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 87

Biology in Jaina Treatise on Reals
reason of non-perceptibility stands unproved because the pure soul is perceptible by the omniscients. who know all objects. Secondly, the karmically and quasi-karmically subjugated impure or embodied soul is perceptible even by those who possess clairvoyant and telepathic knowledge. The soul cannot be called non-perceptible as it is not sense-perceptible. The Jainas call senseperception as an indirect one. This point can be syllogised in the following way: "The entities like pots etc. are not perceptible because they are receivable by the non-receiver (sense) causes like the fire inferred from the smoke."
"The senses are non-receivers because one recollects even after they are lost like the window. The receiver soul is always there. Thus, senseperception is an indirect process."
Moreover, what is meant by the term 'non-perceptible' ? Does it indicate indirect negation or direct negation? If it is an indirect negation, we will have different entities of perception and non-perception. Thus, it will prove the existence rather non-existence. Hence, the reason will be contradictory. If it is direct negation, it is applied only when the negatable entity is existing in some places or cases. Thus, the existence of soul is proved to be positive in some way. The reason, therefore, stands again to be unproved. The 'horns of the hare' are non-existent while the knowledge of the soul is existent though nonpeceptible to the senses. This leads to the inconclusiveness of the reason of nonperceptibility. If the knowledge etc. are said to be perceptible due to selfperception and yogic perception, what is the harm if the soul is also accepted in this way?
The illustration in the above syllogism is also deficient with respect to the properties of probandum and probans. It could be explained in the way detailed earlier. Thus, it does neither prove non-perceptibility nor non-existence of the soul.
Further, all the entities are expressed through words. The words are all subject to positive and negative meanings. No entity is completely negatable. it has a dual character of positivity and negativity. For example, the statement that the flower of Amaranath (kuruvaka) is netither red nor white- does not mean that it is colourless. It may have other colour except red and white. These are the only two colours which are negated. Similarly, any entity is existing with respect to self and it is non-existing with respect to alien entity. It is said that the experience indicates that the non-existent entity is also existent and perceptible in some way. Similarly, the existent entity is also non-existent and nonperceptible in some way. If the existence and perceptibility are accepted absolutely, it will lead to the possibility of every entity turning into every other entity. On the other hand, if the non-existence and non-perceptibility are accepted absolutely, there will be non-existence of any entity in general. How, then, it could be expressed through words?
82