Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals

SR No.: 001656
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: N L Jain
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith
Publication Year: 1999
Total Pages: 210
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Religion, & Biology
File Size: 13 MB

Page 100

Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals
mind represents the volitional purity of the soul arising due to destruction-cumsubsidence of energy-obstructing and quasi-sense-obscuring karmas. The mindpossessing beings are those which are endowed with mind. The non-mindpossessing beings are those which are not endowed with mind. Thus, there are two kinds of worldly beings.
2. Q. There are two types of living beings worldly beings and liberated beings. This aphorism should, therefore, be taken to mean that the worldly beings are mind-possessing and the liberated beings are non-mind-possessing. Thus, there should be respective relationship with reference to the two types of living beings. This is desirable concept for the Jainas too.
3. A. This is not correct. If the worldly beings are taken as mind-possessing, there will be the possibility of all of them being mind-possessing. This is not desirable as the worldly beings with 1, 2, 3 and 4 senses and even some with five senses are postulated to be non-mind-possessing because they do not possess activities characteristic of mind.
4. Secondly, the composition of two different aphorisms (2.10 and 2.11) denotes that is is the worldly beings which are desired here. Otherwise, both the aphorisms would have been composed as one.
5. Alternatively, the word 'worldly beings' (sansāriņah) should be supplied here from the following aphorism 2.12.
6. Q. If that is so, it will also have respective relationship. This will mean that the mobiles (trasas) are mind-possessing and the non-mobiles (sthāvaras) are non-mind-possessing. This could be desirable for the Jainas.
7. A. This is not correct. It will mean that all the mobile beings are mindpossessing. Thus, all the one, two, three and four-sensed beings and noninstinctive five sensed beings will have to be mind-possessing. This is not desirable.
-
8. Moreover, only the word 'worldly beings' is to be supplied and connected here from aphorism 2.12 and not the other words' mobiles and nonmobiles'. The connections are always as desired.
9. Further, if the connection of 'mobiles and non-mobiles' were desirable, there would have been only one aphorism in place of two. This has not been done. This indicates that this connection is not desired. Alternatively, as the unification of these aphorisms has not been done, it indicates that there is no connection of the aphorisms 2.10 and 2.12 (ahead) with this aphorism 2.11. 10. The composition of three different aphorisms (2.10, 2.11, 2.12) indicates that the aphorisms 2.10 and 2.12 are not connected with the aphorism 2.11. Had it been so, all the three aphorisms should have been in the form of one aphorism only. In this case too, the word 'worldly beings' would have to be added in the beginning or in the end of 'mind-possessing and non-mindpossessing'. Thus, the desired meaning would have been there. However, is that
95