Jaina Ontology

Author(s): K K Dixit
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 64

THE ACE OF AGAMAS (1) Nāraka (hell-born being) residing in the lower most part of: the
lower region of loka. (2-11) Ten classes of Bhavanapatideva (deva= god) residing in the upper
most part of the lower region of loka. (12-21) prthvi (earth), jala (water), agni (fire), vāyu (air), vanaspati (plant),
dvindriya (two-sensed being), trīndriya (three-sensed being), calurindriya (four-sensed being), pañcendriyatiryak (five-sensed animal), manuşya
(man) mostly residing in the lower part of the middle region of loka, (22) Vyantaradeva mostly residing in the upper part of the middle region
of loka. (23) Jyotişkadeva residing in the uppermost part of the middle region
of loka. (24) Vaimānikadeva residing in the upper region of loka.
As can easily be seen this classification has got grave mythological undertones but it is an old one inasmuch as it is usually present in Bhaga
But in the important and basic chapter 1st of Prajñāpanā a better classification appears which speaks of the following main types :
Ekendriya (one-sensed being), dvīndriya, trindriya, caturindriya, pancendriya — the last sub-divided into nāraka (hell-born being), tiryak (animal), manuşya (man) and deva (god); it is made use of in the chapters 2nd and 3rd as well and once at least it too appears in Bhagavati. This new classification also takes note of the sub-classes sūkşma (subtle) and badara (gross) (to be found only among the class ekendriya) and of the sub-classes paryapta (fully developed) and aparyāpta (partly developed) (to be found among all the five classes). It thus approaches quite near the later list of 14 jivasthanas, but in order to actually become the latter it will have to subdivide the class pañcendriya into sanjñi (possessing higher cognitive capacity) and asaññi (not possessing higher cognitive capacity) rather than into nāraka, tiryak, manuşya, deva. And on this question Prajñāpanā adopts a rather odd usage, for it speaks of the sub-classes sanni and asaññī not only in the case of tiryak and manuş ya but also in that of nāraka and deva, and unless this practice is given up the list of 14 jīvasthānas cannot emerge. Of course, when Prajñāpanā uses the words sañjña and asañiñi in its account of nāraka and deva it is not using them in their natural meaning, but its manner of thus speaking does suggest that the idea has not occurred to it that the sub-division of the class pañcendriya into saññ and asaññi is a basically important subdivision. And for our present purpose this is all that matters,
Again, in the chapter 3rd Prajñāpanā speaks of the relative numerical strength of the classes of living beings posited by it earlier. But here it alsa