365bet娱乐

One of the most controversial points in the Jaina theory of the self refers to the size of the self. According to the Jainas, the self is co-existent with the body. As the self is co-existent with the body, hence, according to the Jainas, it is of the size of the body.

Some philosophers like the Naiy膩yikas, the Vai艣e峁�ikas, the S膩峁僰hyists, the Yogists, the M墨m膩峁僺akas and the Advaita Ved膩ntins regard the self as vibhu or allpervasive. While the others particularly the Vaisnava Ved膩ntins like R膩m膩nuja, Nimb膩rka, Vallabha, Madhva and Sri Caitanya regard it as 补苍耻辫补谤颈尘腻峁嘺 or atomic in size. On the other hand, the Jainas hold that the self is neither vibhu or all pervasive nor 补苍耻辫补谤颈尘腻峁嘺 or atomic, but 尘补诲丑测补尘补辫补谤颈尘腻峁嘺 or intermediary in size. If the self were all-pervasive, it could not be contained by the small body. Further, such a self would come in contract with all the objects of the world, and as a result every 箩墨惫补 could know everything. On the other hand, if the self were atomic in size, it would not fill up the whole body. It assumes the magnitude of the body in which it resides. Malli峁�e峁嘺 argues that the self cannot be regarded as all-pervasive, because its qualities are not perceived everywhere.

Prabh膩candra in his 笔谤补尘别测补办补尘补濒补尘腻谤迟补峁囜笉补 refutes the views uphold by the Vai艣e峁�ika philosophers regarding the size of the self 箩墨惫补 or self and then establishes the Jaina view of the self. At first he refuted the Vai艣e峁�ika鈥漵 theory of all鈥損ervasive and partless self. Vai艣e峁�ika system accepts the self as an eternal substance. The self is of two kinds, viz., 箩墨惫腻迟尘补苍 and 辫补谤补尘腻迟尘补苍. The former is infinite in number and is different in every individual, while the latter is only one. 膧迟尘补苍 is the locus of knowledge. Dharma and adharma are the qualities of the self. It is the substance of 颈肠肠丑腻 or will and prayatna or volition. It is niravayava or partless and nitya or eternal. Consciousness is not its essential quality. It acquires consciousness in conjunction with the body and mana (the internal organ). The self is all-pervasive in magnitude. It cannot be atomic, because it is eternal and allpervasive like 腻办腻艣补. Just as 腻办腻艣补 is a substance which cannot be touched by anyone. Hence, it is all鈥損ervasive and eternal. The self possesses the special quality of knowledge which is perceived by us. If the self were atomic, it would not be perceived. Moreover, if the self were atomic, it would not be possible to extend all over the body. The Vai艣e峁�ikas also say that the self cannot be medium size for them is it were larger than the body, the latter could not contain the former; and if it were equal to the size of the body, either it could be too small for the body which grows day by day or it would be endowed with growth and development like the body. And if growth is accepted then it would be non-eternal. Hence, the self is allpervasive, because it is a formless substance like 腻办腻艣补. The Vai艣e峁�ikas also hold that the self is all-pervasive, because it is an 补诲峁涐梗峁璦 substance. Thus, the self is allpervasive and not located in a particular body and space. According to the Vai艣e峁�ika鈥漵 when the self enters the body, it exists in all the parts of the body. The concept of all-pervasive self which is advocated by the Vai艣e峁�ikas has been vehemently criticized by Prabh膩candra.

The following are the chief arguments of Prabh膩candra about all-pervasive self of the Vai艣e峁�ikas.

1. Prabh膩candra argues here that this contention of the Vai艣e峁�ikas is contrary to perception. The self is perceived as 鈥淚鈥� in such experiences as 鈥淚 am happy鈥�, 鈥淚 am unhappy鈥�, 鈥淚 know a pot鈥� etc. This 鈥淚鈥� is perceived in one鈥漵 own body and not in other鈥漵 body. If the self resides in the body of all people then when one becomes happy, others will also be happy and everybody will be omniscient. 2. Secondly, argues Prabh膩candra, the omnipresence of the self is contrary to inference also. The inference can be put thus: the self cannot have the allpervasive size, since it is not one because there are many selves which possess generality and which are different from other substances, like pot. As the selves are many so it cannot be of all- pervasive size just like a pot which cannot be allpervasive.

3. The self cannot be all-pervasive like 腻办腻艣补 nor of atomic size like 辫补谤补尘腻峁嘘, because it is a substance different from 腻办腻艣补, dik and 办腻濒补.

4. The self cannot be all-pervasive because it possesses motion like an arrow. That which is active cannot be all-pervasive.

5. Prabh膩candra also argues that the self cannot be the locus of pervasive measure like 腻办腻艣补 nor of atomic measure like 辫补谤补尘腻峁嘘, because it is conscious. 膧办腻艣补 which is all鈥損ervasive is not conscious. Similarly, that which is atomic can never be conscious.

6. The Vai艣e峁�ikas try to establish the all-pervasiveness of the self on the basis of its being an 补尘奴谤迟补 substance like 腻办腻艣补. Here Prabh膩candra asks what is meant by 尘奴谤迟补迟惫补 because 补尘奴谤迟补tva is the absence of 尘奴谤迟补迟惫补. If 尘奴谤迟补迟惫补 means having colour etc., then the above reason will be applicable to mind also. The mind is an 补尘奴谤迟补 substance having no colour etc., but it is not all-pervasive. On the otherhand if 尘奴谤迟补 means the asarvagata (not all-pervasive) substance, then this is an asiddhahetu (unfounded reason). The question is what is an asarvagata substance? If 驳丑补峁璦, pa峁璦 etc. are accepted as asarvagata substances, as they are perceived thus, then the self also would be asarvagata from its apprehension. So 腻迟尘腻 is asarvagata and so murta as it is perceived as such.That means asarvagata is found both in 驳丑补峁璦, pa峁璦 and 腻迟尘补苍. So, if one is non-all-pervasive, then how can the other, i.e. the self be all-pervasive? Hence, the self will not be all-pervasive. Hence, the reason 补尘奴谤迟补dravya is an unfounded reason. It is 补惫测腻辫补办补, because it exists in the body.

7. According to the Vai艣e峁�ikas, the qualities of the self is found everywhere, so the self is all-pervasive like 腻办腻艣补. Here Prabh膩candra asks what is meant by expression 鈥渜ualities of the self found everywhere鈥�. If the qualities of the self are found in one鈥漵 own body, then this quality are not found everywhere. Again, if the qualities of the self are found in another body, then it is an unfounded reason. Again, if the qualities of the self are found both in one鈥漵 own body and another body, then everybody will know everything. Then the feelings of pleasure, pain etc will be the same in all bodies. But, this is not possible. So, the self is not allpervasive.

8. Prabh膩candra also argues that the self is not all鈥損ervasive, because its qualities are not found everywhere. That thing whose qualities are not found everywhere is not all-pervasive, just like a 驳丑补峁璦 whose qualities are not found everywhere. So, it is not all-pervasive. In the same way, the self is not allpervasive.

According to the Vai艣e峁�ikas, the self is niravayava or partless. But, the Jainas hold that the self is 蝉腻惫补测补惫补 with many parts. From beginningless time there are many 腻迟尘补辫谤补诲别艣补蝉 which extend to all parts of the body. Here, the Vai艣e峁�ikas argue that if the self is 蝉腻惫补测补惫补 then it will be an effect and as such just like the body it will be anitya. In that case, another 腻迟尘补苍 will be required for the manifestation of that 蝉腻惫补测补惫补 腻迟尘补苍. The Jainasreply that they accept the 腻迟尘补苍 as 蝉腻惫补测补惫补dravya. And as a substance, the self changes from time to time; it has the qualities of origination, decay and permanence. The Vai艣e峁�ikas again point out that if the self possesses parts then when one part of the body is cut, the part of the self will also be cut. Prabh膩candra here says that this is actually the view of the Jainas. He further points out that when the part of a body is cut it continues the throb for sometimes. If the self does not possess parts, then this throbbing of the part of the body would not be possible. Though the parts of the body are disconnected from the body, yet the self remains for sometimes. If there is no self in the disconnected parts, then there will be no feeling. This does not mean that there will be different selves in different disconnected parts. For afterwards the part of the self again rejoins the body from which it is cut. Now a question may be asked how can there be a connection between the cut and uncut pars of the body. Prabh膩candra replies that the particles which are cut also retain the connection with the self, just like a lotus-stick the threads of which remain united even when it is cut into two.

In respect to the size of the self, the Jainas face some other problems. Because the Jainas are the believes of the theory of rebirth and uphold that the self takes rebirth after its death.In that case the problem will be when a self takes rebirth in another body, the former self may not fit in the latter body. To avoid this the Jainas reply that the self is not of any definite size, it is subject to change due to changing circumstances.It is manifested that the self contracts and expands according to the size of the body in which it is incorporated for the time being.The self is capable of adjusting the size to the physical body, just like the light of the lamp placed in a large or small room which illuminates the whole space of the room. Hence, the self is co-existensive with the body.