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 106

Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals
living varieties. Similar varieties may be taken for all the other four nonmobiles. (c) The justification for their order in the aphorism has been given. 2. The Svetāmbara version of this aphorism is different. It mentions that only the earth, water and plants are non-mobile beings. It has been pointed out earlier that this classification is based on non-mobility rather than specific karmic realisation. It is also mentioned in many canons where there is no sensebased classification. 3. With respect to the karmic theory, there are five non-mobile beings mentioned in this aphorism 2.13. The livingness in earth etc. can be proved through canons or logic. The canons like Acārānga, Bhagavati and Prajnăpanā mention their livingness due to functional consciousness or instincts of determinate and indeterminate nature. It is mentioned that (i) earth bodies upto three-sensed living ones have (a) wrong sensory and vocable knowledge as of determinate and (b) occular conation as of indeterminate form. and (ii) the other living beings have gradually increasing number of forms varying between 2-8 knowledge (determinate) and 2-4 conations (indeterminate). 4. Besides scriputres, their livingness can also be proved by the following inference : (a) The one-sensed beings have functional consciousness because they have tendency for intakes (food) etc. like other living beings. (b) The consciousness in its living substartum consummates in the lowest form because it has a specific nature of gradual decrease like the extension (decreasing from infiniteness in space upto atoms). This is an affirmative illustration here. It is inferred that whatsoever beings have it at the lowest level, they are the 1-sensed beings like the earth etc. 5. There are some systems like the Vaisesikas who do not agree to the livingness of the earth etc. They also put their logic in the following way:
The earth etc. are non-living as they are devoid of physical, vocal and mental activities (like speech, movement and thinking) like sand, ashes or hot water etc. This logic is inconclusive as it also involves the living beings under deep sleep, faints and fits, in the womb and under deep meditation. It is also inconclusive with respect to the inactive but conscious Purusa of the Sānkhyas. Hence, this logic is not valid.
Moreover, there is absolute non-existence of knowledge etc. in the non-conscious ashes etc. Their consciousness co-efficient is zero. Hence, the illustration does not prove destructional or decreasing non-existence of knowlege etc. The soul or the living one cannot have absolute destruction of its inherent quality of knowledge.
The scriptures of other systems (like Cārvākās etc.) in this regard are not taken as valid
101