________________
I. 47, 48 )
CHAPTER I
[ 53
the case of the soul all the attributes of it in the state of its temporal existence should be described as interpenetrating.
The Author has given the illustration of a man to prove that what is true in the case of a man is also true in the case of the soul. But here some one would take an objection to this sort of a comparison between a man and a soul. For, the objector would say, the soul is one pure element- but in the illustration given the man is not one pure element. He is, composed of a body and a soul. This illustration is therefore, not a correct one. You have first proved the unity and diversity of a man and established the proposition of birth, decay and permanence of a thing. Then on the strength of this illustration you proved the same sort of unity and difference in the soul, in order to account for the capacity to incur Karmic bondage and liberation and to account for the attempt to secure happiness and remove unhappiness. But the comparison of the soul with a man does not stand, for in the first place the man is not characterised with unity and difference at the same time. All the states that you. have showen such as those of childhood, youth etc., as proving the difference in man really show the difference of his body, for these are the different states of his body and not of his soul. On the other hand the qualities, such as, his sense of shame due to his recollection of the past and his longing for future happiness, that in your opinion, go to prove the oneness of his soul, for these qualities belong exclusively to the soul. To sum up, therefore, the
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
