________________
-- 332 :
Bhagavai 5:9:254-257
away. Thus, there is no contradiction in the two statements, but they are relatively true. In the cosmos of even innumerable (finite) number of space-points (pradeśas), it is not impossible for infinite number of nights and days to occur or infinite number of souls to exist. Space has the capacity to contain infinite number of souls, and the souls have the capacity to undergo such subtle transformations that an infinite number of souls can occupy the same space of innumerable (finite) space-points.
Bhagavān Mahāvīra, quoting the doctrine of Pārsva, propounded the cosmos with innumerable space-units. The cosmos is a real entity, that originates, passes away and transforms. Here origination and passing away are sought to be transformation of change of modes. An unreal (non-existent) can not originate, nor the real (existent) can cease to exist.
The origination, cessation and transformation of a non-sentient entity like matter are directly perceptible, on account of its being corporeal, while the rest of the substances are non-corporeal, and as such their origination, cessation and transformation are imperceptible. Therefore, the etymological nomenclature of the cosmos, i.e. loka, is made with reference to the substance called matter (pudgala), which is directly perceptible (lokyte).
In the present dialogue, Arhat Pārsva is quoted to explain the cosmos as eternal. Lord Mahāvīra has propounded that the loka (cosmos) is both eternal as well as non-eternal.o
Here, again both seemingly contradictory statements are not really contradictory, but there is the difference in the view-points of both propositions. From the view-point of substance, the cosmos is eternal; from the view-point of modes, it is non-eternal. The view-point of substance accepts mainly 'identity', but does not deny difference', but relegates it to a secondary position. Similarly, the standpoint of modes accepts mainly difference'. It does not deny identity, but relegates it to a subsidiary position."
Thus, where the cosmos is propounded to be eternal, it is so from the standpoint of substance; here, it is automatically proved that subsidiarily the cosmos is also non-eternal. On other hand, where the cosmos is interpreted as non-eternal from the modal point of view, it is automatically accepted that subsidiarily it is also eternal. In the statement that the cosmos is eternal, the statement that it is noneternal is automatically accepted, and vice-versa. Therefore, both the statements are not contradictory.
There are ten important issues that differentiate the discipline of Lord Pārsva from that of Mahāvīra. '2 Among them, the issue of 'vows' (vratas) is the sixth, and that of 'recoiling from misdeeds' (pratikramana) is the eighth. In the topic under discussion, these two issues have found mention. In the discipline of Lord Pārsva, there is prescription of fourfold restraint (yamas), whereas in that of Lord Mahāvīra, there is the prescription of fivefold great vows (mahāvratas). In former, the duty of pratikramana was not compulsory, but optional when there was any occasion for it, on account of some remissness on the part of a monk, whereas in the order of the latter, it was compulsory.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org