Shri Amar Muni
Two sorts of vyapti
It has already been said that if we like to use
inference, we should know previously the relationship of dependence
between 'sadhya' and 'hetu' (major term and reason). Now it is necessary
to state clearly that there are two kinds of Vyapti-Sambandhas:
1. the relationship of agreement in presence viz.
Anvaya--vyapti (relationship through co-existence of two,
2. vyatireka vyapti (the relationship of agreement of
the two in absence ).
Anvayavyapti (Agreement in presence): This is the
statement of the presence of the hetu and sadhya Where there is the hetu
(reason) there is the sadhya (major); as in the case of smoke and fire.
Vyatireka--Vyapti:- (Agreement in absence): This is
said to be present in a situation where the relationship is opposite to
Anvaya e.g. where there is no sadhya there is no hetu as where there is no
fire as in a lake, there can be no smoke. Another example, if other
philosophers do not believe in the omniscient Jinendradeva as the reverend
Supreme Lord, then there is no Jainatva (Jainhood) in them.
1. Where there is no Anvyavyapti but where there is
only Vyatireka-Vyapti we cannot make any inference, just as when we see a
man doing strange abnormal actions, we infer that he is possessed by a
ghost. But here when we have not seen a ghost, how can we find
Anvayavyapti e.g "Wherever there are abnormal actions, there is ghost's
possession." We have not seen such a thing previously because a ghost is
not a thing that can be seen. Yet where there is no possession by a ghost
there is no abnormal action. This kind of Vyatirekavyapti is found, and if
this is found, we infer possession by ghost. Absolutely in the same
manner, activity and refrainment from activity are seen in a living body
and not in a dead body; so, as in the case of possession by ghosts, we can
make an inference about possession of the body by the soul. We can say:
"Wherever there is no soul's contact, there are no independent
2. A machine manifests a regular and particular kind of
working, but the body as opposed to the machine manifests many strange
activities. Therefore, we have to infer the existence of some entity
dwelling inside the body as in the case of a body possessed by a ghost.
3. The body is like a beautiful mansion supported by
two pillars; therefore there must be somebody as its creator and a
governor of its actions just as in the case of a house or a cottage in a
forest. The body is a machine-like system. All the activities in the body
are mechanical. In the head there is the brain which functions like a
highly sophisticated computer or a telegraphic office. It is the centre of
such activities as receiving messages, communicating them, formation of
concepts by associating meanings to perceptions by means of sensitive
nerves and under that office there are for the enjoyment of soul the
sense-organs, the eyes, the ears, the nose, the tongue and the skin which
are media through which the sovereign soul is overwhelmed with joy on
seeing the glories and gracefulness of creation. They are like five
windows through which the soul perceives the world around by the
intervening medium of the senses. The soul as the proprietor-sovereign, by
means of these five senses, enjoys such things as dreams, music, gardens,
flowers, sweets and soft objects, that are presented to him. In the same
manner, musical instruments are fitted in the throat of this mansion of
the human body, the heart contains power, below it there is a store and a
kitchen and still below urinal and latrine. Who has built this amazing
factory? Who governs, controls and organises all these things? The answer
has to be that it is the Soul. If we say that God is the creator of those
things, he is proved to be an engineer with imperfect knowledge and
abilities because he has created a body which is greedy of food and drinks
and which has to move about carrying the burden of such foul things as
urine and faeces. Why did God create such an imperfect body? See the
pitiable condition of man. He can look ahead but cannot see what is lying
and happening behind! Why did He create such an imperfect eye? In this
world, some are beautiful; some are ugly: some are healthy and some are
unhealthy; some possess eye-sight and some are blind. Why did He create
such differences? If you say that all these things occur according to
their karmas (luck) here the question arises "Whose Karmas are they?" If
you say that they are the soul's karmas then the existence of the soul (jiva)
4. The body, the senses and the limbs are the objects
of enjoyment. If so, who is the one who is the enjoyer? Just as there is
somebody who takes delight in wearing fine dress, there is an entity which
takes delight in possessing a beautiful body. Who is this entity enjoying
pleasures? The two legs and two hands are like servants. Who makes use of
them? The answer is that it is the soul or the sovereign Atmavam that
extracts work from them. The jiva is like a sovereign king ruling over the
body and residing in it. As long as the king lives in the palace, the
palace is kept clean and all its parts also have a new look but if the
king leaves the palace, it becomes desolate and ruined because without the
householder the house is void and vacuum. If the gardener in the form of
'soul' (jiva) is not there, the body withers away like an uncared for
garden. Who can take care of the body and can enjoy it if there is no
5. The five senses are merely instruments. If that is
so, who is the controller of the senses, whose purposes do they serve?
Naturally, it is the soul that gets them to do work. Pincers and forceps
cannot work by themselves. Someone must be there who uses them and gets
work done by them.
6. If the body, the senses and the limbs carry out
their work in obedience to the orders of some independent governing
entity, then who is that independent governing entity? The answer is
clear. It is the soul. It itself moves the pupils of the eyes here and
there to see as desired, and makes the hands and legs move according to
its own desire. It can also, as desired, keep them still. The body cannot
be considered the owner controlling these various activities, because it
is a form of a combination of all those various senses and organs. The
body is not an independent entity. We cannot consider even the mind as the
ordering entity because even that is dependent. It does not like to drink
bitter medicine; yet it has to drink such medicine. Who makes it drink
such medicine? When a person is sick, the mind hankers after eating
unwholesome food; still who restricts this mind and stops it from eating
what it likes to eat? It is the soul that does this. The soul is an
independent proprietor. The mind is the manager. The mind sends waves to
the various senses according to the inner tastes, likes and dislikes of
the lord and owner dwelling in the body; and impels the various senses and
organs to engage themselves in violent or non-violent activities etc.
Those who utilise rightly this very valuable independence in giving the
mind a good direction, in impelling the senses and organs to be of the
pure soul, in the right way, and who engage themselves in auspicious
activities, can cross the ocean of samsar.
7. Who controls and regulates the various activities of
the body, limbs and senses? Who checks the sneeze? Who makes the eyes
close to stop seeing something undesirable? Who makes the feet stop in the
middle, while walking? Who impels the organ, on seeing the danger, at
once, to stop passing urine? In the same manner, who is the one that saves
us from speaking reproaching words intended to be spoken due to anger. Who
is the independent controller of such actions an-l activities? Who
organizes all these activities? Naturally, we must admit that the soul
does all these things.
8. When a quarrel arises among the senses, who
functions as the judge to settle the dispute? As for example, the eyes
inform us that a certain article is made of silver, while the touch
reveals that it is tin-coated. The entity that thinks about it and gives
an undoubted judgement is the soul; not the hand or the mind; because they
are merely instruments. When the eyes see a green mango they inform us
that it is sour. But when soul makes the tongue taste it, and it gives a
sweet taste it disproves the idea given by the eyes. Without the soul as
the interpretor and judge, how can the dispute between the tongue and the
eyes be compromised, since their objects are utterly different and
individually independent and since their perceptions are contradictory?
Who says, "By sight I find that the mango is sour and unripe; and by
taste, I find that it is ripe and sweet?" Here we have to admit that the
sayer 'I' is the soul.
9. This body like a house or money is an object of
attachment. If so, who develops attachment for the body? The house, money,
iron-safe, furniture and other such objects cannot exercise any attachment
by themselves because they are inanimate. The one who develops attachment
for all these is an independent, individual, animate entity. "My body is
tired. Now it cannot walk around as ordered by you". Who says this? The
body itself cannot say this. The one who has such attachment for the body
is the soul. Now you see that attachment arises from practice, hence how
can a new-born child have attachment for his own body? Since it is new
born, it has no practice. Therefore, we have to believe that becaue it has
attachment even from birth, it has inherited impressions of attachments
from its previous births. Thus, the independent existence of soul as the
link between the two births is proved.
10. Who experiences the joys and sorrows of the mind? A
man eating delicious food is in a happy mood; but suddenly, if he receives
a telegram which says that he has incurred a loss of thousands of rupees,
he becomes sad on hearing this news. Who experiences mental agony? The joy
of having eaten delicious food exists in the body; and no harm has been
done otherwise; so, we have to believe that the soul experiences that
agony. In the same manner, when we get a festering finger cut off, the
body seems to have been freed from pain because it is saved from further
festering and pain. But who worries throughout life by thinking "Alas! I
have lost my finger?" It is the soul which experiences this life-long
11. The body of a child acquires its shape from its
parents; still, at times the child is seen possessing different qualities
and nature which are dissimilar to those of its parents. Why so? By
nature, the mother may be irritable, while the child may be calm, cool and
peaceful. Why So? It has to be admitted here that in the two bodies, there
are two independent and different souls which have brought into this
world, the different impressions of their experiences of their past (janmas)
births. Therefore, the two persons differ from each other in nature and
possess different qualities. The impressions or impact of both are
12. The potter knows that form soft clay, an excellent
pot can be made, so he works on the soft clay to get desired pot. This
signifies that for the activity or the withdrawal of an activity, we
should have prior knowledge of the means of the desired ones and the hated
ones. Then only can we move toward the means of the liked ones and
withdraw from the means of the hated ones. A new born child has to suck
its mother's breast for the satisfaction of its hunger. From where did the
child get the knowledge that the sucking of the mother's breast is the
means to satisfy its hunger. You may say that the mother makes him aware
of it but that is not the case. She can place the tip of her breast in the
mouth of the child. That is all. But who taught the child the process of
sucking? The mouth of a child is not like a blotting-paper which can
naturally suck the milk of its mother; nor is it a magnet which naturally
attracts and absorbs milk. If this is so, why does the child give up
sucking of its own accord, after it is satisfied? Consequently, we have to
admit that the child engages itself in sucking because of the knowledge of
the means and its desire. This knowledge that sucking breast-milk
satisfies its desire is derived from the impact of the experience of its
previous birth. We have to believe that the child's soul had experiences
in its previous birth and those experiences created the impressions,
otherwise who is the container (supporter) of the Samskar (past
impressions)? The body of a newly born child is inert. So, it cannot be
the container. What relation does it have with impressions of the previous
body, since it did not exist in the previous birth? How can this inanimate
body know what is liked and what is hated?
Knowledge is not a quality of the body. If the
knowledge is not a quality of the body, then is it worthwhile that it
should eat Kheer, a sweet milk-pudding first; and take curry
afterwards and gather both in the stomach? The body has no consciousness.
Are there separate compartments in the stomach? No, but there the soul is
incapable of keeping them separate; therefore, it has to bear with all
this. It is capable of placing them separately in the mouth and of chewing
them separately. All this is the work not of the body, but of the
conscious soul; and therefore when soul gives up the body, the activity of
eating ceases, even if the body exists. This proves that the activity is
of soul; not of the body.
13. In the same manner, in the twins born to the same
parents, we find differences in respect of nature, fondness, habits,
tastes, desires, attachments, etc. Why so? The parents are the same. In
the same manner, one of the twins learns with a little teaching, while the
other does not. Why so? One experiences great delight in carrying out
religious and spiritual activities like worshipping God etc. while the
other has less interest in them. Both grow up in the same environment but
why this difference? It must be admitted here that those sufficiencies and
deficiencies. and inabilities arise on account of the varied impressions
of previous births. This implies the existence of the soul.
In the lives of persons, we see the psychophysical
activities of the mind, voice and the body; the desire for carrying out
the four endeavours (purusharthas, (Prana) breathing, or consciousness
of (jnana-Darshan) knowledge and precept, the sentiments of anger,
pride, deception, avarice, passions and the various leshyas (mental
states) like the Krishna (Black) Leshya etc. the instincts, (Samjnas)
relating to food, sensual pleasures, possessions and fear, the
inauspicious tendencies like attachment, hatred, joy, lamentation,
sorrow and agitation, perturbation etc. the inauscipious tendencies like
pardon, forbearance, tolerance, politeness, and non-violence, truth and
self-discipline etc. Who is the possessor of all these qualities? The
inanimate body cannot be the possessor of these qualities because though
the body remains in the same condition, these tendencies keep on
changing. Sometimes, man exercises direct perception, sometimes through
missing page 29 30 gada
world-creatorship in the Vitrag god which creatorship
lies in causes like Karmas, etc.
Question: Well, if it is said that there is no god,
then this negation itself proves the existence of God. Doesn't it?
Answer: Let it be so. By the name of Ishwar, the
wealthy people of that name "Ishwar", or those who possess royal
prosperity and splendour, and even the Paramatma who possesses supreme
prosperity are proved to exist.
20. The word that is pure (not a compound word) and
etymologically derive-i denotes a reality. For instance, the word, "Ashwa",
which means a horse is derived from the world 'Ashu', which means that
which runs swiftly. In the same manner, the word Jiva', denotes an entity
that lives. One who is living-is a Jiva. The Atma is that which moves
through different modifications.
21. The entity which has other words and modifications
is real and is independent by existence. The body is called by various
names such as Sharir, Kaya, Deha, Kalevar. These various names of the body
denote the existence of the body. Similarly, the words Jiva (the living
being), Chetana (consciousness), atma (the soul), Jnanawan (the
enlightened one) is the other independent word denoting the Jiva.
Therefore they prove the existence of the soul or Jivaraja. Imaginary
words do not indicate any existing reality; e.g. a peasant's Ta Ra Ra Ra
faltering sounds do not: have any similar other- word. Such imaginary
words do not denote any substantial and real object.
22. The thing finally liked. It often happens in life
that we discard a thing which we like less to secure a thing which we like
more. People discard their rest to carry out business, because they like
business more than rest, but people discard also a harmful business if
they can get more money by some other more beneficial source; because they
love money. But a man possessing wealth spends it to secure medical aid
for his sick son because he loves his son more than money. Since he loves
his wife more than his son, if some grief is caused to his wife by his son
or his daughter-in-law, he will advise his son and daughter-in-law to live
separately. If a fire breaks out in his house, and if at that time, he is
on the ground floor and if his wife is upstairs, and if there is fear of
her being burnt to ashes within a second, will the husband go upstairs to
save his wife's life? No, he will simply jump out of his house because,
although he loves his wife, he loves his own body more than his wife.
There is a further step. If the daughter-in-law is tired of the tortures
of her mother-in-law and finds the heartlessness of her mother-in-law, she
burns her body and commits suicide. She sacrifices even her body. For
whose sake? What is more loveable than the body? The answer is that it is
the soul. The daughter-in-law thinks, "I can't bear this agony. Let me die
(viz. sacrifice) my body in fire and let me by death go to the other
world, so that I may not have to bear tortures". Who is this 'I' here? It
is the soul. It is the soul which sacrifices the body to get rid of the
endless agony and anguish.
23. The amity, regard and goodness shown by others are
liked whereas quarrels, grief, agitation, the superiority complex of
others are not liked. By whom? By the soul, not by the body. Here one that
is actually pleased or displeased by these things, is not the body, but
the soul, because the body does not gain or lose weight or beauty by
seeing other's amity or agitation. It is the soul that experiences either
elation or depression, either loss or gain, in terms of emotion. If
somebody is laughing or smiling, seeing that physical gesture, we say,
that this is a mere show. In fact, he is inwardly unhappy. How can we use
the word inwardly, if there is only the body and no substance like soul?
What do we mean by saying 'inwardly?' It means that the soul of that
person is inwardly really unhappy, though outwardly he seems to be
24. At times we come across some persons who remember a
previous birth. Such things do happen. Such a person remembers that in his
previous birth, he lived at a certain shop, house and children etc. These
experiences are authenticated by the relatives. These things may be still
existent. He may say "I was doing business here: I was living here etc".
Who is this 'I' and 'my' and 'me' etc. You may say that the 'I refers to
that man's soul who has come here from that previous life and that soul
remembers its past experiences. The body of the present life which is
quite new has no contact with the body of the previous birth. The previous
body is totally destroyed and the previous life is completely ended. Then
who is here that remembers the past events. It is soul that remembers, the
soul being eternal and imperishable was living in the past life.
A brief classifcation of the inferences relating to the
1. Activity and refraining from activity.
2. Entrance of a ghost: the possession of a body by a
3. The creator of the mansion in the form of human
4. The one who organises and controls the bodily
functions and enjoys the experiences relating to the body.
5. The handling of the senses as instruments.
6. The one who directs the limbs, senses, tongue,
utterances and the mind in proceeding or retreating.
7. The one who controls the movements of limbs.
8. The arbitrator of the dissensions (disputes) among
9. One who experiences that the body is "Mine" and
10. The qualities of children differing from those of
11. The one who knows and experiences the joys and
12. The knowledge of liked and disliked things.
13. The difference between twin children regarding
their taste, likes and dislikes.
14. Yoga (Activities of mind, body and voice);
Upayoga (concentration of mind, consciousness of the soul); The
psycho-physical activities and propriety, Bhava (mood): mental
attitudes, tendencies and instincts like `leshyas', (mental state) and
15. The supporting basis of the qualities like
16. Doubt. If the soul is doubted, it is real.
17. Illusion (wrong knowledge).
18. The opposite entity.
19. Negation. What is negated here, lies surely
20. The basically and etymologically derived
un-combined world `jiva.
21. The alternative words, the other words.
22. The thing that is loved finally, that is most
23. Loved and hated.
24. The recollection (remembrance) of previous life
(birth). What does soul mean? We must not forget that after we realize
the existence of the soul, we must treat soul as more important and more
lovable than our body and the perceptible world. We should be very
willingly and strongly determined in our mind that:
(a) `I' means the eternal and the never-perishing
(b) `I' means the soul dependent on the karmas
bound in the previous births.
(c) `I' means the soul that is often untiringly
committing on inauspicious activities of the mind, voice and body; and
thereby gathering and heaping newer and newer burdens of karmas upon
(d)`I' means `my' soul that is afflicted with and
distressed by the disease on account of the very body which is
created, protected and nourished by the self.
(e)`I' means `my' soul that will be dismissed at an
unknown time on an untimely occasion:
(f) Soul that is wandering through the varied yonis
(that is the place of being born in the samsar).