Journal of Gyansagar Science Foundation 2013 04 01

Author(s): Sanjeev Sogani, Vimal Jain
Publisher: Gyansagar Science Foundation

Page 101

Dr. Parasmal Agarwal, Volume 1 Issue 1 April 2013
concept in the following verse:
: n[aU_{V g H$18: n[aUm modôml/EHS_R m[aU{V: {H$mgmì _{n {^ÞŞz dñV Mile
real point of view) a soul cannot be the doer of pitcher, cloth, chariot, senses, karmic matter, physical body, etc. [2] but a soul can be the doer of one's own Bhava ( 3). On the other hand from the relative point of view (Vyavhaar Nay) a soul becomes the doer of pitcher, cloth, chariot, senses, karmic matter, physical body, etc. (4). This concept of real point of view has been narrated by other spiritual teachers also. For example, refer to Paramātma Prakasha [5]
Meaning: The doer, deed, and action, all three, correspond to the same Dravya (substance).
Question: Based on the above description, how can we show the agreement between Acharya Kundakunda and modern Science?
A scientific example to illustrate the above verse is the law of conservation of energy, which says that the energy can neither be created nor be destroyed, it only changes its form. Thus in reality, nobody can be the doer or maker or creator of energy. The energy in the form of mass in the uranium converts into the electrical energy in the nuclear power plant.
Answer: We have seen that Physics does not answer the question 'who is the doer?' whereas Achārya Kundakunda answers this question in the following two ways:
(i)
Question: When a child throws a stone at a glass window then we say that the child has broken the glass. We do not say that the glass has broken the glass. How can we say that the glass has been broken by the glass itself?
in reality, a Dravya is the doer of any change in itself only. Thus a soul cannot be the doer of any other soul or any material particle. A Dravya can become the doer of transformation in other souls and material particles from the relative point of view.
From the relative point of view we say that the child has broken the glass window. For the sake of teaching the lesson to the child, and maintaining the law and order it is important to have this point of view.
Thus the point i) conveys that a cook cannot make even one particle of food. This answer is in total agreement with Physics. But the point (ii) is meaningful when the wages to cook are to be given. The salary of a cook is a subject of Economics, not of Physics. Physics cannot certify the cook as the doer of the cooking. It should be noted that the spiritual science as well as any religion has to cover natural sciences as well as social sciences. Here it is clear that point (i) is in agreement with the natural science, and the point (ii) is in agreement with the social science. Thus there may be difference in words, but there is agreement between modern science and Acharya Kundakunda ( see point (i)] as regards the answer of the question-'who is the doer?"
In a laboratory, where the research on the development of a new rough and tough glass material is carried out, a scientist tests the new material to find its strength. After completing the experiment, the scientist reports the minimum impact necessary to break it. His emphasis is on the nature of the material. He knows that the material breaks according to its own nature. He understands that he is the instrumental cause to impart the impact. Thus in the real sense, the scientist does not become the doer of the breaking of the glass, because he knows that the glass has its own breaking parameters under which it would break. In other words, from the view point of the science, the glass breaks according to its own property (nature).
Nimitta and Upādāna
The central theme of Samaysaar related to this aspect is simple. In the treatise Samaysaar, Achārya Kundakunda answers the question, 'who is the doer?', related with all events in two ways: (i) Relative point of view, and (ii) Real point of view. From the relative point of view he accepts the conventional answer. But the reality is described by the real point of view. According to Achārya Kundakunda, in reality, one is the doer of oneself only. Each and every Dravya is a sovereign entity and has 'divine' powers to do its tasks.
In the language of scriptures, we call the instrumental cause as Nimitta. Any happening in an Upādāna in accordance with the definite laws of nature due to one or more than one Nimitta is technically known as an outcome due to Nimitta- Naimittika relationship. The phrase 'Nimitta- Naimittika relationship' of scriptures may be understood as the happening of transformation in accordance with definite laws of nature. For more clarity let us discuss some concepts in the questionanswer format.
In other words, as per the real point of view, one Dravya cannot be the doer of another Dravya. Achārya Amratchandra [6] has very nicely summarized this
96