________________
"THE ATTRIBUTES OF THE SOUL" 217 the Samanya or Vishesha points of viewing at matter, it is a sufficient admission for the question raised, that there was no time when the Soul was not in bondage. In the third paragraph Mr. Jain says: "Had the one and the same matter been in bondage with the Soul from eternity then the objection would have stood good." If, in this sentence the words Soul and matter change places the sense remains unaffected, and the objection also stands good. But why does Mr. Jain, speak of "matter in bondage with the Soul" instead of Soul in bondage with matter? The question is, if the Soul and matter were different entities, they must have been pure Soul and pure matter before the intermingling, but as there never was any time when the Soul was not in bondage, the Soul and matter should never have experienced their existence as pure entities. If this intermingling is an eternal State or condition of their existence, I submit that it cannot be annulled without annulling the existence of Soul and matter.
In the end Mr. Jain says :_“Thus the Jaina theory of the bondage of Soul and matter—the bondage being both eternal and non-eternal from different points of view as stated above_is not irreconcilable with the theory of Moksha." As regards the non-eternal bondage which begins and falls off at particular points in time, it is sheer blindness to characterise that falling off as Moksha, and to be beguiled into a false belief, when the bondage eternal is staring in the face all the while. Then at the end of it all arises again the tedious questions, "What then is Moksha? What then is bondage ?" I trust the learned pleader of Meerut will be explicit and more clear next time and cut the inconvenient knot.
-Manilal vadilal.
Shree Sudharmaswami Gyanbhandar-Umara, Surat
www.umaragyanbhandar.com
