________________
24
NON-ABSOLUTISTIC ATTITUDE OF THE JAINAS
[CH.
it is self-contradictory to say “The static entity changes. But the Jaina conception of staticity is not like this. It is better to use the term 'persistent' instead of 'static'. The Jaina conception of staticity is 'persistent flow'. The substance persists through modes. It is as well as becomes. Being and becoming are not mutually incompatible. One implies the other. Dead staticity is incompatible with change. Absolute being is inconsistent with becoming. If becoming were conceived as a super-addition to being, there would be self-contradiction. Becoming is not related to being in the same way as a pen is related to a table. But becoming means the state of being at a certain instant. Becoming involves and presupposes persistence. Becoming is not a derivative of being but its necessary concomitant. The question Why should a thing become and change?' is as absurd as the question 'Why should a thing exist?' Being and becoming are ontologically inseparable though they can be distinguished by logical thought. The
kers who presume being as absolutely static and conceive becoming as a derivative of being are landed in self-contradiction. They eventually reject either being or becoming or both as illusory.
The Sütrakrtänga records a number of old doctrines regarding soul, creation and morality. There were some who regarded soul as an evolute of the five material elements viz. earth, water, fire, air and ether, and regarded it as destroyed along with the dissolution of the elements. Some again held that the intelligent principle (vinnū) appeared in various shapes in the universe. There were again some who regarded soul as the sixth element and contended that both the world and the soul were eternal ; furthermore they believed in determinism. Another group believed in five momentary aggregates (skandhas) which were regarded neither as different, nor as identical, nor as caused, nor as uncaused. Suffering, according to some, was neither due to oneself nor due to another; it was due to mere blind chance or fate. There were again some who were suspicious about what was beyond suspicion and unsuspicious about what was actually liable to suspicion. There were sceptics (annāniya, literally agnostics) who did not know anything for certain.? As regards creation, again, there were some who regarded the world as created by gods, some who regarded it as created by Brahman ; others again regarded it as created by Isvara ; some again conceived it as derived from pradhāna,&
The Samosaranajjhayana mentions the doctrines of four types of heretics. These are (1) kiriyam (actionism), akiriyam (non-actionism),
1 Sūky, I. I. I. 8. 2 Ibid., I. 1. I. 9. 3 Ibid., I. 1. I. 15-16. 4 Ibid., I. I. I. 17. 5 Ibid., I. 1. 2. 2-3 Sasankiyaim sankanti sańkiyāim asankiņo.-Ibid., I 1. 2. 10. 7 nicchayattham na jānanti.-Ibid., I. I. 2. 16. 8 Ibid., I. I. 3. 5-6.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
