Jiv And Ajiv

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided text, "Jiva and Ajiva" by Dr. S. S. Barlinge, focusing on its core arguments regarding the Jain concepts of Jiva and Ajiva:

The article by Dr. S. S. Barlinge, "Jiva and Ajiva," delves into the philosophical underpinnings of these fundamental Jain concepts, questioning whether they represent a division, a category distinction, or mere abstraction. Barlinge argues that understanding Jiva and Ajiva requires careful consideration of their relationship to experience and concepts.

Key Arguments and Analysis:

• Division vs. Abstraction: Barlinge posits that ancient Indian philosophical lists, including those of the Jains, were not always mutually exclusive. He suggests that Jiva (the animate) and Ajiva (the inanimate) can be understood as a division of the world based on the principle of animacy. However, he warns against mistaking conceptual abstraction for a physical division. A division based on animacy doesn't preclude shared properties like spatiality and temporality, which both living and non-living things possess. Confusing concepts with actual entities can lead to errors in understanding.

• The Role of Extension (Spatiality): A significant point of contention for Barlinge is the relationship between consciousness (Jiva) and extension (spatiality). He observes that Jain philosophy, like common sense, acknowledges that consciousness is tied to space. However, the notion of a "detached" Jiva, particularly in the state of liberation (Mukti), creates a paradox. If Jiva has extension and can be separated from the body, it raises questions about the nature of this extensionless consciousness or a "spatial layer of consciousness without a material body." Barlinge suggests that this difficulty might have led to the concept of "Linga-Deha" or "Karana-Deha" in Jainism, implying that consciousness, even when distinct from the physical body, might still possess some form of extension.

• Dravya and Astikaya: Barlinge discusses the Jain concept of "Dravya" (substance) and its relation to "Astikaya" (a body or medium of existence). He suggests that "Astikaya" might serve as a Kantian "schemata" – a medium that makes concepts significant and allows them to exist. Concepts like Jiva and Dharma, when concretized, require an "Astikaya" to have existential relevance, implying a form of existence or body. He differentiates between Jiva as a concept and Jiva as an "Astikaya" (actual Jiva with extension). This distinction could also explain why "Kala" (time) is not considered an "Astikaya" as its significance doesn't require a spatial medium.

• Jiva and its Spatiality: The author highlights the Jain belief that Jivas are spatial ("Pradesas") and that different Jivas can have different spatial dimensions. He notes the idea of Jiva as a "life-coat" for the body, coextensive with it. While in the living state, Jiva grows with the body. The paradox arises with the "Mukta Jiva," where the separation of Jiva and body is described. Barlinge questions the possibility of a spatial form of consciousness without a material characterization, comparing it to a grin without a Cheshire cat. He suggests that thinking of Jivas with "Pradesas" but without a body leads to a "mystification and liquidation of common sense."

• Critique of Inconsistencies: Barlinge contends that Jain philosophers, while initially adhering to common sense by linking Jiva to spatiality and division of matter into living and non-living, fall into inconsistencies when discussing the "Mukta Jiva." He argues that this leads to a similar confusion found in Sankhya and Advaita Vedanta, blurring the lines between conceptual abstraction and physical division. The idea of a "Karmika Deha" is also brought up, suggesting that karma must have spatial and material properties to attach to Jiva.

• The Core of Jain Philosophy: Barlinge's central thesis is that the Jiva-Ajiva theory primarily concerns a division of certain matter based on the distinction between animate and inanimate. He believes that the Jain concept of Jiva and Ajiva, when understood through the lens of common sense, deals with the division of existants into those that are animistic and those that are not. He emphasizes the need to understand Jiva and Ajiva as a classification of actual things rather than abstract concepts.

In essence, Dr. Barlinge's article aims to deconstruct the Jain concepts of Jiva and Ajiva, advocating for an interpretation that prioritizes a clear division of matter based on animacy while critically examining the philosophical challenges and potential inconsistencies in explaining the nature and separation of consciousness from physical extension, particularly in the context of liberation. He calls for a re-evaluation of the theory to present it in a consistent form.