And in this view of the Jainas, the Soul also becomes mutilated, and loses its entireness. — 207.

↑

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 189 из 723Следующая ⇒

SUTRA II. 2. 34.

एवं चात्माकार्त्स्न्यम्॥२.२.३४॥

evaṃ cātmākārtsnyam ..2.2.34..

.. Evam, thus. .. Cha, and. …, Soul or Atman. … Akartsnyam, not entireness, limitedness.

34. And in this view of the Jainas, the Soul also becomes mutilated, and loses its entireness. — 207.

COMMENTARY

The Jaina theory is open not only to the objection of predicating contradictory attributes, like existence and non-existence, etc., to the same object, at the same time; but their Atman also becomes non-entire and mutilated. They hold that the Jiva has the size of the body that it animates. Therefore, the Soul of a child or a youth being smaller in size, would not be able to fill completely the body of the grown-up man, nor would the Soul of a man, being of the size of the man, fill the entire body of an elephant, if owing to some fault of his past Karmas, he is condemned to occupy that body. The body being thus too big for the Soul, it would not perceive the pleasure and pain in its entire organism. Similarly, when it is condemned to occupy a small body, like that of a mosquito or a gnat, it would be too big for that body and would not be able to enter it fully.

SUTRA II. 2. 35.

न च पर्यायादप्यविरोधः विकारादिभ्यः॥२.२.३५॥

na ca paryāyādapyavirodhaḥ vikārādibhyaḥ ..2.2.35..

.. Na, not, .. Cha, and, «… Paryayat, on account of the assumption of the doctrine of Paryaya or successive change; namely, that the Soul contracts and dilates, in succession, according to the size of the body. … Api, also… Avirodhah, non-contradiction. .. Vikaradtbhyah, because it would be open to the objection of change, etc.

35. Nor would this contradiction be removed by assuming the theory of Paryaya, for then the Soul would be liable to change and the rest — 208.

COMMENTARY

The Jaina may say the Soul is really indefinite in its size, and therefore, when it animates the bodies of an infant or a youth, it has that size, and when it occupies the bodies of horses or elephants, it expands itself to that size: and so by successive expansion and dilatation (just like a gas), it fully occupies the entire body that it for the time being animates: and thus there is no objection to our theory that the Soul is of the size of the body. To this, we say, that it cannot be so. Because it involves the undesirable assumption of the Soul being liable to change. In your own theory you also admit that the Soul is changeless. But if this Paryaya theory be admitted, then the Soul would become liable to change, and consequently it would become non-permanent This is a conclusion which neither you nor any body else desires. Hence your theory is not a reasonable one.

There is another theory, that the Soul undergoes no change then only when it assumes the body of Release or the body of Mukti. In that body, the Soul has the size of the body and is unchanging as that body is unchanging and permanent. This modified theory which holds that the final size of the Soul results from the Muktadeha and in which the size and the Soul are both permanent because the Soul does not pass into another body, is also not reasonable. If this final body is produced at a certain period of time it must be liable to destruction. If it is not produced at a particular period of time, then it is the eternal body of the Soul, which it possesses, from the very beginning, and it being its real size, your theory of Paryaya falls to the ground. Moreover, in your theory of everything being indefinite, this ultimate size of the Soul may either be existent or non-existent, and so there would be no permanency of this size also.

In the next Sutra the author shows the faults in the theory of release as taught by the Jainas.

Познавательные статьи:



Техника нижней прямой подачи мяча

Комплекс физических упражнений для развития мышц плечевого пояса

Стандарт Порядок надевания противочумного костюма

Общеразвивающие упражнения без предметов