Atma Ka Swa Par Prakash 01

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Atma ka Swa Par Prakash (1)" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, based on the given excerpt:

Core Subject: The Nature of the Soul (Atman)

The text, "Atma ka Swa Par Prakash (1)," by Sukhlal Sanghavi, identifies the soul (Atman) as the central and ultimate concern of Indian philosophers. All other philosophical inquiries are seen as arising from the quest to understand the soul.

Diverse Philosophical Views on the Soul:

The excerpt highlights the long-standing existence of widely divergent and even contradictory views regarding the soul's existence and nature within Indian philosophical traditions. Two prominent extreme positions are presented:

• Eternalism (Nityatva): Philosophies like the Upanishadic and Sankhya traditions consider the soul to be completely eternal and unchanging (kutasha).
• Momentariness (Kshanikata): The Buddhist doctrine, attributed to Gautama Buddha or later thinkers, posits that the soul (or consciousness/mind) is entirely momentary or ephemeral.

Jainism's Middle Path: Nityanityatva (The Eternal and the Non-Eternal)

Jainism, as articulated by Lord Mahavir in its scriptures, offers a "middle path" that reconciles these extremes. This doctrine, known as Nityanityatva, asserts that the soul is both eternal and non-eternal. The text cites Bhagavati Sutra (Shatak 7, Udhyayan 2) as evidence for this.

Support from Other Schools and Scholarly Debate:

The text points out that the Mimamsaka scholar Kumarila Bhatta also explicitly and logically supported this Jain doctrine of Nityanityatva, as evidenced by his work, "Shlokavartika" (Atma section, shloka 28). The author notes that although Acharya Hemchandra quoted verses from Tatvasangraha in support of the Jain view, these verses were essentially summaries of Kumarila's thoughts, thus indicating a shared perspective with the Mimamsakas on this matter.

The Concept of Self-Luminescence (Swavabhasitva) and Other-Luminescence (Paravabhasitva) in Knowledge and the Soul:

The discussion then shifts to the nature of knowledge (jnana) and its relationship with the soul, specifically the concepts of "self-luminescence" (being known by itself) and "other-luminescence" (being known by something else).

• Seeds in Early Literature: The roots of these ideas can be found in the literature from the Shruti-Agama period, but their clear exposition and support emerged prominently during the logical (Tarka) era.
• Mimamsaka View: According to the proponent of indirect knowledge (paroksha-jnana), Kumarila Bhatta, both knowledge and the soul, being inseparable from it, are characterized by "other-luminescence" (paravabhasitva).
• Yogachara Buddhist View: The Yogachara Buddhists, who believe in the non-existence of anything external to consciousness (vijnana), argue that since consciousness is self-aware (svasamvit), both knowledge and the soul, being identical to it, are characterized by "self-luminescence" (swavabhasitva).

Jainism's Multifaceted Approach to Knowledge and the Soul:

Jainism, true to its nature of "anekanta" (non-one-sidedness or manifoldness), holds a balanced view on this matter as well.

• Acharya Siddhasena Divakara: The text identifies Acharya Siddhasena Divakara as the earliest Jain Acharya to clearly define both knowledge and the soul as both self-luminescent and other-luminescent.
• Acharya Hemchandra: Acharya Hemchandra reiterates Siddhasena's statement.

The Issue of Soul's Dimension and Acharya Hemchandra's Nuance:

The text then discusses the concept of the soul's extent or dimension, particularly in relation to the body.

• Devasuri's "Dehavapitva" (Body-Pervasiveness): Devasuri, while describing the nature of the soul, uses various distinguishing adjectives, including "dehavapitva," meaning the soul pervades the entire body.
• Hemchandra's Omission and Clarification: Acharya Hemchandra, however, does not include this "dehavapitva" attribute in his formulation of the soul's nature. The author clarifies that this omission by Hemchandra was not to create confusion about the similarity between Jainism and Kumarila's view on the soul's dimension (just as with the Nityanitya aspect). Instead, Hemchandra explicitly states that while "dehavapitva" is accepted, he did not include it in the sutras because it was not directly relevant to the immediate discussion.

In essence, the excerpt establishes the centrality of the soul in Indian philosophy, contrasts the extreme eternalist and momentary views, and firmly places Jainism in the middle ground with its doctrine of Nityanityatva, supported by the logical arguments of its own and other schools. It further delves into the complex topic of self and other luminescence in knowledge and the soul, highlighting the nuanced Jain perspective of being both, and touches upon the debate regarding the soul's dimension, as mediated by Acharya Hemchandra's strategic omission.