Units Of Length In Jaina Canons

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Units of Length in Jaina Canons" by N. L. Jain:

The paper by N. L. Jain explores the various units of length described in Jaina canons, emphasizing the need for uniformity in their names and values to ensure the reliability and credibility of canonical descriptions.

Introduction and the Concept of Measurement:

• Jaina canons, while primarily focused on spiritual matters, also contain extensive descriptions of physical phenomena. The accuracy of these descriptions relies on measurement, which in turn depends on standard units.
• The author notes that, unlike time units which show significant variation in names, stages, and values across different ages, length units, while lacking uniformity, do not exhibit the same degree of diversity.
• Jaina canons use the term Māna or Pramāņa for measurement. While some early texts don't explicitly classify measures, later ones like Rajvartik (RV) and Triloksara (TS) distinguish between Laukika (worldly) and Lokottar (paraworldly) measures.
• Laukika measures are primarily related to mass (weight, volume, cost, number) and have six subclasses, often considered measures of mass (Dravyamana). While Anuyogadwarsutra (ADS) and RV might include length measures under Avamana, TS classifies it as a volume measure, which the author finds more reasonable.
• Lokottar measures, as described by Akalanka, encompass length, time, and quality. These include measures of matter (Dravya), length (Kshetra), time (Kala), and idea/quality (Bhava). The author points out that Akalanka's classification, while extensive, might be considered superfluous and lacks clear dividing lines between worldly and paraworldly measures, with the latter sometimes encompassing aspects of the former.

The Basis of Length Measurement: Pradesha (Space Point):

• Jaina philosophy posits an independent reality of space, which accommodates all realities and is the basis for movement. Space is characterized by infiniteness, extension, and omnipresence.
• For practical purposes, the space occupied by an atom is defined as a Pradesha or a unit space-point. The extension of space is measured by these space-points, and the infiniteness of space is due to its infinite number of Pradeshas.
• These Pradeshas are also the foundation for quantitative descriptions in canons and are termed Akashanu (space atoms). They represent the minimum unit of length and form the basic units for length, area, and volume.

Measures of Length in Bhagvati and Other Canons:

• Various Jaina canons from the 1st to the 12th century AD describe length measures. The author highlights three main varieties:
  1. Utsedha measure: Primarily for heights of bodies and idols (Utsedhangula, UA).
  2. Atma measure: For utility and small things (Atmangula, AA).
  3. Pramana measure: For larger dimensions like islands, oceans, and the solar system (Pramanangula, PA).
• All these canons accept Angula as the practical unit of length. The value of Yojana (a larger unit) is determined by the Angula's value.
• The standard Atmangula is based on the fingertip of a healthy person with a specific height. Different human heights (120, 108, or 96 Angulas) are considered non-standard.
• Canonically, 1 Atmangula = 2 Utsedha Angulas.
• The Angula unit is considered one-dimensional.
• The conversion of Utsedha Yojana (UY) to current units shows variability among scholars. While one calculation suggests 1 UA ≈ 1.70 cm and 1 UY ≈ 13.26 km, another scholar proposes 1 UA ≈ 1.90 cm and 1 UY ≈ 15.09 km. This discrepancy is attributed to the lack of a confirmed base for the Angula unit and creates doubt about the reliability of calculations.
• Munishri Chandanji questions the prevailing UA values and proposes a 1 UA ≈ 1.07 cm, leading to 1 UY ≈ 8.30 km and a more reasonable height for Lord Mahavira. However, his justification for a natural Angula as standard is debated due to its variability.
• Lishk et al. suggest that unit values should be decided based on historical period and place, further complicating standardization. The author questions how a variable quantity can be considered standard.

Units Smaller than Angula:

• The text details units smaller than the Angula, which are division-based. The smallest unit is the atom.
• ADS describes 13 stages of smaller units up to Angula, while other treatises, including Bhagavati, mention 12 stages. The cause of this difference is unclear.
• There are also variations in the names of these smaller units across different canons, such as those related to hair heads and "yava" (barley).
• Each of the 12 stages backwards from Angula is generally an eighth part of the preceding unit.
• A key observation is that the Trutirenu or "practical atom" unit in JDP has a dimension close to the size of the current scientific atom (approximately 1.75 x 10⁻⁸ cm). This aligns the canonical understanding of the smallest practically measurable unit with modern science, though it doesn't match the atomic nucleus.

Larger Units of Length:

• The Yojana (Y) is a practical unit, but for larger distances, Jaina Acharyas devised larger units like Pramana Yojana (PY), which is 500 or 1000 times larger than UY.
• Even larger units include Rajju (R) and Jagshreni (J), which are significantly vast, comparable to the "light year" in modern astronomy.
• The calculations for Rajju and Jagshreni involve innumerable numbers, making their current values difficult to precisely determine.
• These larger units also have corresponding 2-dimensional (Pratarlok, PL) and 3-dimensional (Ghanaloka/Loka, GL, L) units.
• The PY unit shows variations across different traditions, which the author believes leads to variance in descriptions and mythological reliability.

Descriptions Based on Larger Length Units and Conclusion:

• The text provides examples of canonical descriptions of geographical features like Jambudvipa, Bharat Khand, and Mount Meru, using these larger units.
• When converting these to current kilometer values, there are significant discrepancies, whether based on UY or PY. The author notes that these descriptions are difficult to reconcile with current scientific understanding and are often accepted on faith.
• The author concludes that the lack of standardization in length units, particularly the Angula, has created confusion and hindered the reliable evaluation of canonical descriptions.
• He suggests that attempts to make canonical descriptions scientifically consistent sometimes lead to varied explanations and inconsistent results.
• The paper argues for the necessity of uniform values for these units in the current century. However, the author acknowledges that achieving perfect uniformity might be impossible.
• If uniformity cannot be achieved, it is crucial not to insist on their permanent truth or "omniscentist's wordings." Instead, they should be understood in a historical context, as attractive mythology common in ancient systems. The paper suggests that the current century presents an opportunity to address this issue of uniformity.