Jaina Biology

Author(s): J C Sikdar
Publisher: ZZ_Anusandhan

Page 11

3
-89.132
qualities or characters-hardness and non-livingness and when consciousness is not of the nature of these two characters (i. e., cannot exist with these two), then how can it be accepted that it was born out of elements ?34
If cousciousness does not exist in individual (i.e. uncombined elements, then it cannot exist in the combined elements just as (like that) oil cannot exist in sand particle. And if consciousness exists in the combined elements, then it should exist also in individual elements and so on.
In conclusion Haribhadra Sari maintains the view after refuting the doctrine of Bhatacaitanyavāda of the Materialists with his cogent arguments that the existence of force (Sakti), etc. in soul and of the unseen force (adrsta), which makes the possibility of sakti etc. in soul, should be accepted and this unseen force (adrsta), which is different from soul, is real and of many kinds and comes into relation with soul. 36
The Sāṁkhya makes the reply to the materialists' view on caitanya in the following manner that "the intoxicating power in liquor is a force, i. e., a tendency to motion. This force is the resultant of the subtle motions present in the particles of the fermented rice, molasses, etc. A motion or a tendency to motion, can in this way be the resultant of several other motions and tendencies."37 “But caitanya (consciousness) is not a motion, and cannot be the resultant of (unconscious) natural forces or motions. Neither can the consciousness of the Self, or of the organism as a whole, be supposed to be the resultant of innumerable constituent particles of the body. One central abiding intelligence is simpler and therefore more legitimate hypothesis than an assemblage of consciousness latent in different bhūtas or particles, 9.38
The Sāṁkhya philosophy maintains the view that Prāņa (life) is not Vāyu (biomechanical force) nor it is mere mechanical motion generated from the impulsion of Väyu.is