryāstika. Propositions of objects from the stand-point of difference fall under the category of paryāyāstika. Many minor classifications of things ranging between general (dravyästika) and particular (paryāyāstika) view-points are also possible. But briefly speaking, there can be only two groups of statements. The view-point of identity, upon which are founded the statements of generalisation is called dravyāstika naya, while the view-point upon which are founded the statements of particularisation is called paryāyāstika naya. Dravyastika naya is further divided into three categories: naigama, sangraha, and vyavahāra. The sub-divisions of paryāyāstika naya are four: rjusūtra, śahda, samabhiruḍha, and evambhūta.2
1 Sanmati-tarka-prakarana, I, 3.
2 Pramāṇa-naya-tattvaloka, VII, 6: VII, 27.

Page #150

126
NAIGAMA NAYA
It views an object as possessing both the general and particular properties, because no object is possessed of a general property unaccompanied with some particular property, nor even of a specific property unaccompanied with the general one common to its class. As for example, I am conscious' is a statement of naigama saya. Here the property 'consciousness' is a general quality that exists in all living beings, whereas 'I' indicates my particular nature, i.e., individuality.
SANGRAHA NAYA
It deals with the general properties of an object. As for instance, 'reality is one because it exists' is a proposition of Sangraha naya. It does not look at the particular properties of reality but regards the general property as its subject-matter. In its pure form, it is only concerned with the simple statement 'it is,' that is to say, when the thing is mentioned divested of all its particular attributes or modifications. All other statements deal, in one way or the other, with some attribute or the other, and as such is the subject of all navas.
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
VYAVAHARA NAYA
It takes into consideration a general object as possessing specific properties.3 It does not deal with generality in the sense as sangraha naya deals with it. Its subject-matter is only a part of the object of sangraha. In other words, it classifies the subjectmatter of sangraha in a particular fashion. 'Existence is either substance or modification' is an instance of vavahara naya.1 Here existence' is classified into two, viz., substance and modification.
RJUSUTRA NAYA
It does not trouble itself with the past and the future aspect of a thing; it is only confined to the present aspect of a thing because that alone is useful for the moment.5 The argument underlying the rjusūtra view-point is that of immediate utility
1
2 ibid., 6.
3 ibid., 8.
4
Naya-karṇikā, 5.
Pramāṇa-naya-tattvaloka, VII, 23-4.
ibid., VII, 28

Page #151

127
RELATIVITY OF JUDGMENT
which naturally must be grounded upon the present aspect of a thing. As for instance, I am happy at this moment,' is a proposition dealing with the present state of my happiness. SABDA NAYA
,
It treats synonymous words as all having the same sense, for instance, kumbha,'' kalaśa,' 'ghata' are all expressive of one and the same object, viz., a jar. The meaning is that sabda naya does not concern itself with the difference of synonymous words, but simply deals with them as if they were pure equivalents of one another.
SAMABHIRUDHA NAYA
It holds that with the difference of the words expressing the object, the significance of the object also differs; just as a jar and a piece of cloth are different, so also a jar (kumbha), a pitcher (kalasa), and a pot (ghața) signify different things according to their meanings.2 The point is that while the 'sabda' would treat synonyms as equivalent words, the 'samabhiruḍha' would distinguish them from one another on etymological grounds. EVAMBHUTA NAYA
It recognises an object denoted by a word only when the object is in the actual state of performing its own natural function as suggested by the derivative meaning of that word.3 The argument is that if a thing is not in the state of performing its function, as expressed by the term at the moment of recognition, and still it be recognised as that thing, then even a jar can be called a cloth, though it is not in the state of discharging the function of a cloth. Etymologically, evambhūta means 'true in its entirety to the word and the sense.' As for instance, 'go' (cow) means that which goes. If a cow is not going but sitting, she would not be called 'go' (cow) at that time. She is cow only when she goes.
PROVINCE OF NAYA
Dravyāstika naya and paryāyāstika naya are not absolutely different. Dravyastika includes in itself all those statements in
1 Naya-karṇikā, 14.
2 ibid., 15.
Pramāṇa-naya-tattväloka, VII, 40.
4 Gacchatiti gauh.'
3

Page #152

128
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
which there is some sort of general statement. In all such statements, there is an overlapping of paryāyāstika also. Only that statement where there is no further possibility of particularisation falls under the strict purview of pure paryayastika.1 The point is that as a rule, every statement that deals with some sort of universal statement is the legitimate province of dravyāstika. Except the
ultimate statement where there is a statement of that indivisible particularisation, all other statements gradually culminating in the statement of the highest universality fall under the purview of dravyāstika. But, at the same time, all these statements, except the statement of the highest universality, become the subject-matter of paryāyāstika as well. In other words, only one statement dealing with the highest entity without a single attribute, is covered by dravyāstika only. Only that statement which deals with ultimate particularisation beyond which there is no possibility of further particularisation, falls under the range of paryāyāstika only. All the intermediary statements are covered by paryayastika as well as dravyastika, for in every such intermediary statement there is some kind of generalisation as well as some sort of particularisation. That very object which is viewed by dravyāstika from the view-point of generalisation, is viewed by paryāyāstika from the stand-point of particularisation. This being the case, it is (perhaps) impossible to find a dravyāstika in its pure form, that is to say, absolutely unmixed with paryāyāstika. Similarly, it is equally impossible to find a paryāyāstika in its pure form totally unmixed with dravyastika. Hence, assigning a particular statement to a particular naya depends upon the volition of the speaker."2
The distinction between the proper province of these nayas is that dravyästika takes its stand excluding the positive assertion of paryāyāstika as its legitimate subject, while paryāyāstika views the same object exclusively from the stand-point of particularisation. Here, each does not consider the assertion of its rival naya as its property. Herein lies the true distinction between them and their spheres when applied to one and the same thing. The same fact is expressed in the following words: 'From the standpoint of paryāyāstika, all things are necessarily born and perish;
1 Sanmati-tarka-prakaraṇa, I, 8
2 ibid., I, 9

Page #153

RELATIVITY OF JUDGMENT
129 dravyāstika, on the other hand, holds that all things exist eternally without birth and decay. There cannot be a thing which is devoid of its modifications of birth and decay. On the other hand, modifications cannot exist without an abiding or eternal something, i.e., a permanent substance, for birth, decay, and permanence constitute the characteristic of a substance.'1 How these nayas become wrong in their absolutely exclusive assertion, is shown in the following statement: These three characteristics of origination, decay, and permanence must dwell together in harmony to make a real definition of a thing in its integral form. Each naya, therefore, if taken independently, isolated from the other, can never yield an adequate idea of 'sat. Both these, therefore, divorced from each other, are wrong (fallacious). As these two nayas when taken in their exclusiveness are false nayas, all other nayas (as naigama, śabda, etc.) are also wrong when taken in their isolated stand-points, for the subsequent nayas occupy themselves in viewing the different aspects of the thing which is the subject of these two principal nayas. Just as emerald and other jewels of rare quality and of excellent kind do not acquire the designation of a necklace of jewels, even though all of them be precious jewels, on account of their lying unconnected with or disunited with each other, similarly every naya in its own sphere is right, but if all of them arrogate to themselves the whole truth and disregard the views of rival naya, then they do not attain the status of a right view.'2
FALLACY OF NAYA
Nayas, taking their own view-points in an absolute form and rejecting or disregarding the stand-points of others are called fallacious nayas (nayābhāsas). There are the following seven fallacies according to the seven nayas :1. Fallacy of naigama naya.—It consists in making an absolute
separation between the general and particular properties of things. As for instance, if a proposition establishes a
1 Uppajjanti viyanti ya bhāvā niyamena pajjavaņayassa.
Davvatthiyassa savvam sayā aṇuppannamavinattham. Davvam pajjavaviuyam dávvavuuttā j'a pajj avā natthi. Uppāya-tthui-bhamgă hamdı datiyalakkhanavı eyam.
-Sanmati-tarka-prakarana, 1, 11-2: . ibid., I, 13; 1, 22-3.
. .
..
-
......
17

Page #154

130
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
separation between the individual self and consciousness as if they could be separated from one another, it is the
fallacy of naigama naya. 2. Fallacy of sangraha naya.-The fallacy of sangraha occurs when
we describe the general properties alone as constituting'a thing. This kind of fallacious proposition gives rise to confusion of thought, because the general qualities alone can never constitute an actual object. For instance, the general qualities of a tree only give us the idea of treeness, never an actual tree. The latter will have to be some particular kind of tree-an oak, a mango, or the like—and will, therefore, possess its own special qualities along with
those of a tree in general. 3. Fallacy of vyavahāra naya.-This type of fallacy lies in wrong
selection of species, as for instance, is the case with the materialists (Cārvākas) who select only four primary
elements as real. 4. Fallacy of rjusūtra naya.-It occurs when the permanence of
things is altogether denied. In this fallacy, every object is taken to be momentary without having any kind of
permanent or general feature. 5. Fallacy of śabda naya.---This kind of fallacy occurs when we
ignore the distinguishing features of śabda saya and deal with synonymous words as absolutely having the same
meaning. 6. Fallacy of samabhirūdha naya.—This type of fallacy consists in
treating the synonymous words as having absolutely
different meanings. 7. Fallacy of evambhūta naya.—It lies in making the existence of a
thing absolutely dependent on the performance of the special function with reference to which a particular name has been awarded to it, e.g., to say that a teacher outside the class is absolutely a non-teacher because he does not
teach at that time, is fallacious. REFUTATION OF SOME OBJECTIONS
The opponent who does not regard the nature of reality as a synthesis of identity and difference, and makes an absolute judg

Page #155

RELATIVITY OF JUDGMENT
131
ment about reality rejecting the relativity of propositions, raises the following objections: The exponents of the doctrine of the relativity of judgment or non-absolutism affirming the multiple nature of things reject the view that substance (essence) and mode are either absolutely different or absolutely identical and think that they are identical and different both. But this position cannot be legitimate, inasmuch as it is vitiated by contradiction and other defects as under : 1 1. Affirmation and negation cannot co-exist in one substratum like blue and not-blue owing to their mutual opposition. Therefore, it is contradictory to say that the same object is different as well as identical.
The answer is: There is no occasion for contradiction in a thing which is cognised as such. One thing is supposed to be the opposite of another when in the presence of one the other is not perceived. But in a perceived datum, no question of contradiction arises. As regards blue and not-blue, if they were perceived in one locus, there would be no contradiction in the situation, and thus, the Buddhists do not acknowledge the contradiction between blue and not-blue in the unitary cognition of a variegated canvas. And as regards the Nyāya-Vaiseșika philosopher, he admits the reality of multiform colour. Further, when one single piece of
en is found to possess in harmony the apparently opposed attributes of being mobile and immobile, red and not-red, covered and not-covered, what then is the ground for doubt ? 2. If difference is affirmed in respect of one aspect and identity in respect of another, the result will be that the difference will have one locus and identity another and thus, there will be a split in the integrity of the locus.
This kind of objection is not tenable because in conformity with the principle mentioned above, they have all been proved to be perceived in the same locus. The same cloth is mobile and immobile and the like. 3. The aspect in which difference is posited will have difference and identity both as its traits, and likewise the aspect in which identity is asserted will have identity and difference as its
1 Critique of Organ of Knowledge, p. 73.

Page #156

132
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
predicate, and this means confusion ( sankara) which consists in the incidence of opposite attributes in the same substratum.
As regards the charge of confusion, it is easily parried by the instance of the cognition of the multiform colour, and the instance of the synthesis of universal and particular in all reals. 4. The aspect which embodies difference will embody identity also, and the aspect which embodies identity will embody difference, and this, thus, gives rise to the fallacy of transfusion (the exchange of modes and attributes ).
This charge is easily met by the same example of the cognition of the multiform colour and the synthesis of universal and particular. 5. A real being both identical and different will not lend itself to be determined in a definite reference, and this would create doubt. 6. The consequence will be the absence of determination. 7. This will result in the impossibility of determination of objective reality.
Regarding these objections, there is no logical justification for the emergence of doubt in a matter which has been definitely established. Doubt is a kind of cognition in which the mind wavers between two conflicting alternatives. It is absolutely out of the question when the cognition is found to be unwavering. The establishment of knowledge proves that there is no justification for the charge of lack of knowledge, and consequently for the impossibility of such a multiform real. The conclusion follows that the conception of Reality as a synthesis of mode and attribute is not incompatible with the verdict of experience and the interest of truth. Our judgment with regard to Reality as a synthesis of mode and attribute has no other alternative than to be relative. Hence, the relativity of judgment and Reality as a synthesis of identity and difference are co-related.

Page #157

CHAPTER VI
DOCTRINE OF KARMA
ALL phenomena of the universe are linked together in the
universal chain of cause and effect. No event can occur without having a definite cause behind it. To find out the cause and condition under which an effect is produced has always been the aim of the various branches of science and philosophy. Almost all branches of science and philosophy in the world unanimously declare that the law of cause and effect is the most universal of all laws. It is the only law which governs all phenomena however gross or fine they may be. All the forces of nature whether physical or psychical obey this law. Every action of our body, speech, or mind is the result of some force or power which is its cause. At the same time, that which is an effect of some cause becomes in turn the cause of some other effect and thus, the chain goes on extending its sphere.
Under the sway of the all-pervading law of causation, there is no room left for chance or accident. What we generally regard as an accidental event is really a product of some definite cause which is not known to us on account of our limited knowledge. In other words, accidents are not fortuitous but they have some definite cause behind them, although we are not always aware of it on account of the limitations of our knowledge. In ancient times, when the scope of knowledge of people was extremely limited, they used to explain accidental events by attributing them to some supernatural powers. Such accidental effects of unknown causes were called Providential. Really speaking, all accidents have their definite causes whether we know them or not. That which appears to be supernatural or Providential to an unscientific mind, is natural or causal and not supernatural or accidental to a scientific mind.
MEANING OF KARMA
The Jaina thinkers do not regard this universe as a mere aggregate of the six substances set together by some supernatural

Page #158

134
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
authority. They hold that it is a system in itself, subject to some definite laws inherent in its own constitution. Certain phenomena occur regularly in certain circumstances and not otherwise. There is a universal law of causation operating in the universe. The phenomena of life and consciousness are not similar to the phenomena of matter or energy. In pure material activity, there is growth by addition in dead objects which is a product of chemical law only, whereas a conscious being takes to itself particles foreign to those that are already in the body and changes their nature and assimilates them with its own body. Moreover, living beings reproduce themselves in their species. These characteristics are not possessed by dead matter. Jainism regards souls to be real and indefinite in number. Each soul possesses some individual characteristics different from others. The doctrine which gives us some explanation of our individual characteristics, i.e., some satisfactory answer to the factors of our individuality which we have at present and tells us how these factors were produced as the result of the forces generated in the past is known as the doctrine of karma. In other words, the doctrine of karma is the law that interprets our actions and reactions found in the form of introspection as well as behaviour.
According to Jaina philosophy, every individual soul possesses infinite intuition, infinite knowledge, infinite power, and infinite bliss. All these attributes belong by nature to every soul in its perfection. Mundane souls are not perfect because their knowledge, energy, etc., are found to be restricted. They are not perfectly free to enjoy complete knowledge and unrestricted bliss. Why is it so? What restricts their innate faculty of knowing, etc.? The answer is: They are infected by something foreign which veils their natural faculties. This foreign element is known as karma. Jainism does not mean by karma 'work or deed. According to Jaina conception, karma is an aggregate of material particles which are very fine and are imperceptible to the senses. It enters into the soul and produces changes in it. It is a forni of matter which produces certain conditions in the mundane souls that are suffering from the shackles of birth and death from beginningless time.
The entire cosmos is full of that kind of fine matter which can become karma. Through the actions of body, mind, and speech,

Page #159

DOCTRINE OF KARMA
135 the fine matter gets into the soul and is tied to it according to the modifications of consciousness consisting of kasāyas, i.e., anger, pride, deceit, and greed. Therefore, first of all there is an influx of karmic particles and then there occur certain activities of mind which are responsible for the actual bondage. In the state of bondage, soul and karma are more intimate than milk and water. Once matter enters the soul, it causes various kinds of effect on it. The bondage is of four kinds: according to its nature, duration, intensity, and quantity. The activities of thought, speech, and body are responsible for the nature and quantity. The duration and intensity result from attachment and a version. Karma may remain latent in the soul for a definite period without emerging into appearance. When the moment for its enjoyment arrives, it becomes apparent and releases itself.
As has already been mentioned, the soul has been eternally infected by matter, i.e., its association with karma has no beginning. Moreover, it is gathering new matter every moment. The liberation of soul from matter is possible by certain means. The soul must stop the influx of new karmas and eliminate the acquired ones. Through this twofold method, it can attain the ultimate goal, i.e., emancipation. All obstacles which impede the manifestation of its true nature are then automatically overcome, because it is released from the foreign domination of karma. This being the situation, when liberation is attained it can undisturbedly make manifest its own innate nature, i.e., infinite knowledge, etc. FOUR KINDS OF BONDAGE
The atoms that have become karma can be contemplated from four points of view : 1. According to their nature ( prakrti). 2. According to their duration (sthiti). 3. According to their intensity (rasa or anubhāga). 4. According to their quantity (pradeśas ),1 NATURE
It has eight fundamental species (müla prakytis):2 1. Knowledge-obscuring karma (jñānāvarana),
1 Karma-grantha, I, 2. 2 ibid, I, 3.

Page #160

136
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY 2. Intuition-obscuring karma (darśanāvaraña), Ž. Feeling-producing karma (vedanīya ), 4. Belief and conduct-obstructing karma nohaniya), 5. Age-determining karma (āyus ), 6. Personality-determining karma (nāman), 7. Status-determining karma (gotra), 8. Power-hindering karma ( antarāya).
Each of these eight species is divided into a number of subspecies (uttara-prakytis). The latter can be further classified into yet smaller sub-divisions, so that the entire number of karmas is exceedingly large. For our present purpose, only the eight chief species and the 158 sub-species are of importance. KNOWLEDGE-OBSCURING KARMA
That karma which obscures the knowing faculty of soul is known as knowledge-obscuring karma, i.e., jñānāvarana karma. It is divided into five sub-species ( uttara prakrtis ) according to the five kinds of knowledge : 1. Mati-jñānāvaraṇa karma.-It causes the obscuration of the
knowledge acquired through the media of senses and mind. 2. Sruta-jñānāvarṇa karma-It produces the obscuration of the
knowledge acquired by reading or hearing scriptures or by
the words of an authority. 3. Avadhi-jñānāvaraṇa karma.—It hinders direct knowledge of
material objects. 4. Manahparyāya-jñānāvaraṇa karma.-It obscures transcend
ental knowledge of the thoughts of others. 5. Kevala-jñānāvarana karma.-It hinders the faculty of omni
science inherent in a soul by natural disposition. INTUITION-OBSCURING KARMA
This kind of karma is called darśanāvarana karma. In Jaina philosophy, the word 'darśana’ is used to signify two meanings. Firstly, it means belief, opinion, or faith. Secondly, it has also the meaning the awareness of an object or the cognition of a thing in its general form. It is the first stage of knowledge which is known as indistinct knowledge. In ‘darśanāvarana karma 'the
1 Karma-grantha, I, 4; I, 9.

Page #161

DOCTRINE OF KARMA
137
word 'darśana' is meant to signify the second meaning. It can be translated as intuition, indeterminate perception, indistinct knowledge, undifferentiated cognition, or perception in the sense of general cognition. That karma which obscures the faculty of intuition is called intuition-obscuring karma. It is of nine subspecies according to the four species of intuition and five kinds of sleep. I. Caksurdarśanāvarana karma...It produces the obscuration of the intuition conditional upon the eye. 2. Acakşurdarśnāvarana karma.—This species causes the obstruction of the intuition conditional upon the four senses (other than the eye) and mind. 3. Avadhi-darśanāvaraṇa karma.-It hinders the faculty of transcendental intuition of material things. 4. Kevala-darśanāvaraṇa karma. It produces the obstruction of the faculty of complete intuition. 5. Nidrā karma.-This type of karma causes a light and pleasant sleep, out of which the sleeper is aroused by the clicking of fingernails or by a slight call. 6. Nidrānidrā karma.-This type of karma produces a deep sleep, out of which the sleeper can be awakened by being shaken violently. 7. Pracalā karma.--It causes a sound slumber which overtakes a person while sitting or standing. 8. Pracalāpracalā karma.—This species of karma causes intensive sleep that overcomes a person while walking. 9. Styānagyddhi karma.—It produced somnambulism. This kind of sleep is also called 'styānarddhi. The person possessing this kind of slumber unconsciously acts in the state of sleeping but forgets what he did when he wakes.
FEELING-PRODUCING KARMA
The feeling of pleasure and pain is caused by this species of karma known as vedaniya karma. It has, therefore, two subspecies: 2
1 Krama-grantha, 1, 10-12. ? ibid., I, 12.
18

Page #162

138
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
1. Sata-vadaniya karma.-It causes a feeling of pleasure as for instance, we have the feeling of pleasure by licking something sweet like honey, etc.
2. Asata-vedaniya karma.-It produces the feeling of pain as for example, pain is produced if one is hurt by a sword.
The sātā-vedaniya is predominant with gods and human beings, although pain can be produced with the former at the time of the downfall from the heavenly world and with the latter through cold and heat, death and accident, and the like. Animal beings and beings of hell experience chiefly the asata-vedaniya, although on some occasions, they also experience a feeling of pleasure.1 BELIEF AND CONDUCT-OBSCURING KARMA
This kind of karma obstructs true faith and right conduct. It is called mohaniya karma. It has two chief divisions: obstruction of belief and obstruction of conduct, i.e., darśana-mohaniya and caritra-mohaniya.
(a) Darśana-mohaniya karma.--It produces an obstruction of the faith of the true nature of objects. The obstruction is further divided into three sub-species:
1. Mithyātva mohaniya.-It produces complete wrong belief or heterodoxy. The soul possessing this kind of mohaniya karma does not believe in the truths as proclaimed by a true authority but believes false prophets who enjoin false doctrines to be saints.
2. Samyaktva mohaniya-It induces correct belief. It is not the right faith in its completeness but only in a preliminary degree. The true belief in its completeness is obtained only when the samyaktva mohaniya karma is entirely destroyed, as for instance, the sun which is covered by white clouds only shines perfectly after the clouds have been removed.
3. Miśra mohaniya-It produces a mixed belief having some degree of truth and some of falsity. In other words, it causes a kind of indifference between true faith and false belief. It is a mixture of both samyaktva mohaniya and
1 Commentary on Karma-grantha, I, 13.

Page #163

DOCTRINE OF KARMA
139
mithvātva mohaniva. That is why it is also called samyag
mithyātva mohaniva. (6) Căritra-mohanīya karma--This kind of mchanīva karma obscures right conduct which is the innate property of soul. It obstructs the soul from acting according to the right prescriptions of scriptures or any authoritative sources. The obstruction of conduct is produced through the sixteen passions ( kasăvas) and nine quasi-passions (no-kaşāvas): (i) Kaşāya--There are four chief kaștīvas : anger (krodha), pride
(māna), deceit (māyā), and greed (lobha). Each of these is again classified into four sub-divisions according to the intensity of their nature. The four sub-divisions are: I. Anantānubandhin-It completely hinders right belief and
conduct. The soul possessing anantānubandhin anger, etc., can never have right belief and conduct. It lasts for the
whole of life. 2. Apratyākhyānārarana-It hinders partial self-discipline but
allows the existence of true belief. It lasts for one year. 3. Pratyākhyānararana-It obstructs the beginning of complete
self-discipline or renunciation but does not prevent the existence of right belief and partial self-discipline. It lasts
for four months. 4. Sañjvalana-It hinders the attainment of complete right
conduct (yathākhvāta caritra). Its effect lasts for one
fortnight. (ii) No-kaṣāya-Quasi-passions are divided into nine categories: 1. Hāsva—Laughing and joking fall under this category. 2. Rati—Proper or improper liking for a certain object is called
rati. 3. Arati—Proper or improper disliking for a particular thing is
named arati. 4. Soka-Sorrow for an object is known as soka. 5. Bhaya--Fear is caused by bhaya karma. 6. Jugupsā—It is a kind of disgust. 7. Puruşa-veda—Through this, in the male the desire for union
with a female is produced,

Page #164

140
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
8. Stri-veda--Through this, in the female the desire for union with
a male is excited.
9. Napursaka-veda—The third sex is produced by the rise of this
karma. The sexual urge with them is exceedingly strong,
since it is directed towards male and female both. The caritra-mohaniya karma has accordingly twenty-five subspecies. Adding the three sub-species of the darśana-mohaniya to it, we have in all twenty-eight sub-species of the belief and conduct-obscuring (mohanīya ) karma. The following table will show the sub-species of mohanīya karma.
1 Commentary on Karma-grantha, I, 14-9; I, 21-2.

Page #165

MOHANIYA
KARMA
Darśanamohaniya
Caritramohaniya
Mithya- Samyak- Miśra tva tva (3)
- (2)
Kaşāya
No-kasaya
DOCTRINE OF KARMA
krodha Ananta (4)
pratya (5) Pratya (6) Sanjvalaná (7)
Māna Anantā (8) 1pratyā (9) Pratya (10) Sañjvalana (11)
Māyā Ananta (12) Apratyă (13) Pratyā (14) Sanjvalana (15)
Looha Ananta (16) Apratya (17) Pratya (18) Sañjvalana (19)
Häsya (20)
Rati (21)
(22)
(23)
Bhaya Jugupsă Puruşa- Stri-voda Napur(24) (25) veda (26) (27) saka-veda
(28)
141

Page #166

142
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
AGE-DETERMINING KARMA
It confers on a being a certain quantum of life in any one of the four states of existence. The following are the four subspecies of ayus karma : 1. Deva-āyus--It determines the celestial age. 2. Manusva-avus-The human age is determined by it. 3. Tiryag-ayus—This determines the age of animal life. 4. Naraka-āyus—The age of hellish beings is determined by it. PERSONALITY-DETERMINING KARMA
It causes the individual diversities of souls. It is known as nāma karma. The number of its sub-species is 103. These subspecies are mostly quoted in a fixed succession in four groups : pinda-prakytis, pratyeka-prakytis, trasa-dasaka, and sthāvaradasaka. The names of the causes of these sub-species are according to the names of the sub-species. (a) Pinda-praktis—There are seventy-five sub-species in this group: 4 States of Existence-Celestial state of existence, human state of
existence, animal state of existence, and hellish state of
existence. 5 Classes of Beings-A being with one sense, two senses, three
senses, four senses, and five senses. 5 Bodies-Physical body of animals (including vegetable kingdom)
and human beings, transformable body of fine matter, projectable body of pure matter, electric body, and karmic
body. 3 Chief and Secondary parts of Bodies—The chief and secondary
parts of the physical body, of the transformable body, and of the projectable body. The electric body and the karmic
body have no parts. 15 Bindings :
1. The binding of physical body with previous physical body. 2. The binding of physical body with electric body. 3. The binding of physical body with karmic body.
1 Doctrine of Karman in Jain Philosophy, p. II.

Page #167

DOCTRINE OF KARMA
143 4. The binding of physical body with electric and karmic
bodies. 5. The binding of transformable body with previous trans
formable body. 6. The binding of transformable body with electric body. 7. The binding of transformable body with karmic body. 8. The binding of transformable body with electric and karmic
bodies. 9. The binding of projectable body with previous projectable
body. 10. The binding of projectable body with electric body. II. The binding of projectable body with karmic body. 12. The binding of projectable body with electric and karmic
bodies. 13. The binding of electric body with previous electric body. 14. The binding of electric body with karmic body. 15. The binding of karmic body with previous karmic body. Certain types of bodies are not bound with some particular
types of bodies as for instance, physical body has no binding with transformable body and so on. Hence, the bindings are
only fifteen in number. 5 Sanghātanas-Sanghātana is a type of scraping as a rake gathers
together the grass that has scattered about. According to the five bodies there are five sanghātan.z-numa karma : The scraping of the matter of the physical body, of the transformable body, of the projectable body, of the electric body,
and of the karmic body. 6 Firmnesses of the Joints of Physical Body-Vajra-ysabha
nīrāca-sa mhanana is an excellent joining in which two bones are hooked into one another, ysabha-nārāca-samhanana is not so firm, nārāca-samhanana is still weaker, ardhanārāca-samhanana is a joining which is on one side like the preceding one, whilst on the other, the bones are simply pressed together and nailed, kilika-sanhanana is a weak joining by which the bones are merely pressed together and nailed, and serārta-samhanana is quite a weak joining in which the ends of the bones only touch one another.

Page #168

144
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
6 Figures-The samsthāna-nāma-karma determines the figure of a
being. Six types of figures have been discussed in the Jaina doctrine of karma : the entire body to be symmetrical, the upper part of the body to be symmetrical, not the lower one, the body below the navel to be symmetrical and above it unsymmetrical, the body to be hunch-backed, the body to be dwarf-like, and the entire body to be
unsymmetrical. 5 Colours--Black, blue, red, yellow, and white. Other colours are
produced by mixing only. 2 Odours-Pleasant odour and unpleasant odour or good smell and
bad smell.
5 Tastes—Bitter, sour, acidic, sweet, and astringent. 8 Touches-Soft, hard, light, heavy, cold, hot, smooth, and rough. 4 Anupūrvis-When one existence of a soul is finished and it goes
from the place of death to the place of its new birth, this state is called ânupūrvī. There are four ānupūrvis according to the four states of existence (gati): celestial, human,
animal, and infernal. 2 Gaits-To move in a pleasant manner as oxen, elephants, etc.,
do and to move in an ugly manner as camels, asses, etc., do. (6) Pratyeka-prakrtis—This group consists of eight sub-species : superiority over others, capability of breathing, hot body of the sun, etc., cold body of the moon, stars, etc., a body that is neither heavy nor light, the body of a founder of the Holy Order (tirtharikara ), normal formation of the body, and abnormal formation of the body.
(c) Trasa-daśaka-There are ten sub-species in this group: a body possessing two senses, etc., gross body, developed body, individual body, firm body, beautiful and lovely parts of the body, gaining of sympathy without any obligation, sweet voice, suggestive speech, and honour and glory-winning personality. (d) Sthāvara-daśaka-This group also consists of ten sub-species : the body of plants, etc., subtle body, undeveloped body, a body in common, body without firmness, ugly parts of the body, no sympathy gaining, ill-sounding voice, unsuggestive speech, and dishonour and shame-giving individuality.

Page #169

DOCTRINE OF KARMA
The scheme of the sub-species of the personality-determining karma is as under:
Pinda-prakytis
1. States of Existence (+)
2. Classes of Beings (5)
Bodies (3)
5. Bindings (15)
3. Bodies (5)
4. Chief and Secondary parts of
8. Figures (6)
9. Colours (5)
10. Odours (2) II. Tastes (5) 12. Touches (8) 13. Anuparvis (4) 14. Gaits (2)
NAMA KARMA
6. Sanghatanas (5)
7. Firmnesses of the Joints (6)
Pratyekaprakrtis (8)
145
1
2 ibid.
19
STATUS-DETERMINING KARMA
It destines the hereditary rank occupied by a person through his birth. This species is called gotra karma. It is divided into two sub-species:1
1. Uccairgotra karma destines high family surroundings. 2. Nicairgotra karma determines low family surroundings. POWER-HINDERING KARMA
It hinders the power (virya) of the soul. It is known as antaraya karma. The power is hindered in a five-fold manner :2
Trasa-dasaka Sthavara-daśaka (10)
(10)
1. Dana-antaraya karma-It hinders dispensing alms, etc.
2. Labha-antaraya karma--This kind of antaraya karma hinders receiving.
3. Bhoga-antaraya karma-It hinders the enjoyment of some object which can only be enjoyed once such as food, etc.
4. Upabhoga-antaraya karma-It hinders the enjoyment of something that can be repeatedly enjoyed such as clothes, etc.
5. Virya-antaraya karma-It hinders the freedom of will-power.
Karma-grantha, I, 52.

Page #170

146
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
COD UL
Ju Iv W
The total number of the sub-species of the eight karmas is as follows:
1. Knowledge-obscuring karma 2. Intuition-obscuring karma 3 Feeling-producing karma 4. Belief and conduct-obscuring karma 5. Age-determining karma 6. Personality-determining karma 7. Status-determining karma 8. Power-hindering karma
Total BANDHA, UDAYA, UDĪRANA, AND SATTĀ
Taking into consideration the existence in potentia ( sattā), all the sub-species can exist in a soul. So far as the realisatio (udaya) of the species is concerned, the entire number amounts only to 122. If the bondage (bandha) of new species is taken into consideration, the total number is assumed to be 120. If the premature realisation (udiranā) is considered, the entire number amounts to 122 as in realisation. The following table will indicate the number of the sub-species existing in different states :
158
Bandha
Udaya
Udīraņā
Sattā
Knowledge-obscuring Intuition-obscuring
9
9
9
Feeling-producing
Belief and conduct-obscuring ...
Age-determining
Uw # 00 Non
Personality-determining Status-determining
Power-hindering
5
5
5
5
Total
I 20
122
1 22
158
In sattā all the prakrtis exist. In udaya the number is only 122 because the fifteen bindings and the five sanghātanas are not
1 Sukhlal: Karma-vipāka, p. III.

Page #171

DOCTRINE OF KARMA
147 included as they are then thought to exist implicit in the five bodies. The colour, odour, taste, and touch are only reckoned as four species instead of twenty. In udiraņa also the same species are counted. In bandha the number is 120, since the two mohanīya karmas, viz., samvaktva and miśra cannot be bound separately because they are purified conditions of mithyātva. Therefore, they must be subtracted from the 122 species of udaya and udiraņā, so that the total number in bandha is 120. DURATION
After having considered the nature of karmas we, now, proceed to their duration. First, let us understand the scheme of the division of time as conceived by the Jainas. "The lowest unit of time is the samaya. Innumerable samayas form an āvalikā. 16,777,216 āralikās equal one muhurta ( 43 minutes of European time). Thirty muhūrtas make one day. Out of the days are formed weeks.... The number of years can be expressed in words up to a number containing 77 cyphers. Beyond that, it is asankhyeya. An innumerable quantity of years is called pulyopama, 10 koțākoți (1,000,000,000,000,000) of palvopamas are one sāgaropama. Io kotākoți of sāgaropamas comprise one usarpiņi (ascending period of time); the same number of sāgaropamas measures one avasarpiņi ( descending period of time ).'1
The following table will give the highest as well as the lowest duration of each chief species of karma : 2 Karmas
Jaximum tuine Vinimum time 1. Knowledge
30 kotākoti
Less than one obscuring. sägaropamas
Wharta 2. Intuition
obscuring. 3. Feeling-producing ..
12 muhixtas 4. Belief and conduct- 70,
Less than one obscuring.
muhinta 5. Age-determining .. 33 sāgaropamas 6. Personality
20 kotākoti
8 muhurtas determining
sāgaropamas 7. Status-determining .. 8. Power-hindering .. 30,
Less than one muhurta
1 Doctrine of Karman in Jain Philosophy, p. 20. 2 Tattvārtha-sútra, VIII, 15-21,

Page #172

148
OUTLINES OF JAIXA PHILOSOPHY
INTENSITY
The intensity of the effect of karma depends upon the weakness or strength of the passions ( kasāyas ). In accordance with the four degrees of the passions, four degrees of the strength of karma have been recognised by Jainism. The more sinful a person is, the duration of his bad karma is longer. The stronger the effect of his badness, the weaker that of his good species. With an increased purity the duration of the bound karma and the intensity of the bad species decrease, while the intensity of the good species grows. With the bad species, the fourth degree of the intensity is produced by the most violent passions, i.e., anantānubandhi kasayas. The third degree is caused by the apratyakhyānāvarana kaşāvas, the second by the pratyākhyānāvarana kasāyas, and the first by the sañjvalnna kaṣāyas. With regard to the good species, the sanjvalanas produce the fourth, the pratyākhyānāvaraņas the third, the apratvākhyānāvaraņas the second degree. The intensity of the first degree does not exist with the good species. QUANTITY
The soul assimilates only that karmic matter which is within its own pradeśas, and not that lying outside, just as fire seizes only that inflammable material which is lying within its reach. The matter assimilated by the soul is divided into the eight species of karma. The shares which fall to the eight chief species differ from one another. The age-determining species (hyus) receives the smallest part, a greater portion goes to the persor ality-determining (rāman) and status-determining (gotra) species which both obtain equal portions. More than that goes to the knowledge-obscuring (iñānāvarana), intuition-obscuring (darśanāšarana), and power-hindering (antarāya) species, each of which gets an equal portion. Still a larger part than these falls to the belief and conduct-obscuring species ( mohanīva ) and the greatest of all goes to the feeling-producing species (vedaniya). These shares are further divided among the sub-species.? CAUSES OF BONDAGE
The theory of causation explains each and every event of life in the strict form of cause and effect. No effect can be produced
1 Doctrine of Karman in Jain Philosophy, p. 24. 2 ibid., p. 26

Page #173

DOCTRINE OF KARMA
149
in the absence of its cause. This universal law is applied to the doctrine of karma also as we have already mentioned. Each of the karma-species can only be bound so far as its cause of bondage is in existence. The following activities constitute the causes of the different species. Although all the species are bound by activities and passions in general, yet, every species has some special causes constituted by some particular activities. They are as follows: 1 CAUSES OF KNOWLEDGE AND INTUITION-OBSCURING KARMAS I. Hostility against knowledge, knower and, the means of knowledge. 2. Denial, annihilation, and hindrance of these three. 3. Disregard of a true doctrine and its commandments. 4. Rebelliousness and lack of discipline towards teachers. 5. Complete destruction of books and other means of knowledge. 6. Indifferent or opposite attitude towards knower and knowledge.
CAUSES OF FEELING-PRODUCING KARMA Pleasure : I. Respects for parents, teachers, etc. 2. To have pity on miserable beings. 3. Keeping of vows of a house-holder or a monk. 4. Honourable conduct. 5. Overcoming of passions. 6. Giving of alms or some other kind of help. 7. Fidelity in belief. 8. Interest in spiritual activities.
The contrary causes produce pain. CAUSES OF BELIEF-OBSTRUCTING KARMA 1. The teaching of a false faith. 2. The denial of the path of liberation. 3. The pollution of sacred objects. 4. The blasphemy of liberated souls.
1 Karma-grantha, I, 54-61.

Page #174

150
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
5. The blasphemy of monks and saints. 6. The blasphemy of gods. 7. The disregard of Holy Order. CAUSES OF CONDUCT-OBSTRUCTING KARMA 1. The actions produced by the outbreak of passions cause the binding of kașāva-mohanīva karma. 2. No-kaşaya-mohanīva karma is bound by the mind which is confused through joking, liking, disliking, sorrow, fear, disgust, etc. 3. Slight passionate desire, conjugal fidelity, inclination for right conduct, etc., cause the binding of purusa-teda (male sex) karma. 7. Jealousy, deceit, great sensuality, adultery, etc., cause the binding of strī-veda (female sex ) karma. 5. Violent love of pleasure and strong passions directed towards sexual intercourse with male and female cause the binding of napumsaka-teda ( third sex ) karma. CAUSES OF AGE-DETERMINING KARMA 1. Hellish age is bound by the actions of one who tortures and kills other beings and strives in an extraordinary manner after passions. 2. The deceitful and fraudulent person binds animal age. 3. The humble and sincere one whose passions are slight binds human life. 4. One who possesses right belief but who only partially or not at all practises self-discipline, whose passions are slight, who is chaste, who endures troubles, etc., binds celestial life. CAUSES OF PERSONALITY-DETERMINING KARMA
Honesty, gentleness, absence of desire, purity, etc., are the causes of the binding of good personality-determining karma, while the reverse that of bad.
CAUSES OF STATUS-DETERMINING KARMA
The recognition of the excellence of others, modesty, reverence towards teachers, the desire to learn and to teach are some of the causes of the binding of high family surroundings, whereas the contrary causes the binding of low family surroundings.

Page #175

DOCTRINE OF KARMA
151
CAUSES OF POWER-HINDERING KARMA
The withholding of food, drink, lodging, clothing, and the like causes the binding of power-hindering karma. PREVENTION AND DESTRUCTION OF KARMA
The binding of new karma can be prevented through the means of control of the activity of body, speech, and mind (gupti); carefulness in waking, speaking, lifting up and laying down a thing, etc. (samiti), moral virtues (dharma); reflection (anupreksā); patient endurance of troubles ( parişaha-jaya), and conduct (cāritra).
The acquired karmas can be annihilated through suitable measures of fasting, reduction of food, restriction to certain kinds of food, renunciation of delicacies, a lonely resting place, mortification of the body, evpiation, modesty, service, study, renunciation of ego-identification, and meditation.? STAGES OF SPIRITUAL DEVELOPMENT
According to Jaina philosophy, there are fourteen stages of development through which the soul gradually delivers itself from the state of complete dependence upon karma to the state of complete dissociation from it. These stages are known as the 'states of virtue', i.e., guṇasthānas. Here the word 'virtue' does not mean an ordinary moral quality but it stands for the nature of soul, i.e., knowledge, belief, and conduct.3
Through these fourteen stages of developinent the soul gradually frees itself, firstly from the worst, then from the less bad, and finally from all kinds of karma, and manifests the innate faculties of knowledge, belief, and conduct in a more and more perfect form. The owners of these stages are the following: I. Wrong believer ( mithyādysti). 2. One who has a slight taste of right belief ( suīstidīna samyagdysti). 3. One who has a mixed belief ( miśradysti).
1 Tattvārtha-sūtra, IX, 2. 3 ibid., IS, 3; IX, 19-20 3 Tatra guņāḥ. )ñanadarsenacārt arībāḥ;irastabhāidir sešāḥ
Karma-grantha, II, : ( commentary) + ibid.

Page #176

152
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
4. One who has true belief but has not yet self-discipline (avirata samyagdṛṣṭi).
5. One who has partial self-control (deśavirata).
6. One who has complete self-discipline, sometimes, however, brought into wavering through negligence (pramatta samyata). 7. One who has self-control without negligence (apramatta samyata).
8. One who practises the process called 'apūrva karana' in whom, however, the passions are still occurring in a gross form (nivrtti bādara samparāya).
9. One who practises the process called 'anivrtti karana' in whom, however, the passions are still occurring (anivrtti badara samparāya).
10. One in whom the passions occur in a subtle form (sūkṣma samparāya).
II. One who has suppressed every passion but who does not yet possess omniscience (upaśānta kaṣāya vitarāga chadmastha).
12. One who has annihilated every passion but does not yet possess omniscience (kṣina kaṣāya vitaraga chadmastha).
13. One who possesses omniscience and engages himself in activities (sayogi kevalin).
14. One who is omniscient and does not perform any activity (ayogi kevalin).
The whole scheme of gunasthanas is devised in a logical order according to the principle of decreasing sinfulness and increasing purity. At the first stage all the causes of binding, viz.. wrong belief, lack of self-discipline, passions, and activity are operating. From the second to the fifth, only three causes are in operation, i.e., wrong belief is absent. From the sixth to the tenth, only passions and activity exercise their influence. From the eleventh to the thirteenth, only activity is present. On the last stage there is no binding of karma. The number of the karmas which are in realisation (udaya) and existence in potentia (satta) also decreases with every step.
1. MITHYADRṢTI GUNASTHĀNA
The chief characteristic of this gunasthana is wrong belief. The 'abhavyas' (not capable of salvation) as well as bhavyas' (capable of salvation) are on this stage. The difference

Page #177

DOCTRINE OF KARMA
153 between their conditions is that all the abharvas' are eternally in this gunasthina, whereas only those ' bharyas' who by reason of certain unfavourable conditions do not reach salvation do so for a certain period of time. With the other 'bhavvas' this stage has no beginning but an end which comes sooner or later. With a being who fell from a higher stage and sank into wrong belief, it has a beginning as well as an end. 2. SĀSVĀDĀNA SAMYAGDRSȚI GUVASTHĪVA
It is of very short duration lasting in the minimum one samaya' and in the maximum six ‘āralikās'. Those beings that possessed right belief produced by suppression of wrong belief during the period less than a 'muhurta' but who had lost it again on account of the breaking out of passions, are said to enjoy this guṇasthāna. After the lapse of the settled period, the being necessarily sinks back into the first guṇasthiina. 3. MIŚRA GUYASTHĀNA
The fundamental characteristic of this stage is indifference which lasts only during the period less than forty-eight minutes (muhūrta). It is a mixed belief produced by the mingling of truth and falsity. After the lapse of the time of the stay on this stage, the being attains wrong or right belief, according to the circumstances. 4. AVIRATA S.4MYAGDRSȚI GUYASTHĀNA
To this stage belong those beings who possess right belief and have the knowledge of truth and falsity but on account of the realisation of the 'apratyākhyānāvaraṇa kaşayas' are not capable of practising self-discipline. The duration of this stage is in the minimum less than a muhūrta and in the maximum more than thirty-three sāgaropamas. 5. DEŠAVIRAT 4 SAJYAGDRSȚI GUYASTHĀVA
In this state of virtue, partial self-discipline exists. The duration is in the minimum less than a muharta and in the maximum somewhat less than a 'pūrvizkoti'. 6. PRAMATTA SANYAT.1 GUVASTHANA
The being belonging to this gunasthāna attains complete selfdiscipline, although he is disturbed through negligence produced by the realisation of the sanjyalana passions. This state lasts in
20

Page #178

154
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
the minimum one samava and in the maximum less than a muhurta. If the person belonging to this stage degrades after one samaya, he becomes an 'avirata' (4th stage); if the degradation is after 'antarmuhūrta' (less than 48 minutes) he becomes a deśavirata (5th stage). If the 'antarmuhūrta', however, has passed without any incident, he goes into the seventh stage. If he has ascended no series, he comes back to the sixth stage and the operation begins anew. This wavering between the sixth and seventh gunasthānas lasts in the maximum somewhat less than a pūrvakoti'. If the 'upaśama' or ‘ksapaka' series is ascended, such a wavering does not take place. 7. APRANATTA SANIYATA GUVASTHĀNA
In this state of virtue, complete self-discipline without negligence exists. It lasts one samaya till antarmuhurta. 8. NIVRTTI BĀDARA SAMPARĀYA GUNASTHĀNA
Like the following stages, this stage is accessible only to those beings who are on a śreni (series). A special process known as 'apūrva karana' is performed in this stage. The being who is on the 'upaśama śreni' remains on this stage in the minimum one samaya and in the maximum antarmuhürta; the one who is on the ' kșapaka śreņi' altogether antarmuhurta. 9. ANIVRTTI BĀDARA SAMPARĀYA GUNASTHĀNA
One who is on the upaśama or ksa paka śreni and performs the process called ' anirrtti karana' belongs to this stage. The former remains in it in the minimum one samaya, in the maximum antarmuhữrta; the latter antarmuhūrta altogether. The passions still occur in this stage. 10. SOKŞMA SAMPARĀYA GUYASTHĀNA
On this stage passions only occur in the most subtle form in order to be then totally suppressed or annihilated. It lasts with the upaśama sreni one samaya in the minimum; antarmuhürta in the maximum; with the ksa paka śreni altogether antarmuhurta.
II. UPASĀNTA KASĀYA VITARĀGA CHADMASTHA GUNASTHĀNA
It is the highest stage that can be reached on the upaśama śreni. The passions on this stage are totally suppressed. It lasts

Page #179

DOCTRINE OF KARJA
155
in the minimum one samaya, in the maximum antarmuhürla. After ending this stage, the being belonging to it falls from the upaśama śreni and sinks into one of the lower stages. 12. KȘIWA KASI YA VITARĪGA CHADVLASTHA GUVASTHĪVA
In the last sainava of the tenth stage (slīksma sam parāya gunasthāna), when the last particle of greed has been annihilated, the being who is on the kşapaka śreņi becomes a kșina kaşāya (one with annihilated passions). He remains antarmuhurta on this stage and then becomes omniscient without fail. 13. SAYOGI KETALI GUVASTHĪN
When the karma obscuring the knowledge, intuition, bliss, and power of the soul has completely heen annihilated, the person becomes a savogi kevalin. He possesses omniscience and omnipotence. He still possesses certain activities conditional upon matter. Certain karmas are stili realising themselves, but as soon as his rīvus (age) is exhausted, he annihilates them also in order to be emancipated. This state of virtue lasts in the minimum antarmuhiirta, in the maximum somewhat less than a pūrvakoti. 14. AYOGI KELALI GUYASTHĀNA
This last and the highest state of virtue is a transitory state which lasts antarmuhūrta and leads to the complete emancipation from karma. With the complete annihilation of every action, the omniscient enters the sailesi state-a state of pure meditation which only lasts as long as is necessary to pronounce five short syllables (a, i, ?, ?, ?). When the remaining karmas are completely annihilated, the liberated soul goes to the end of the universe which is called 'siddha-śilā'. It dwells there without visible shape. It possesses an immaterial dimension of two-third of that which it had during its last existence (gati). There, it enjoys infinite, incomparable, indestructible, supernatural happiness of salvation. A soul in its perfect nature is God. Every being has got the innate nature of Godliness. Through its right belief, right knowledge, and right conduct, it can attain that state. It is the individual effort-the personal endeavour that constitutes the path to the state of God. There, the soul perfectly shines with infinite knowledge, infinite intuition, infinite bliss, and

Page #180

156
OUTLINES OF JAIXA PHILOSOPHY
infinite power. The liberated soul does not lose its individuality. Its individual existence is retained in that state as well.
UPAŚAMA ŚREŅI
At the end of the seventh stage of development, the soul ascends either upaśania śreni or ksapaka śreņi. That śreni (series) in which the heaped-up species of mohanīva karma are suppressed so that they cannot manifest themselves, is called upaśama śreņi. The species are not totally eradicated. They exist in a latent state and can break out again occasionally. If the suppression takes place in a regular and systematic way in a certain succession, the upasama śreni ends in a complete suppression of all belief and conduct-obscuring karmas. This series reaches its end in the upaśniti moha gunasthina (Ith stage), as then the suppressed passions break out again and the jita descends from the series. The different stages of the development of the upaśama śreņi consist in the following procedure :
Firstly, the being suppresses the life-long passions. Thereupon he suppresses the three sub-species of belief-obscuring karma and through that, reaches aupaśamika sanvaktra (right belief acquired through suppression). When this has happened, the being proceeds to the suppression of the still remaining mohanīva karmas. For this purpose he performs three processes: vathapra ytti karana, a pūrva karana, and anirytti karana. If a calculable part of the anivetti karana has passed, the jīva performs an antarakaraņa of the twenty-one remaining mohanīva karmas. Then he successively suppresses, within the fraction of a muhurta, the third sex-passion, then the female sex-passion, then joking, liking, disliking, sorrow, fear, and disgust; then the male sex-passion, then simultaneously apratvākā vānītarana and pratvākh vānāvarana anger, then the sanjualana anger. This process occurs in man. The succession in woman is: third sex-passion, male sex-passion, joking, etc.; in a napumsaka, female sex-passion, male sex-passion, joking, etc.3 Thereupon follows the suppression of the second and third kinds of deceit and of the sanjualana deceit, and then that of the second and third kinds of greed. After that the sañjvalana
1 Some writers start from the fourth stage also. See Viseşāvasvaka
bhásya, 1291. 2 Karma-grantha, V, 08. 3 Ävasya ka-niryuktı. 116; Visesăvasyaka-bhāsya, 1288,

Page #181

DOCTRINE OF KARJA
157
greed becomes divided into three parts. the first two of these, the being suppresses simultaneously, the third, again is divided into a measurable number of pieces, which are suppressed gradually piece by piece. Through this long process he becomes a siksına samparāva (10th stage). When the last piece of greed is suppressed, he is an upaśānta moha (ith stage ). On this stage, the jita remains, in the maximum for less than 18 minutes, in the minimum for one sasnava. No sooner has this time passed than he falls down from this stage and sinks into even the second gunasthāna under certain circumstances. KŞAPAKA ŚRENI
The ksapaka śreņi leads to the destruction of karmas. The person who has ascended it, annihilates successively the different species of karma that exist in potentia, becomes in the end quite free from karma, and thereby achieves the highest goal --- salvation.
A person exceeding eight years of age, possessing the best firmness of the joints is capable of ascending this series. First of all, he annihilates the four life-long passions, then the three species of belief-obscuring karma. If he has bound 125 (age) and dies before wrong belief is completely annihilated, in his new existence, he can eventually bind anew the four life-long passions since wrong belief which is their germ still exists. If, however, wrong belief is destroved, this is impossible. If he has bound ãyus, but does not die immediately after the annihilation of the seven mohanīva karmas, he is satisfied with what he has attained, and for the moment does not undertake any endeavour to annihilate the other karmas. He experiences still three or four births before he attains liberation. If he reaches the series without having bound līyus, he proceeds immediately to the destruction of the still remaining conduct-obscuring karmas. For this purpose, he performs three processes, of which the first falls into the seventh stage, the second into the eighth stage, and the third into the ninth stage. During the second process ( a pūrva karana! he begins simultaneously with the annihilation of the four apratyākhyānāvaraṇa and pratvīklıvīnūžur'ana passions. When these have half disappeared, he meanwhile destroys three intuition-obscuring karmas and thirteen personality-determining karmas. Then he annihilates what still remains of the two species

Page #182

158
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY of passions. Thereupon follows the annihilation of the third and female sex-passions, of joking, liking, disliking, sorrow, fear, disgust, male sex-passion, and of sanjala na anger, pride, and deceit. After this, he leaves the ninth stage (anivetti gunasthāna), and sinks into the tenth stage (sūksma samparāya gunasthāna), where he successively annihilates the sañjralana greed, divided into pieces. As soon as the last piece of greed disappears, all passions are destroyed and the highest stage of the series is reached. The jīva is now, a kșiņa kaṣāya (12th stage). Then he annihilates the two kinds of sleep ( nidrā and pracalā), thereupon the five veilings of knowledge, the four veilings of intuition, and the five species of power-hindering karma. Then he becomes a sayogi kevalin ( 13th stage ) who still wanders for some time on the earth and thereafter attains salvation.
1 This process is for man, for woman and third sex--the same
change as in the pasama śrun. 2 Karma-grantha, V, 99.

Page #183

BIBLIOGRAPHY
JAINA WORKS Anuyoga-dvāra-stītra. Apta-mĩ mãn sa_Samantabhadra. Asta-sahasri–Vidyānandi. Āvaśvaka-niryukti–Bhadrabāhu. Bhagavatī-sūtra. Cosmology: Old and New-Jain, G. R. Critique of Organ of Knowledge—Pramāņa-mimāṁsā Trans.
Mookerjee and Tatia. Daśavaikālika-sūtya-niryukti--Bhadrabāhu. Doctrine of Karman in Jain Philosophy--Glasenapp, H. V. Drarya-sangraha-Nemicandra. Gommațasāra: Jivakāņda-Nemicandra. Jaina Philosophy of Non-Absolutism--Mookerjee, S. K. Jainism–Herbert Warren. Jñāna-bindu-prakarana-Yaśovijaya. Karmagrantha, I, II, III, IV-Devendrasūri. Karma Philosophy--Gandhi, V. R. Karma Vipāka ( Hindi )--Pt. Sukhlalji. Laghīyastraya-țīkā-Akalarika. Naya-karnikā—l'inayavijaya. Niyama-sāra-Kundakunda. Nyāyāvatāra--Siddhasena. Nyāyāvatāra-vārtika-vrtti-Edit. Dalsukh Malyania. Pañcāstikāya-sāra Kundakunda. Parikṣā-mukha-Māņikyanandi. Prajapamā-s@tra. Pramāna-mimārā--Hemacandra. Pramāņa-naya-tattvāloka–Vādideya. Prameya-kamala-mārtanda-Prabhācandra. Pravacana-sāra—Kundakunda. Rāja-praśniya-sūtra. Ratnākarāvatārikā ( Commentary on Pramnāņa-naya-tattraloka )
- Ratnaprabhasūri. Sad-darśana-sammuccava with Gunaratna's Commentary
Haribhadra.

Page #184

хбо
OUTLINES OF JAINA PHILOSOPHY
Samayasara-Kundakunda. Sanmati-tarka-prakarana-Siddhasena. Sarvärtha-siddhi-Pūjyapāda. Sāstra-vārtā-samuccava-Haribhadra. Sthānāga-s@tra, Studies in Jaina Philosophy—Tatia, N. M. Syādvāda-mañjarī (On Anyayoga-vyavaccheda-dvātrimśikā.)
-Edit. Dhruva, A. B. Syādvāda-ratnākara-Vadideva. Tattvārtha-bhāsya-Umāsvāti. Tattvārtha-rāja-vārtika-Akalanka. Tattvārtha-sāra-Amstacandra. Tattvārtha-śloka-vārtika-Vidyānandi. Tattvārtha-sūtra-Umāsvāti. Viśeşāvaśyaka-bhāsya—Jinabhadra.
NON-JAINA WORKS Bauddha Darśana aur Vedānta (Hindi) - Dr. Chandra Dhar
Sharma. Chāndogya-uparisad. Conception of Matter--Umesh Mishra. Contemporary Philosophy—Bosanquet. Critique of Pure Reason-Kant. Doctrine of Karma-Abhedanand. History of Indian Logic-Satish-Chandra Vidyabhushan. History of Western Philosophy-Russell. Idea of God-Pattison, A. S. P. Indian Philosophy, 1.- Radhakrishnan. Indian Philosophy-Sharma, C. D. Lankāvatāra-sūtra. Life and Philosophy in Contemporary British Philosophy, ist
Series-Bosanquet. Mădhyamika-kārikā--Nāgārjuna. Mimāṁsā-sūtra-Sābara-bhāsva—Sabarasvāmi. Muktāvali-Visvanātha. Nature of the World-Stace. Nyāva-bindu-Dharnakirti. Ngãya-s@tra-Aksapāda.

Page #185

BIBLIOGRAPHY
161
Present Philosophical Tendencies-Perry. Principles of Philosophy—Bhattacharya, H. M. Prolegomena to an Idealistic Theory of Knowledge--Smith, N. K. Śānkara-bhāsya on Brahma-sūtra-Sankarācārya. Sānkhya-kārikā—īśvara krsņa. Sarva-darśana-sangraha-Madhavācārya. Self, Thought and Reality-Mukerji, A. C. Sloka-vārtika-Kumārila. Structure of Molecules : Science Progress, London, April 1935. Tarka-sangraha--Annambhațța. Tattva-traya-Lokācārya. Trimśikā—Vasubandhu. Vaisesika-sūtra-Kanāda. Vedānta-siddhānta-muktārali-Prakāśānanda. Vimsatikā- Vasubandhu. Works-Green, T. H.
21

Page #186


Page #187

INDEX_!
General Subjects, Authors, and Works
Ấcārānga-sutra, 115 Adler, 67 Affirmation, 131 Agent, 57 Aggregation, 121 Agnibhūti, 61 Akalanka, 50 Analogy, 89, 92, 107 Anaxagoras, 14 Anaximander, 14. 40 Anaximenes, 14, 40 Anti-thesis, 121 Anuyoga-dvära-sūtra, 23 Appearance, 7 Apperception
Synthetic Unity of Pure, 5
Transcendental Unity of, 5, 9I Application, III
defined, II2 Aristotle, 14 Association, 73, 124 Atom, 32, 40, 69
cause, 32
effect, 32 Attainment, 103 Attribute, 42 Authority, 89, 90, 105
definition of, 113
two kinds of, 113 Avaśyaka-niryukti, 49 Awareness, 46
Canon, 22
description of the means of congnition in the Jaina, 89 theory of knowledge in the
Jaina, 85 Cārvāka, 20, 40, 53, 61, 92 Causation, theory of, 116 Cause, and effect, 116 Clairvoyance, 95
nature of, 95, 96
six types of, 97 Cognition, 49
conditions of, 104
non-perceptual, 105 Colour, five kinds of, 68, 144 Combination, 68 Conclusion, III
defined, 112 Confusion, 132 Conscious activity, 49, 103 Consciousness, 9, 10, II, 13, 20,
25, 43, 44 as the essence of soul, 53
definition of, 45 Contraction, 60 Contradiction, 131 Contributory part, 123 Co-ordinate, 74 Co-valent, 74 Critique of Pure Reason, 5
Being, 93
classes of, 142 Berkeley, 2, 4, 5 Bhadrabāhu, III Bhagavati-sūtra, 21, 27, 89, 115 Binding, 142 Bliss, 85 Body, 77
five kinds of, 142 Bondage, 37, 56, 146
causes of, 148-151
four kinds of, 135 Bradley, 6, 7, 22 Buddha, 9, 10 Buddhism, conception of knowledge in, 91, 92 Madhyamika school of, 8, 9 Vaibhāşika and Sauträntika
schools of, 20, 25 Yogācāra school of, 9
Darkness, 83 Dark ray, 83 Decay, 23, 24, 59, 114 Delage, 67 Democritus, 15, 40 Descartes, 14, 65 Determinate cognition, 46 Determinate perception, 104, 105 Determination, 91
three kinds of, 90 Dialectic, Jaina, 121 Difference, 24, 25, 131 Dissociation, 68, 73 Divisibility, six kinds of, 83 Division, 73 Doubt, 132 Dream, causes of, 66 Dualism,
epistemological, 14 ontological, 14

Page #188

164
Electron, 69 Empedocles, 14 Energy, 69, 77 Energy-level, 75
Enjoyer, 57 Example, III
homogeneous and heteroge
neous, 112
Existence, 22, 121, 122 in potentia, 146 states of, 142 Expansion, 60 Experience, 22 Transcendental, 7 Extension, 27 Extra-fine matter, 77
Figure, 82
six types of, 144 Fine matter, 77 Fineness, 82
Firmness. 143 Freud, Sigmund, 67
Gait, two kinds of, 144 Gas, 69, 77
Gautama, 21, 41, 42, 115 God, 59
Jaina conception of, 155 Green, T. H., 2 Grossness, 82
Hamilton, 15 Heat, 84 Hegel, 6
Hemacandra, 90, 108 Heraclitus, 14, 40 Herbert Warren, 46 Heterodox, 18
Idealism, conception of, 1-3
types of, 3-11 Identity, 24, 131 Ignorance, II Illusion, 60
Image, 63
Immanence, theory of, 16 Implication, 92
Independence, theory of, 16
Indescribability, 122
46
Indeterminate cognition, Indian Philosophy, 26 Individual, 7
Indrabhūti, 40
Inductive reasoning, 105 definition of, 107
INDEX
Inference, 89, 90, 92, 105 definition and kinds of, 108 Infinity, four types of, 45 Intuition, 45
difference between knowledge and, 45
simultaneity of knowledge and, 49 successive occurrence of knowledge and, 50
temporal relation between knowledge and, 48 Intuition and knowledge as identical, 51
James, 13 Jainism,
conception of reality in, 21-39 conception of worldly soul in, 60 judgment in, 114
relation of knowledge with
soul in, 85
sound in, 79
Jinabhadra,50, 51
Judgment, relativity of, 114-118 seven-fold nature of, 118-122 two kinds of the dialectical seven-fold, 122-127
Jung, 67
Kant,3, 5. 14, 91 Karma, 61-63
age-determining, 142
belief and conduct-obscuring, 138 causes of the binding of, 148-151 doctrine of, 133
duration of, 147
eight fundamental species of, 135 feeling-producing, 137 intensity of, 148 intuition-obscuring, 136 knowledge-obscuring, 136 knowledge-obscuring and intuition obscuring, 50, 52 meaning of, 133 nature of, 135
personality-determining, 142 physical form of, 63 power-hindering, 145
prevention and destruction of, 151
quantity of, 148 status-determining, 145
Karmic veil, 52 Keśikumāra, 85
Knowledge, 43, 45
classification of the means
of valid, 92-94
four means of valid, 89 kinds of, 47
logical conception of, 90

Page #189

INDEX
165
theory of, 85
validity of, 91 Kundakunda, 24, 49, 72, 85
Omniscience, 52, 95
arguments for the existence of, 99
nature of, 99 Omniscient, 49, 51 Oneness, 25 Opposites, 116 Origination, 23, 24, 59, 114 Orthodox, 18
Language, 80 Lankávatāra-sútra, 9, IO Liberation, 39, 56 Light, 83, 84 Liquid, 69, 77 Locke, 4, 14
Mahāvira, 21, 40, 41, 42, 61, 85, 115 Major term, 108 Maniness, 25 Matter, 19, 21, 23, 69
conception of, 65 definition of, 68 forms of, 79 manifestation of, 79 parts of, 69 relation with soul, 77 six sub-classes of, 77
union of, 75 Medium of motion, 21, 33 Medium of rest, 21, 23 Middle term, 108 Mimāṁsā 18, 58, 92, III Bhatta and Prabhākara
schools of, 18, 92 rejection of omniscience, 100 Mimārsă-sūtra, 18 Mind, 77, 97
kinds of, 103
nature of, 103 Mode, 24, 25 Molecule, 32, 69
perceptibility of, 74 Momentariness, 9 Morton, 67
Pañcâstikāya-săra, 72 Pārsvanātha, 86 Particularity, 25 Passion, 139 Perception, 89, 90, 92
categories of, 94-105 categories of empirical, 104
empirical, 100-105 Perfection, 52 Permanence, 23, 59, 114 Perry, 15 Photography, 83 Plato, 4, 14 Pragmatism, 15, 16 Pramāņa-mimāmsā, go Probandum, 108 Probans, 108
five types of, 109 Proton, 69 Providential, 133 Psychological theory, 67 Psycho-neurological theory, 67 Pajyapāda, 49, 74
Quality, 123
primary and secondary, 4 Quasi-passion, nine, 139 Quasi-sense, 103
Nandi-sūtra, 89 Naturalism, 16 Negation, 92, 131
Mimāmsaka conception of, 93 Nescience, 11 Neurological theory, 67 Nihilism, 9 Non-absolutism, traces in the
Canons, 115 Non-being, 93 Non-existence, 121, 122 Nyāya-vaiseșika, 16, 19, 22, 23, 29
32, 53, 58, 61, 70, 79, 83, 85, 92, 109, 111, 131
Radhakrishnan, 26, 27 Rāmānuja, 19, 60 Realisation, 146
premature, 146 ! Realism, conception of, II
critical, 16 dualistic, 14 monistic, 14 neo, 15 pluralistic, 14 pragmatic view of, 15 selective and generative, 17
trends of, 13-20 Reality, 22
expression of, 1, 2
physical, 12 Reason, III Recognition, 105
definition of, 107
Observation, 107 Odour, 144

Page #190

166
Relation, 123 Recollection, 105
definition of, 106
Residence of substance, 124
Respiration, 77 Retention, 104, 105
Rightness, 90 Rivers, 67
35
Taste, five kinds of, 68, 144 Tattvärtha-sutra, 38, 45, 88, 90 Telepathy, 95
Sabara, 18 Salvation, 155 Samaya-sara, Sankara, 10
line of demarcation between clairvoyance and, 98
nature of, 97 varieties of, 98
Sankhya, 18, 19, 22, 42, 56, 57, 58, Thales, 14, 40
92, III
Thesis, III, 121
Sarvästivädin, 20
Sense-organ, 31, 103
Self, 10, 99
Sensation, 46, 104
Sensibility, 5
Shade, two kinds of, 83
Siddhasena, 51
Smell, two kinds of, 68
Solid, 69, 77
Somnambulism, 137
eight kinds of, 115
five categories of, 31
nature of, 40
nature of worldly, 53 two kinds of, 31
varieties of, 60
INDEX
Sound, 79
Space, 21, 34 Speech, 77, 80 Spencer, 2 Speculation, 104
difference between doubt and, Sthānanga-sütra, 22, 35, 86, 90 Subjectivism, 10
Substratum, 42, 123 Śunyavādin, 18 Syllogism, 110
parts of, III Synthesis, 121
Soul, 21, 30
arguments for the existence of, 40 Understanding, 5 as a changing entity, 56 Union, 73
as agent, 57
classification of, 81
Universal concomitance, 108-109
Substance, 22, 24, 42 classification of, 25
as enjoyer, 57
as equal in extent to its body, 58 Universality, 25 as the possessor of material
karma, 61
definition of, 44
Abhinibodhika, 86-8 Acakṣurdarśana, 48
Time, 21, 22, 35, 123
Jaina conception of the division of, 147
Touch, eight kinds of, 68, 144 Transfusion, 132 Transmigration, 79 Truth, 9
Umāsvāti, 22, 23, 24, 30, 37, 49, 88, 90
Universe, conception of, 21 Upanisad, 22
Vadideva, 53, 60 Vaiseṣika-sutra, 22 Validity,
intrinsic and extrinsic, 91, 92
Vedanta, 23, 25, 60
Vibration, 80 Vidyanandi, 50 Vijñānādvaita, 9 Virtue, states of, 151 Viseṣaṇa-vati, 50
105 Visesavaśyaka-bhāṣya, 50 Vyakhya-prajñaptı-sataka, 68
Word, 124
INDEX-II
SANSKRIT TERMS
Addhasamaya, 27, 28, 30 definition of, 35

Page #191

INDEX
167
Da, sanācarana, +5, 136 Dharana, 86-8, 104 Dharma, 9 Dharmāstzkāva, 27, 28, 29
definition of, 33 Dystānta, sādharmya and
vaidharmya, 112 Drasty, 18 Dravya, 22, 23, 24
jira and ajīva, 23 Drśya, 18
Evambhita-nava, 127
Adhisthāna, 42 Adysta, 59 Agama, 113 dhar pratyaya, 41 Ahāraka, 78 hāra-varganā, 77 jada, 19 djija, 26, 28 A kāśāstikāya, 27, 28, 30
definition of, 34 lokākāśa, 34 Alaya-vijñāna, 9 dmurta, 63, 64 Ananta, 69 Ananta-calustaya, 45 dnāśrita, IO Anekānta-vāda, 117, 118 Antahkarana, 103 antaraya, 45, 145 Anu, 32, 69
defined, 72 Anubhāga, 38, 135 dnu māna, 108 Apkāya, 32
pratışthita, IO Apta, 113 Artha, 22, 123 drapin, 27 Asankheya, 69 A satkāryarāda, 116 Asrava, 37 dstikāya, 27 Atma-rupa, 123 Audārika, 78 Avadhi, 47, 48, 86-8, 95 Hvagraha, 46, 86-8, 104 Avaya, 86-8, 104 Avidyā, II Ayus, 142
Ghātin karmas, +5 Gotra, 145 Guna, 19, 12
three, 56 Ginasthāna, fourteen, 151-6 Guni-deśa, 124 Gunin, +2, +3
Hetu, III
Thã, 86-8, 104 Indriya, 103
Jada, 18, 56 Jiva, 26, 28, 29, 44
definition of, 30 Jivatra, 47
mã 1, 19, 9o Jānāvarana, 45, 136 Jilāna-upaycga, 16
Bandha, 37, 146 Bhāsā-varganā, 78 Bheda, 32, 73 Bhogya, 19 Bhokty, 18, 57 Bhūmā, 10 Bhūta, 20, 43 Brahman, IO, II, 19 Buddhi, 56
Kālu, 28, 123
definition of, 35 Karania, 54 Karana-pai amănu, 32 Karmana-sarira, 78 Karty, 54, 57 Karya-paramäizu. 32 Kaşāva, sixteen, 139 Kerala-carśana, 48 kerala-ivāna, 17, 86-8, 95, 122 Kşapaka śreni, 157
Lab.lhi, 103 Lokūkusa, 34
Cartanya, 53, 55 Caksurdarśana, 48 Cetană, meaning of, 44 Cit, 18, 19
Jahābhūta, 20, 43 Wanah paryāya, 4786-8, 95 Janovarganā, 78 Jati, 47 Johanīva, 45
kinds of, 138-41 Jlokşa, 39 Jukta, 31 Jlūta, 63, 64
Darśana, 45, 137
difference between jñāna and, 45 kinds of, 48 Darśana-upayoga, 48

Page #192

168
INDEX
Naigama, 126 Vāma, 142 Naya, definition of, 125
fallacy of, 129-30 province of, 127-9 seven kinds of, 125
two kinds of, 125 Vidra, 137 Wigamana, 112 Nirjara, 38 No-kaşāya, nine, 139
Padārthu, 22 Paksa, III Pāpa, 37 Paraniānu, 61 Paramartha, 8 Paramarthika-sattā, 10 Pariņāma, 56, 59, 63 Parokşa, 86-8 Paryāya, 24, 55 Pında, 60 Pradeśa, 27, 38, 59, 135 Prakyti, 18, 19, 22, 38, 56, 135 Pramana, 90 Prapanca, 8 Prapanca-śünva, 8, 9 Pratibhasika-sattā, ro Pratiqñā, III Pratyaksa, 86-9 Pythaikāya, 32 Pudgala, 26, 28, 29
definition of, 32 meaning of, 67 Punya, 36 Puruşa, 18, 19, 22, 42, 56, 57
Samurti-satva, s Sanvoga, 44 Sanghāta, 32, 73, 143 Sangraha-naya, 22, 25, 126 Sankheya, 69 Sarkoca, 19 Sapta-bhangi, pramāna and
naya, 123-7 Sat, 22, 23. 26 Satkāryavāda, 116 Sattā 22, 146 Sattva, 19 Siddhaśılā, 155 Skamaha, 32, 69
defined, 73 Smyti, 106 Snigdha, 75 Sruta, 47, 86-8 Sthāvara, 31 Sthiti, 38, 135 Styānagyddhi, 137 Styānarddhi, 137 Sünya, 9
svabhāva, S, 9 Syādvāda, 117-8, 122
Tarjasa, 78 Tarka, 108 Tattua, 22
ethical classification of, 35 Tatti'ārtha, 22 Tejaskāya, 32 Tejovargaņā, 78 Trasa, 31
Rasa, 135 Rjusutra-naya, 126 Rūksa, 75 Rūpin, 26, 27, 43
Udaya, 146 L'dirana, 146 Cha, 108 U pakāra, 123 Upanaya, 122 l'pašama śreni, 156 - l'payoga, 30, 45, 61, 103 nirākāra, 45 sākāra, 46
Sabda, 124
nal'a, 127 Sadhana, 108 Sadhya, 103 Sailesi, 155 Sakalādesa, 122 Sākşin, 18 Samabhiridha, 127 Sumavāya, 54 Samaya, 35 Sambandha, 123 Samsarga, 12+ Samsarin, 31 Samtara, 38
kinds of, 38
Vaikriya, 78 l'anas patikāya, 32 l'uvukaya, 32 l'eda, three kinds of, 139-40 l'edaniya, 137 Vibhutua, 58, 59 Vikalādeśa, 122 likāśa, 19 !'yåpaka, 108 I'vāpya, 108 I'vavahāra-naya, 126 !' yāvahärika-sattā, 10

Page #193


Page #194

LOGICAL
New Delhi
Je
Ry
We

Page #195
Central Archaeoxogical Library, NEW DELHI.2880. Call No. 181:43 meh Author-mehta, mil outlines of Title - Chilosophy Jana Borrowor No. Date of Issue Date of Roturo "A book that is shut is but a block" GICAL LIF ARCHAEC CENTRA V. GOVT. OF INDIA Department of Archaeology NEW DELHI. LIBRARY' . Please help us to keep the bouk clean and moving. S8148. N. DELHI.