Defiition of Living in Jain Cannons An Evaluation

SR No.: 250072
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: N L Jain
Publisher: Z_Umravkunvarji_Diksha_Swarna_Jayanti_Smruti_Granth_012035.pdf
Publication Year: 1988
Total Pages: 19
Language: English
Classification: Article & Criticism
File Size: 2 MB

Page 5

चतुर्थ खण्ड | ३६०
tattwa for him initially. This leads to a presumption that the term Dravya of NV system was included in Jain metaphysics at a later stage when the NV system had a profound scholastic appeal in the world of seers. This has also been observed by Malvanja 27 specially in case of Umaswati, though he might be erring in stating his precedence over Kundkunda.
Dravya or reality has been elaborated with similarities (general) and dis-similarities (specifics) by the Vaisbeshikas. This has been followed by Umaswati. Accordingly, the general definiton of reality detailed earlier applies to the living one as it bas existentiality, i. e. permanance through change (birth and death). It has qualities and modes. It has eleven general attributes of Akalanka and eight of Devsen. It also has eleven general natures (Swabhavas) of Devsen which refer to the ways and forms the living one may bave in general. These various definitions are shown in Table-3 below. It is seen that Akalanka and Devsen have developed over Umaswati where two attributes have gone upto four commons and many more un. commons. However, one could mark the differences. While Akalanka does not have consciousness, weightlessness and space occupancy of Devsen, the latter also does not have many attributes of the earlier. It can be surmised that the earlier characteristic of existentiality has been given more concrete meanings by thes, authors. As is clear, the general definition involves particulate nature, space occupancy, weightlessness, sense-imperceptiblity or non-materiality as physical and consciousness as psychical characteristics of the living one. The first and last terms here seem to be quite contradictory, It is also evident that Akalank's general definition seems to weigh more on the non-materaial side of the living in comparision to Devsen. If one removes the attribute of consciousness from Devsen's list, it will have purely material nature for the living.
In contrast, the specific attributes have very much in common with all the three authors each one has various forms or expressions of consciouness as liberally defined earlier. The cannonical characteristics of the living in Table-1 can also be similarly classified on the basis of Table 3 where they prove more extensive.
It must, however, be accepted that in contrast to Devsen, consiousness should be called a specific rather than general property. The rest of the properties are suggestive of the material nature of the living. Its basic unit has all the qualities atom-like materials have. The single living unit is said to contain ianumerable pradeshas or spacepoints with capacity for expansion and contraction. It has these space units in an independant and real sense. 28 They are invisible because of fineness and therefore sense imperceptiblity or non-materiality of the living in contrast with the visible parts of the gross matter. It is also said that the living one is partless but even a single living