Jain Vidyo Me Shodh Ke Kshitij Ek Sarvekshan Jiv Vigyan

Here is a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text in English:

Book Title: Jain Vidyo me shodh ke Kshitij Ek Sarvekshan Jiv Vigyan (Horizons of Research in Jain Knowledge: A Survey of Biology) Author: Kalpana Jain Publisher: Z_Kailashchandra_Shastri_Abhinandan_Granth_012048.pdf Catalog Link: https://jainqq.org/explore/211039/1

This article, "Horizons of Research in Jain Knowledge: A Survey of Biology" by Kalpana Jain, explores the biological content within Jain scriptures and compares it with modern scientific understanding. It highlights the significant amount of material on living beings (Jiva) found in Jain Agamas and other texts, alongside information on non-living substances (Ajiva).

Key Themes and Findings:

• The Nature of Jiva (Soul/Living Being):

  • Jain scriptures define Jiva through both material (paudgalik) and immaterial (abhautik) attributes.
  • Material attributes include: number of pradeshas (spatial units), mobility, changeability, body size, breath (pranapan), karma bondage, and multiplicity.
  • Immaterial attributes include: indestructibility, formlessness (amurtatva), and consciousness (chaitanya/sensitivity).
  • The text "Bhava Praakrit" describes Jiva as colorless, tasteless, odorless, shapeless, asexual, and imperceptible to the senses.
  • Eight special attributes of Jiva include: Kevala Jnana (infinite knowledge), Kevala Darshana (infinite perception), Ananta Virya (infinite energy), Samyaktva (right faith), subtlety, unobstructability, capacity for occupying space, and lightness.
  • The Bhagavati Sutra lists 23 names for Jiva, which can be classified as physical or non-physical. The article notes that most of these characteristics are physical, and even those categorized as non-physical can be explained through a physical lens.
  • A curious observation is the absence of "formlessness" (amurtatva) among the initial 23 attributes, suggesting it might be a later development.
  • The authenticity of Agamas during the time of Kundakunda and Umaswati is considered undisputed. A question is raised about why, out of the 23 characteristics, only "Upayoga Lakshanam" (consciousness as the defining characteristic) became primary in later times, suggesting a need for scholarly research.

• Jiva and Modern Science:

  • Modern science, with its focus on material existence, tends to view life as physical. While concepts like consciousness (Upayoga) can be interpreted as different levels of sensitivity with a potential physical explanation, modern science remains silent on the fundamentally immaterial aspect of life.
  • The article discusses the seeming contradiction between the material basis of life in modern science (e.g., test-tube creations) and the evidence for past lives and communication with spirits, which points towards the immaterial nature of life.
  • Jain's research suggests that even when considering life-essence as subtle energy, its physicality is supported by Jain Agamas, which consider energies as particulate. Modern science currently recognizes only particles and energy and has not yet accepted any other non-physical substance, requiring more concrete evidence for such claims.
  • The fundamental nature of life remains a complex question.

• The Role of Paryapti and Prana:

  • Sikdar identifies paryapti (fulfillment or development of faculties) and prana (life force) as instrumental in the origin and movement of life.
  • However, the article argues this is not entirely accurate. Prana are the characteristics that manifest from the development of paryapti. Paryapti are generally physically manifest, and their development is driven by external heat (like from the sun) and internal enzymes.
  • According to the karma doctrine, paryapti manifest due to the fruition of specific karma. Karma itself can be considered the power. It is this power that enables various vital functions.
  • The physicality of prana and paryapti is evident. The article suggests that the characteristics of Jiva in the Agamic period differ from the later concept of an abstract Jiva. These may be considered aupadhik (accidental or contingent) attributes.
  • This points to significant potential for research on the evolution of the definition of fundamental elements and the development of a consistent definition. It is currently accepted that fundamentally, Jiva is considered immaterial in the Agamas, and its nature can only be understood through self-experience, not through experiments and logic alone. However, some experiments by Russian scientist Pavlov are suggested to shed new light on this.

• Reproduction and Classification of Living Beings:

  • The origin of worldly beings is generally classified as viviparous (garbhaj - including mammals, birds, etc.) and spontaneously generated (sammurcchanaj).
  • Viviparous reproduction is considered sexual reproduction from one Jiva to another. Spontaneously generated reproduction is viewed as the origin of life from non-living matter.
  • Both theories were prevalent in ancient times, with Aristotle supporting the spontaneous generation theory. This theory is considered true for unicellular organisms but not for multicellular or multi-sensory beings.
  • Therefore, the reproduction of organisms with specific characteristics should be considered viviparous. The article suggests a re-examination of classical beliefs regarding the gender (ved) of these organisms, noting that they can be male and female, not just neuter.
  • Modern understanding of sexual and asexual reproduction in plants and bacteria reinforces the idea that viviparous reproduction can be both sexual and asexual.
  • Jain texts classify living beings in various ways, particularly based on sense organs. This is contrasted with the Manusmriti's classification based on the source of origin.
  • A point of discussion is whether the mind is the sixth sense or an indecisive sense. The Tamil text "Tholkappiyam" (5th century) mentions six senses, with the mind being the sixth, specifically in humans. The possibility of considering the mind as a sense organ (dravyamana) is acknowledged, though not explicitly stated. The historical prevalence of the mind as a sense organ versus an indecisive sense is a research topic.
  • Based on the evolutionary development of the five sense organs, beings are classified into five types. The Jivabhigama further classifies them into two to thirty-two types.
    • Ekendriya (one-sensed beings) - Sthavara (immobile): Earth, water, fire, air, and plants.
    • Tras (mobile beings with multiple senses):
      • Dvi-indriya (two-sensed): Worms (in dung and stomach), leeches, shells, etc. (30 types).
      • Tri-indriya (three-sensed): Ants, lice, millipedes, centipedes, etc. (39 types).
      • Chatur-indriya (four-sensed): Bees, scorpions, mosquitoes, wasps, spiders, flies, etc. (39 types).
      • Panch-indriya (five-sensed): Hell beings (naraka), sub-human animals (tiryancha), humans (manushya), and celestial beings (deva), each with numerous sub-categories.

• The Sensation of Earth, Water, Fire, and Air Elements:

  • While the Jivabhigama initially categorizes immobile beings into three types (earth, water, plant bodies), later classifications include fire and air bodies, which were previously considered mobile.
  • Modern scientists do not consider Earth, water, fire, and air as living themselves, but acknowledge the presence of numerous living beings within them.
  • Jain texts describe these elements as having four types, with only one being truly alive but requiring Earth-ness. Similarly for water and others.
  • Therefore, Earth, water, fire, and air, as available, can be considered non-living from an Agamic perspective. However, the Agamas consider their natural origin and unaffectedness (shastra-anupahatata) as their vitality.
  • The vitality of these four elements is not clearly explained and requires in-depth scholarly investigation. The article emphasizes that the concept of the vitality of these elements is a unique Jain characteristic.

• Botanical Content and Classifications:

  • Lodha has thoroughly reviewed the Agamic vitality of plant bodies from a modern scientific perspective. Sikdar has attempted to link Agamic descriptions of plants to 20th-century theoretical models by equating paryapti with modern protoplasm.
  • Jain points out that most Agamic descriptions are from the pre-instrumental age. Botanical descriptions in Jain texts primarily focus on body, form, and classification. Descriptions of plant cells, ecology, and physiology are negligible.
  • Lodha and Sikdar have provided quotes that reveal the macroscopic nature of observations from the Agamic era. The subtlety and expressibility of these descriptions have increased significantly. The process of incorporating these new details is a subject for consideration.
  • Jain's analysis of the Agamic classification of plants indicates it is based on natural qualities, similarities, and evolutionary principles rather than utilitarian classification.
  • Plants are first classified as Sadharana (common/collective, infinite bodies) and Pratyeka (individual).
    • Sadharana are of two types: subtle and gross. They are also called nigoda.
    • Pratyeka beings are always gross and are further divided into established and non-established. Pratyeka beings are initially non-established and later become established.
    • Subtle sadharana beings are spherical and invisible, and can transform into gross sadharana beings. They are asexual and are the cause of the origin of all pratyeka beings. They are the most primitive form of life.
    • Lodha suggests that subtle sadharana beings can be considered equivalent to modern bacteria. They are autotrophic and heterotrophic, and can only be seen with microscopes.
    • Gross sadharana beings contain many subtle sadharana beings. The Prajnapana lists 50 types, including fungi, mosses, algae, yeasts, etc., which correspond to modern algae, fungi, viruses, etc.
    • If subtle sadharana beings are considered unicellular, then gross sadharana and pratyeka beings are multicellular plants.
    • There are 330 types of pratyeka beings, as tabulated by Jain.
    • Agamas state that all sadharana plants have fourteen lakh (1.4 million) species, and pratyeka plants have 10 species. Thus, there are a total of 2.4 million plant species. The number of plant families is stated as 1013.
    • These figures appear highly exaggerated to modern botanists, who agree with the descriptions of diverse forms and extents but remain silent on the Agamic lifespan limit of an antarmuhurta (a very short period).
  • Although plant beings are one-sensed, according to the Satpravruna Sutra, they have sensations of other senses, which they perceive through their touch organ. Halden claims plants possess all senses. In the language of the Agamas, these should be considered as bhavendriya (mental or subtle sense organs) because the other senses are not physically developed in plants.
  • Descriptions of plants are scattered across Agamic texts, and the above summaries and reviews are not exhaustive. Researchers need to compile complete information from all Agamic sources for proper review and comparative study.

• Zoological Content and Classifications (Trasa - Mobile Beings):

  • Mobile beings are called tras. In modern language, they are referred to as mobile animals. Although plants also have prana, the term prani has become specific to higher organisms.
  • Partial compilations and reviews of available information on mobile beings have been done by Jain and Sikdar. O.P. Jaggi notes that the classification of tras based on the development of sense organs is more fundamental and comprehensive than the classifications of Charaka, Sushruta, Prashastapada, and Aristotle. Sikdar has summarized this classification.
  • There are four main categories of tras: two-sensed, three-sensed, four-sensed, and five-sensed.
  • Sanghvi explains that these distinctions are primarily based on physical sense organs (dravya indriya) because all beings possess five subtle sense organs (bhavendriya). However, the article questions the notion that these distinctions are based on subtle sense organs, deeming it inappropriate.
  • All two-sensed, three-sensed, and four-sensed beings are described as mind-less and asexual, and are considered neuter in gender.
  • Some five-sensed beings are also described as mind-less and asexual, while others are mind-equipped and sexual.
  • Jain's comparative table, based on Prajnapana and Jiv Vichar Prakaran, summarizes the zoology described in Jain texts alongside modern zoological beliefs. It finds that 10 out of 17 points of agreement between classical and modern descriptions do not match.
  • For example, modern zoology believes in the presence of physical minds in all tras, their sexual reproduction, their having all three genders, and a relatively smaller population.
  • Moreover, in many cases, the senses of organisms are found to be more developed than classical beliefs. These visual differences require serious consideration.
  • Furthermore, classical descriptions are negligible in many areas of zoological study. Sikdar has not addressed this point.
  • Despite these discrepancies, it is undeniable that Jain acharyas encompassed 470 species of subtle and external tras within their scope of observation, as shown in Table 2. Such classified information is not available in other philosophies.

Conclusion:

The article concludes that Jain acharyas were as advanced in the field of nature observation and theoretical thought in their time as they were in the spiritual realm. Jain points out that the reason for the absence of descriptions of many subtle modern observations in the Agamas might be the lack of instruments and the principle of ahimsa (non-violence). Like botany, elements of zoology are also scattered in many Agamic texts and have not yet been fully compiled. These topics are found in sufficient quantity in Shvetambara canonical texts.