Jainworld
Jain World
Sub-Categories of Passions

The doubt regarding the existence of the soul

Dont Despair: Remember Soul
The Second Ganadhara
The Third Ganadhara
The Fourth Ganadhara
  The Fifth Ganadhara
  The Sixth Ganadhara
  The Seventh Ganadhara
  The Eighth Ganadhara
  The Ninth Ganadhara
  The Tenth Ganadhara
  The Eleventh Ganadhara

THE FOURTH GANADHARA: VYAKTA

Up-pravartak
Shri Amar Muni

Whereas, the pot that has already been created, now does not exist in the four alternatives namely created, uncreated, both and in the process of being created. Because 'Sva- dravya' the self-substance has been created in the form of a pot; and 'Sva-paryaya self modifications as round, red, large, light etc., has already been created. So now what to talk of to be created. And the pardrvya (the other substance) cannot emerge here in the form of a cloth or in the form of non-self modification. In other words, it cannot assume another form; otherwise it would be in another's form. The summary is this. The question of creation regarding a pot that has already been created is useless. Similarly, it is also useless to ask if a created thing is at present uncreated? Or created-uncreated or in the process of being created. If we put the same four questions about an object in the process of being created, we would say that it is not created par-rup in the non-self form. In this manner, the sky which is always existent, will not be created in any one of the four forms. Thus the uncreated one also, the pot is always existent in the form of Svadravya (own substance). So in that form it is not to be created anew.

This is about a pot and the sky in the original svadravya form or as regards modification they cannot be created in any of the four alternative forms in their non-self modifications. Even that which has been created in its own paryaya (self-modification) cannot be created now in that 'Svaparyaya'; and can be created in an uncreated 'sva- paryaya' self-modification.

1) The productive causative aggregation can be logical and established

'Since all is void, there is nothing existent like such things as causative substances'. This statement of yours is illogical and is contradicted because at first it is clearly evident that this statement has been produced by such substances as throat, lips and the palate etc. When that is so, it is nonsense to say that there are no such things as causative aggregations.

Question: This appears to be so because of Avidya= false conception) illusion, because it has been said,

(indian writing pg 96 angie)

On account of severe sensuality, lust, dream, fear and infatuation (Indian writing pg96 angie) and illusion, people see before their eyes unreal thing and deem it sat like the thread-like illusory hair as real.

Answer: If all causative aggregations notwithstanding their being unreal, (asat) are perceived, why is it that the causative aggregations of the tortoise-hair or the donkey horn are not perceived as substances? They are not seen because they are unreal. Is that not so? Therefore, whatever causative substances we see are real.

2) The causative aggregative substances (samagri) like the

chest, the head, the throat etc., the speaker, sentences comprising sounds, and the subject expressed. Are they existent or not? If they are existent then how can you say that all is void? If they are non-existent, then who heard "Sarvamsunyam" All voidness? In the same manner, the meaning of 'mother' is one who has children; how can she be barren? The utterance is that which is said how can it be devoid of propounded subject matter?

3) Question: The speaker, the utterance etc., nothing of them is real. Therefore, the propounded matter also is not real. In this manner voidness of all cannot be propounded.

Answer: Not at all. Tell me whether the utterance of such theory is true, or false. If true, then this itself is proved real. If false, it being devoid of authenticity, the idea expressed by it namely 'sarvasunyata' is proved baseless.

4) If you say, "we have accepted this utterance of whatever kind?" Is this acceptance true or false? Moreover in the principle of sarvasunyata what are the acceptor, the acceptance and the accepted principles?

5) If all are unreal (asat), then the fixed particular dealings and denotations will be lost or proved false or they will be unauthentic, baseless, unproved and illogical. Why does oil emerge from only such causative substances as the sesame? Why not from sand? Why is not any effect produced from the sky-lotus? Why only between particular substances are seen the relationship of cause and effect but not between others? These particular occurrances are not possible to occur from void substances, but from real substances with varied particular natures. Then only they are possible to occur or be created.

6) At the same time to say that 'all are in the form of causative aggregations, all are born of causative aggregations', is also not proper. It is contradictory because the atoms are not created by anything, still they are proved by the visible gross effect. Such is the actual situation in fact. Otherwise to say that all are born out of aggregations--and afterwards to say that "the atom is not born," is just like saying "all utterance is untrue". This saying is refuted by your own statement, because the atoms consist of the aggregates. If there are no atoms at all as the basis, how could molecules etc., be created without causative aggregations? If you consider that even atoms are created, then the question arises--'from what basic substances are they created'? Creation cannot take place out of void otherwise there will be no particular condition and position there being no particularity in void.

7) The hind side of a thing being not visible is void and is non-existent.

1) "The hind side of a thing cannot be seen hence it is not existing. When there does not exist the hind side, there is nothing like the front side. So the front side is also not existent". What kind of inference is this? On the contrary on the vision of the fore side of it, the hind side is proved.

Because there is a hind side, then only a certain part called fore side is there. If there is no hind side, what is the meaning of the fore side?

Therefore, when on the basis of the existence of the fore side by the inference the existence of the hind side is logically established, then by refuting it your proposition of the frontside goes contradictory to your own statement. When you deny the hind side, your statement--that there is a fore side--is refuted. The hind-side goes parallel with the front side. To refute the hind side, would mean to refute the front side and hence the statement of front side is self contradictory.

2) You said that "because only the front side of the object is visible, the object is not existent". In this statement, the words, "visible" and "not existent" are contradictory. If you say that it is visible out of illusion, then the question is why is it that front side of the sky-flower is not visible?

3) If there is 'Sarwam sunyam' (total voidness) then how can there be differences like modern and old, near and distant, front and back? If you say that-the front, back and distant are denoted according to the opponent's opinion--then the question arises: is there a difference between "Own" opinion and "opponent's" opinion? Is there anything like real opinion and void opinion? In the same manner if you accept (treat) this difference as real, it means the repudiation of 'the theory of total voidness. If it is not accepted and if still the dealing, the denotation continues why do not such dealing and denotation prevail in respect of 'sky-flowers' also?

4) If all things are unreal, why like the back side of a thing the front side also is not invisible? Why are not all sides invisible? Or why are not all sides visible or, why is it that the front is seen but not the back?

5) In the things like sfatik etc., through the transparent items the hind side also is visible. Since this much is proved, consequently all did not remain void, hence your theory "all is void" is not correct. It you say that even this is unreal, then for proving the theory of 'sarva sunyava all voidness you have forwarded as its reason back portion is invisible, but this reason is wrong. The reason to be forwarded should be "all is invisible" but that is a contradiction. Otherwise you could have said because the totality is invisible, so the totality is unreal." Having trust on this "all unreal", if you walk on closing your eyes, it is possible that you might proceed towards a wall or a well and there you might fall into the well or dash against the wall.

6) "The hind side being invisible is not existent". If you say so, at least you accept that the front is visible. Therefore at least the existence of the senses (as the means of perceiving) and the objects of the senses is proved. If even these are unreal then the distinction between perceptible things and imperceptible things cannot be logically established.

7) Even invisible things are existing and are not unreal. Even the doubt regarding unreal things "Are all unreal or real?" itself is an existing real thing. If this doubt also is unreal, what about the object of the doubt namely what about sarwasunyatva? If you say even doubt is unreal, it means there is no doubt regarding the five elements. If that is so, the five elements are proved to be real and existent. Now you see that though the back portion is invisible, its existence is proved by inference. In this world, the existence of many things is proved by inference.

The Illustration of Invisible things proved to be Existent by means of Inference

The wind is cognizable (is understandable) through touch, sound, calmness, shaking etc., and as the possessor of the qualities like coolness, movement etc. When we are touched by the cool breezes of wind, we say, "the cool wind is blowing". The sound is visible in the direction of the wind but not in the opposite direction. From this, it is by inference established that the wind that is the resort of the sound is blowing in that direction.

The sky is an established fact as the basis for the earth and water. The earth has a basis because it has a form. Just as earth is the base for water, the sky is the basis for the earth. The five basic elements are proved by the bodies of the souls and their utility.

The five basic elements are evident as the support of soul's body and their utility.

Vanaspatikaya (Vegetative Body):

Like the body of a human being even the vanaspati kaya has birth, old age, life, death and growth. Even after it is cut, it has similar physical creation of sprouting, cherishing desires, treatment etc., hence it is proved to be a living thing. The existence of a soul in vanaspati kaya is proved thus:

1) Touch me not sensitive Proved by its contraction

plant--Bashful at touch

2) Wood apple--a creeping proved by its dependence for

plant its safety on a hedge or a wall.

3) Shami, etc. proved by sleep, waking, and contraction.

4) Bakula, a perfumed plant proved by the attraction of sound

5) The Ashoka tree-- proved by the attraction of form

Jonecia Ashoka

6) Kurubaru proved by the attraction of scent

7) Virahak proved by the attration of taste

8) Champa Tilak proved by the attraction of touch

The Prithvi kayajiva is like a muscular sprout.

It is proved by the growth of the sprouts of the same species, after having been formerly cut. The dug out mountain, or mine, gets filled up in the same form after many years. How can this happen without a soul?

The apkayajiva, like a frog, coming out from dug out earth by its natural manifestation, is proved animate. It is evidently animate like a fish falling from the sky clouds etc. by their distortions.

The vayukaya jiva like bullock without other's direction, makes irregular horizontal movement, so it has soul.

The agnikaya jiva. It is evident as animate from its living on food (fuel) and increase with the availability of sufficient food and by its consequent development.

In this manner, the elements like earth etc., are different from the distortions of the sky like twilight and have form. Therefore, they are jivakayas soul's bodies. If in the world there were no souls possessing one sense, the (samsar) the world itself would have ended because from times immemorial the process of souls attaining moksa (salvation) is current. Yet there is no end to souls. If so, where were all these souls staying? Here we should believe that they all were lying in the 'ekendriya' bodies.

Where is Violence, Or Non Violence

Question: Then in this world pervaded with jivas, how can non-violence be observed?

Answer The earth etc., which are destroyed by weapons lack life; therefore in utilising them there is no violence. In the same manner, even this is proper to be known that according to the 'Nischayinay' there is no rule that "there is necessarily violence, if the jiva dies; and necessarily non-violence where the jiva does not die." Even this is not a rule that if jivas are less, there is non-voilence, and if jivas are more there is violence", because those wicked people who have the evil motive of killing a king etc., are violent though they do not kill them. Likewise a doctor though he might give pain to a patient is necessarily non- violent. The enlightened Munis who observe five 'samitis' (awareness of sinlessness) and three 'Guptis' (mental-vocal- physical auspicious activities accompanied with the restraint over inauspicious activities), know the nature of jivas. Over and above they are always cautious and careful in their concern for total non-violence to jivas, and always pursue that objective. Now even if at any time violence might have been committed by them under awareness of samitis-guptis, they are not violent. On the contrary in any activity with non-cautious mental mood. even if ajiva does not die, there is violence because of the absence of caution and awareness for protection of jivas.

Therefore in fact the inauspicious mental attitude is violence, just as Tandulia Matsyas etc., are bound by the karmas of violence only on account of thoughts of violence, even though they are not actually comitting violence. Who is this Tandulia Matsya! It is a very small fish staying in the eye brow of a big gigantic fish. It sees that "along with a big wave of water a lot of small fish enter the cave-like open mouth of that very big fish lying in sleep": and it thinks "how lucky this big fish is to have this big lot of fishes easily available directly in mouth for devouring." Afterwards on returning the water wave out, those small fishes are thrown out intact alive. Looking this the small Tandulia fish thinks, "oh! how foolish this big fish is to leave up such a big lot of fishes without eating them! If I were in its place, I would have eaten all the fishes, and I would not have left off a single of them."

These thoughts of violence will be tantamout to actual violence inasmuch as it binds the karmas of violence which send that jiva to hell!

Question: Is not violence the actual killing of the external jiva?

Answer: There is anekantvad i.e., it may or may not be violence. If the external killing of a jiva is a cause or an effect of inauspicious conscience (mentality) it is no violence. If there is no inauspicious mentality it is no violence. Just as on account of the purity of the mental mood i.e., sanctity of the heart of one who is free from moha ( insanity ).

Thus the five elements (bhutas) are real but not unreal. Out of these, first four are having conciousness and the last one Akash (Sky) does not possess conciousness.

The proposition, "the whole samsar is like a dream" is to show to the Bhavya jivas the worthlessness of money, women, sons, worldly objects etc. On hearing this they may leave off their blind avarice and affections in them and get indifferent towards them and consequently make efforts for salvation.

In this manner having been relieved of all his doubts brahmin Vyakta with his 500) disciples accepted Charitra-dharma on the spot at the hands of Bhagavan Mahavir.