Mokshamala

Author(s): Manu Doshi
Publisher: Manu Doshi

Page 68

Lesson 89: Jain Fundamentals, Part 8
He continued, "These 18 fallacies occur in respect of those three words. One Jain monk had told us that Jain Saptabhangi Naya (Seven perspectives or viewpoints) is unique; all the various modes of expression can fit therein; it covers the unimaginable divisions of affirmative as well as negative perspectives. After hearing it we came home and tried to apply those three esteemed words to the states of soul. I think that affirmative as well as negative perspectives cannot be simultaneously applied to soul. It would therefore be a problem to establish the validity of those words. This I am not saying out of derision."
I replied, "Your method of applying the affirmative and negative perspectives to soul does not conform to the spirit of Syädväd (Theory of relative perspective); as such it can lead to one-sided conclusions. I am, of course, not an expert in that matter, but know something about it according to my intelligence. Since your method is not in accordance with Syädväd, please listen how it needs to be logically presented."
Refusal to admit the arising of soul means that soul is without beginning or end.
Refusal to admit the passing away of soul means that soul is indestructible.
Refusal to admit the constancy of soul means that soul does not stay forever in the same embodiment.
Lesson 90: Jain Fundamentals, Part 9
To admit the arising of soul means that soul moves from one embodiment to another till it is liberated.
To admit the passing away of soul means that soul moves out of the present embodiment. It can also be interpreted that its true nature is continually facing death in the form of indulging in sense-objects etc.
To admit the constancy of soul means that soul as a substance is indestructible; it stays forever.
I think that this would help in taking care of the fallacies indicated by you.
Absence of arising of soul proves its constancy. This removes the first fallacy.
Evidence of soul's arising, passing away and constancy from different perspectives proves its everlastingness. This removes the second fallacy.
Evidence of constancy of soul's true nature proves that it is indestructible. This removes the third fallacy.
Evidence that soul as a substance does not arise removes the fourth fallacy.
Evidence of soul's everlastingness proves that it does not arise. This removes the fifth fallacy.
Evidence that the soul does not arise removes the sixth fallacy relating to creation.
Evidence of constancy cum passing away removes the seventh fallacy of kinship with Chärväk viewpoint.
Evidence of soul's arising and passing away in respect of different embodiment removes the eighth fallacy of identification with Chärväk philosophy.