Living Systems in Jainism: A Scientific Study: Foreword

My friend, Dr. Narayan Lal Kachhara, has devoted many years to the study of the soul/consciousness from the modern as well as ancient perspectives. The outcome of his study in the form of this book entitled Living Systems in Jainism: A Scientific Study looks interesting and highly valuable. I am thankful to Dr. Kachhara for his invitation to write a detailed Foreword. In response, I thought that I should try to present my understanding of the soul based on ancient descriptions as well as the views of modern scientists.

The spiritual Science starts with the consideration of soul. When somebody talks of soul, many persons think that this is against modern science. This attitude is not rational because modern science has neither proved nor disproved the existence of soul. How can anyone prove anything without any serious attempt? If we look at the budget of scientific research of any nation, we will find that almost the whole budget is spent for those projects which are important either for business or for defense. Little is spent for research on soul. Even in the study of subjects like Biology and Medicine the scientific community is mainly interested in procreation and the functioning of different parts of animal and human bodies. Under these circumstances also, many scientists have come forward to provide the logic in favor of the existence of soul.

Science deals with space, time, matter, motion and the resting of matter. These five aspects of the universe are attributed to the five non-living Dravya of Jainology. For details regarding these, one may refer to the fifth chapter of the Tattvarthasutra, authored by Acharya Umaswami 2000 year ago. Jiva is considered to be an independent Dravya in Jainology. Thus in all, according to Jainology there are six kinds of Dravya. If the Jiva or soul is established in science, then there would not be much difference between the basic descriptions of science and that of Jainology. This statement is significant because of the fact that, like science, Jainology also admits that the universal intelligence is exhibited through the natural properties of Dravya occupying the universe.

Acceptance of eternal soul by Nobel Laureate George Wald

The soul as an eternal substance or Dravya is not formally recognized by modern science. However, several great scientists have advanced their own logic in favor of the soul. Dr. George Wald of Harvard University (USA) won the Noble Prize for medicine in 1967. He advocated the existence of the soul as a real eternal substance different from the matter and waves of Physics and Chemistry. In his words:"And as Upanishads tell us, each of us has a share in Brahman, the Atman, and the essential Self, ageless, imperishable....." [1]

Wald discussed in detail the logic behind the acceptance of the soul. For soul he used several different words, such as mind, consciousness, Atman, and essential self.

Location of Consciousness

The Noble Laureate Wald argues that when light falls on his eyes he responds to it. Similarly, a photo-electrically activated door also responds to the radiations falling on it. Just as a computer does not feel elated when it beats a human player at chess, the photo-electrically activated garage door also does not know about its performance. He also says that as far as his performance is concerned, he knows that he sees......With this assumption that he knows but a garage door or the computer does not know, he further proceeds to the light falling on the eyes of a frog. As a scientist, Wald says, he is sure that a frog reacts to the light falling on its eyes, but as a scientist he cannot prove that the frog is self-aware of its reaction. In his own words [1]:

But I know that I see. Does a frog see? It reacts to light; so does a photo-electrically activated garage door. Does the frog know that it is reacting to light, is it self-aware? Now the dilemma: there is nothing whatever that I can do as a scientist to answer that kind of question.

Does a frog know that it is reacting to the light falling on its eyes? Does a frog have consciousness? If the answer to these questions is yes, what is the location of consciousness inside the body? To get the answers to such questions Wald consulted a great Canadian brain surgeon, Dr. Wilder Penfield. Penfield was once hoping to find the centre of consciousness in the brain. But by his experiments he arrived at the conclusion that “it will be impossible to explain the mind on the basis of neuronal action within the brain.” It has been found that the mind can neither be located in the brain nor in the nervous system nor in the cerebral cortex.... Penfield investigated this issue in depth and published his results [2]. One of his findings conveys that consciousness gives us no physical signals and, therefore, it is not possible to locate the center of consciousness in the body. In the concluding section he writes: “… I am forced to choose the proposition that our being is to be explained on the basis of two fundamental elements … mind and brain as two semi-independent elements.” These conclusions are explained by Dr. Wald with the logic that the mind or consciousness could not be located simply because “consciousness gives us no physical signal.”

The whole situation is thus quite clear. Scientists (like Penfield) on one hand infer that consciousness may exist, but on the other hand they admit that it cannot be located since it does not give any physical signal. Wald at this juncture suggests that both these points can be valid if we consider consciousness to be made of stuff beyond the domain of the material particles and waves of modern science. Wald names this mind stuff or Atman. In other words, consciousness neither consists of chemicals nor is it due to chemicals. It is a special class of stuff that may be called soul or Jiva Dravya. The conclusion of Erwin Schrodinger, who won the Noble Prize of Physics in 1933, is similar. Schrodinger, in his famous book Mind and Matter [3], writes:  ''Mind has erected the objective outside world of natural philosopher out of its own stuff.”

From the Big Bang to human beings

Another example of the logic advanced by Wald is based on the wonderful nature of the universe that breeds life. This logic arises when one studies the development of the universe and human beings starting from the Big Bang that occurred nearly 13.7 billion years ago. (We are not debating the veracity of the Big Bang here. It may even change. At present it is also not our concern to compare the Big-Bang model with the description in the ancient literature.)

The Big Bang model assumes that just after the Big Bang the universe came into existence. At that moment there were only very tiny particles in the universe. These very tiny particles were then converted into electrons, protons, etc. These particles then combined to form atoms and molecules. By the union of such particles, stars and celestial bodies were formed. Life came when favorable chemicals and suitable climates became available. If we calculate the odds of such happenings, the chance of the formation of excellent systems such as the human body is as negligible as the chance of formation of an aeroplane out of a blow in a junkyard by a hurricane. Dr. Deepak Chopra [4] in his book Perfect Health has expressed this argument in very nice words:

The universe, after all, is not energy soup; it is not mere chaos. The incredibly exact fit of things in our world above all, the astonishing existence of DNA, argues for an infinite amount of intelligence in nature. As one astrophysicist put it, the likelihood that life was created randomly is about the same as the likelihood that a hurricane could blow through a junkyard and create a Boeing 707 [1].

Wald nicely summarized the difficulties in the formation of human beings by a random process in the following words:

...If there had not apparently existed a one-part-per billion inequality in the number of particles and antiparticles that went into the Big-Bang; if the atomic nuclei were not so much massier than the electrons weaving about them; if the electric charge on the proton did not exactly equal that on the electron; if ice did not float; if the forces of dispersion and aggregation in the universe were not in exact balance - then, there might still be a universe, but lifeless [1].

Just to appreciate so many 'ifs' raised by Wald, we can take one simple example: the floating of ice on water. Our common experience shows that usually a substance in solid form is heavier than in its liquid form. However, ice is an exception: it is lighter than water and as such it floats on water. This is very powerful statement. Is this by chance? One can say that the properties of water molecules are such that ice is lighter than water. But the question may be asked, why does “nature” have this exception that ice can float on water, so that by this property of water creatures can survive in the water below the floating ice? In the words of Wald:

If ice did not float, it is hard to see how any life could survive a cold spell on any planet in the universe, if a freeze occurred even once in millions of years, that would probably be enough to block the rise of life, and to kill any life that had arisen.

Wald, therefore, concludes, "If ice did not float, I doubt that life would exist in the universe."

This highly favorable course of development of the universe is accepted in Physics under a term known as the “Anthropic Principle.” According to this principle, all of creation since the Big Bang was designed expressly to lead to the existence of human beings [5]. Is this not a backdoor entry of intelligence into Physics?

Acceptance of soul

The whole explanation for this can be very simple if the presence of soul or Jiva Dravya is recognized from time immemorial. In such a case, it would be very easy to say that nature is such that souls and material bodies can co-exist. This has been the line of thinking of Wald and many others. In the words of Wald:

In this talk I have propounded two riddles: One, the very peculiar character of a universe such as ours that breeds life; and two, the problem of consciousness, mind, a phenomenon that lies outside the parameters of space and time, that has no location.

Just after writing these two riddles Wald writes the following paragraph that leads to the solution of both riddles:

A few years ago, it occurred to me that these seemingly very disparate problems might be brought together. That would be with the hypothesis that mind, rather than being a very late development in the evolution of living things, restricted to organism with the most complex nervous systems - all of which I had believed to be true - that mind instead has been there always, and that this universe is life breeding because the pervasive presence of mind had guided it to be so.

Wald further clarifies the word “mind” by recognizing it as “mind stuff,” which is real but different from the material particles and waves described in Physics and Chemistry. Wald uses the word “Atman” or “Brahman” as synonyms for “mind stuff” or consciousness. By the word “stuff,” Wald wants to emphasize that it is a concrete, eternal entity. As in the case of matter, the form of the substance changes but the substance itself always remains, similarly a soul is also a substance in the sense that its form changes but it always remains. The equivalent term for the “stuff” of Wald in the Jain Philosophy is “Dravya.” Different words such as mind or consciousness may have a different meaning to different writers and religions. However, the conclusion which we want to derive here, and which Wald intended, is that Atman (or soul or Jiva Dravya) is an eternal substance. This stuff is of different kind, and as such Atman cannot be detected by physical instruments. Further, the eternal presence of such stuff has been responsible for the favorable nature of the universe that breeds life. Thus by recognizing the existence of the soul, Wald could lead to the solution of the two big problems of science.

Several Top-level scientists believe in the soul/God

1. One of the proponents of the Big-Bang model, Prof. Stephen Hawking, has frequently used the word “God” in his famous book A Brief History of Time. As an example, on p.143 of the book [6] he writes, "God may know how the universe began, but we cannot give any particular reason for thinking it began one way or the other." (At present our purpose is not to discuss “God” or to interpret Hawking's God. We simply want to convey that the concepts of God/soul are not unpopular in the scientific community.)
   
   
2. Because of the historical development of science, it is not very fashionable to talk of the soul/God, but it is becoming more and more popular in recent years. The scientists who have pursued research at the most fundamental level of theoretical physics or similar allied areas are more likely to realize the incompleteness of the materialistic description of the universe. Such micro-sciences are very close to philosophy. This is one of the reasons that many such scientists like Newton, Einstein, Bohr, de Broglie, Schrodinger, Pauli, Josephson, Wigner, etc., have been spiritual. This is not surprising, because in a room near the kitchen it is more likely to smell the flavor of the food items being cooked than it is to smell them in a distant room. When a similar point was raised before Charles H. Townes [7], Nobel Prize winner of 1964 (Physics), he gave the following reply:
   
   I think one reason physicists tend to be more philosophical is that physics is a very basic science. Physics is concerned with fundamentals, and it leads one to a very basic attempt to understand the universe. But there are others; for example, astronomy leads one in that direction, too…
   
   
3. It we look at the history of the development of science, we will find that there were many occasions that a valuable theory was either not accepted or not pursued for a long time. There may be many reasons for such a trend. One of these reasons is the immediate return to a scientist in the form of project funding and recognition. The slow progress in the past regarding the effect of the meditation/exercise/mind/vitamins on physical health is a strong example to show the neglect of a valuable field. It is also worth noting that if scientific research is not valuable to defense or business, then it is less likely to receive a large amount of financial support. To support this point, we may quote Maurice H. Wilkins  who received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1962:
   
   
   Most scientists today are being led increasingly away from the fundamental aim of science to achieve unity into rather limited ways of thinking without much open mindedness and are doing things merely to meet limited material needs. In particular, about half the world's scientists and engineers are now engaged in war programs [8].
   
   Wilkins wrote these lines in 1986 and it appears that these are valid even today. In the same article, he further cautions scientists that only materialist research is narrow-minded. He writes:
   
   It's not just a question of the war danger. It is also a question of how science is developed through educational institutions and through institutionalized science. I agree with Einstein that the sort of scientific education we have now has produced a narrow-minded way of thinking amongst scientists, so that they give no proper attention to the moral and psychological dimension [8].
   
   
4. The following statement of Dr. B.D. Josephson, who won the Noble Prize in Physics in 1973, is also strong evidence to show that some scientists are very enthusiastic about the intelligence/ soul/God, i.e.  something other than the materialistic things:
   
   And we might hope that appropriate mathematical tools will be developed, so that in not too many years from now we'll have a new paradigm in which God and religion will be right in the middle of the picture, instead of being pushed out almost entirely as is the case at the present time [9].  
5. Dr. Fritjof Capra who is a well-known physicist and author of The Tao of Physics, strongly believes in the soul/God and in ancient Eastern traditions. According to him, his belief is based on modern science. In an article, he writes [10]:
   
   
   ...I realized that not only modern physics but modern science in general leads us to a world view which is very much in agreement with the ancient Eastern tradition.
   
   
6. If there is no separate existence of the soul inside a human body, then human beings would be simply an advanced form of machines which are composed of a material substance consisting of atoms and molecules. A highly respectable scientist of the era who won the Physics Noble prize in 1963, Dr. Eugene Wigner, has touched on this point to express his views in favor of the existence of the soul. In an interview on Sept. 3, 1985, he remarks [11]: "We are not machines. If man were a machine, then it should be possible to describe him in terms of atoms and molecules, and I don't think that is possible."
   
   

This list of topmost scientists who believe in the existence of the soul/God is not complete. This list and the names of other scientists mentioned earlier is simply an attempt to show that the acceptance of God or the soul is not out of fashion even among the best scientists of the modern world. In addition, we should also keep in mind that many scientists are not in a position to address the issue of the existence of the soul because of their focus on material goals, and the nature of their training - as revealed by the fact that about half of the world's scientists and engineers are engaged in war programs.

Artificial intelligence and emotions versus the soul

After somewhat more advancement in computer technology it may be possible to create a robot with artificial intelligence such that it can share and express emotions such as fear, sorrow, joy, and anger. This development leads to some questions: Would this not mean that memory, fear, anger, joy, and sorrow are attributes of material atoms, chemicals and electrical signals? After accepting this point, would we retain any special role for the soul? Would this then prove that man is only an advanced form of robot made of material particles and electrical signals?

These questions are helpful in understanding the real attributes of the soul. For example, Acharya Kundakunda in Samayasara [12] explained very clearly that emotions such as anger, fear, joy, etc., and the knowledge achieved through the senses are not real attributes of the soul. Had these attributes been real attributes of the soul, Siddhas (pure omniscient souls) would also have possessed those. According to Jain philosophy, Siddhas are without any material body. They do not have a brain, lungs, heart, bones, skin, nerves, emotions etc. They are always in a state of bliss which does not depend on an electrical signal or atom or chemical. This bliss state is a real attribute of the soul.

A great philosopher of modern times, J. Krishnamurty, also discussed a similar situation of emotions in a robot. For example, an article [13] in the Sunday Review discussed this point along with the philosophy of J. Krishnamurty. Such an understanding is very important. If a person accepts emotions to be the soul, his faith would disappear when such a powerful robot became a reality. Taking into consideration this point, this article concludes with an excellent sentence: "The only mind that can survive the challenge of the new technologies would be such a mind which is the truly religious mind."

Soul in Jain philosophy

According to Jain metaphysics, the cosmos is a congregation of six kinds of substances, called Dravya. The Jiva Dravya (soul) is one of six kinds of substances. Nobody can create any soul and nobody can destroy any soul. In other words, the number of souls in this cosmos remains invariant forever.

In Jain philosophy, the soul is described from two points of view: (1) relative point of view and (2) real point of view. From the relative point of view, the emotions such as greed, anger, etc. and thoughts of liking or disliking associated with a living being are also considered to be part of the soul along with the real, eternal soul stuff. Just as any harm to an employee of a king is considered harm done to the king himself; this relative point of view considers the physical body and senses of a living being to also be Jiva [14].  But from the real point of view, only the eternal soul stuff is considered to be the soul.  The temporary associates of the soul (such as emotions, etc.) are not considered to be the soul. For more details regarding the soul from the real point of view, the following stanza 49 written by Ācārya Kundakunda in Samayasara 2000 years ago is worth noting:

Arasamarūvamagandham avvattam chedaṇāguṇamasaddam.
Jāṇa aliṃgaggahaṇam jīvamaṇiddiṭṭhasaṃṭhāṇam. ||49||

Meaning: Know that the soul is without taste, without odor, without sound, without definite shape, invisible, imperceptible to sensory organs or instruments, realizable not by any mark or symbol, and characterized by the consciousness attribute (Chetana).

Though taste, color, smell, touch, sound, etc., are associated with the physical body of a living being, these cannot be considered to be attributes of the soul (Jiva). A soul is different from the associated physical body. Through this stanza, Acharya highlights that the essential attribute of the soul is consciousness (Chetana).
According to Jain metaphysics, taste, color, smell, and touch are specific attributes of matter. They are not found in the soul. Similarly, sound consists of matter. It is not an attribute of the soul.

Since the soul is a Dravya (substance), it is expected to occupy some volume, i.e., it must have some shape and size. A soul may be of a size of an ant in this birth and the same soul in another birth can have the shape and size of an elephant. (According to Jain metaphysics, the size and shape of the soul of a living being is close to the size and shape of the associated physical body). This feature regarding the size and shape of a soul has been expressed in this stanza by the word Anirdishta Samsthanam, meaning indefinite shape and size (because its shape varies according to the body it occupies).

We know various technologies of detecting material things. For example, ultrasound, X-rays, infrared, gamma rays, etc., are used to detect things which are invisible to the naked eye. This stanza says that the non-physical soul cannot be physically identified by any present or future technology or device. Acharya Kundakunda has highlighted this point by stating that the soul is invisible and cannot be expressed by any physical analogy.

Here one may ask a question: If the soul cannot be physically identified by any technology or the senses, how can it be known? To answer this question, Acharya uses a powerful word Alingaggahanam, which means that the soul can be realized without any mark (Linga). In other words, the soul can be realized without inference based on sense perceptions, i.e., it is only possible by the direct experience of the soul by the soul.

It may be noted that this stanza is so significant that it has also been included by Acharya Kundakunda in his Pravachansara (as stanza-172), Niyamasara (as stanza-46), Panchastikaya (as stanza-127), and Ashtapahuda (as stanza-64).

The Sanskrit word for the soul is Jiva; and the Jiva in Jainology has two popular meanings:

Meaning 1: Jiva = Soul

(This description is in context with stanza 49 of Samayasara refers to Meaning 1.)

Meaning 2: Jiva = Living being = Soul + physical body

It is not simply a matter of vocabulary. For our day-to-day life Jain philosophy suggests that we to recognize our self not only as the Jiva of Meaning 2 but also that of Meaning 1.

At first glance it appears difficult to accept oneself as a Jiva with these two different meanings of Jiva. However, through logic and analogies one can handle and appreciate the advantages of both the meanings without any confusion or difficulty. How? Let us see one analogy:

Mr. XYZ is the CEO of a company. The company wants him to have one bank account in the name of Mr. XYZ as CEO of the company. The company also allows him to keep his personal account in the bank in his name, i.e. Mr. XYZ.  Thus Mr. XYZ handles two bank accounts in his name: one as Mr.XYZ as CEO and another as Mr.XYZ as a person. He does not have any confusion in handling these two accounts. For personal matters he uses his personal account and for official matters he uses his official account. He knows very well that he is not the real owner of the money deposited in his official account.

Jain philosophy also teaches the similar lesson. It says: one should recognize oneself as a Jiva with the views provided by Meaning 2 as well as Meaning 1. One should have this understanding that the assets and liabilities associated with Meaning 2 are not the real assets and a liability of one’s real self. One’s real self is described by Meaning 1. This multiplicity of two (or sometimes more than two) views of Jiva that are accepted by Jainology has a special significance. Scholars of philosophy recognize this multiplicity with the respectable and popular term Anekanta or Jain’s Anekanta. The literal meaning of Anekanta is “multiple views.” It may be noted that the view provided by Meaning 1 is called the real point of view and that provided by Meaning 2 is called the relative point of view.

Our lifetime is limited. We cannot afford to wait for a certificate in favor of the existence of soul from scientific laboratories. Instead, we may try to experiment at our own level. For example, through meditation we may try to have realization of the soul. In this regard, the method described by Acharya Amritchandra 1000 years ago in stanza 23 of Ref. [15] may be helpful. This stanza suggests that for 48 minutes (one Muhurta) one should try to experience the soul by pretending to be a neighbor of your physical body (and other related possessions). Further, in stanza 34 of the same, the Acharya suggests us to continue such experiments for 6 months in order to realize the soul.

I am sure that this book is going to answer many questions regarding the soul/consciousness in living systems; as a stimulating work of science, it is also expected to produce new questions and curiosity. All such outcomes, I hope, may be helpful to the readers in achieving the direction of peace and bliss.

1. (a)  George Wald, 'The Cosmology of Life and Mind', p. 8-21 of Ref. 1(b).
   (b)  Edited by T. D. Singh & Ravi Gomatam, 'Synthesis of Science and Religion'. The Bhaktivedanta Institute, San Francisco, Bombay, 1987.
2. Wilder Penfield, The Mystery of the Mind - A Critical Study of Consciousness and Human Brain (Princeton University Press, 1975). 
3. Erwin Schrodinger, 'Mind and Matter', Cambridge University Press, 1958.
4. Deepak Chopra, 'Perfect Health', Harmony Books, New York, 1991, p. 9-10.
5. R.H. Dicke, Nature, 192, 440, 1961.
6. Stephen Hawking, 'A Brief History of Time', Bantam Dell Publishing Group, 1988. 
7. T.D. Singh and Pawan K. Saharan, 'An interview with Charles H. Townes', in Ref. 1(b), p.140.
8. Ravi Gomatam and A. J. Ellison, 'An interview with Maurice H. Wilkins', in Ref. 1(b), p. 29, 35.
9. B.D. Josephosn, ‘Science and Religion: How to make the Synthesis?’, in Ref. 1(b),  p. 47.
10. Huber Robinson and T.D. Singh, 'An interview with Fritjof Capra', in Ref. 1(b), p. 273-4.
11. Ravi Gomatam, 'An interview with Eugene Wigner', in Ref. 1(b), p. 261.
12. Acarya Kundkunda, Samayasara, Stanza 38, 181, and 299.
    The essence of Stanza 38 is that thoughts of attachment with anybody are not of soul (me). The theme of Stanza 181 is that emotions such as anger are different from soul. The central idea of Stanza 299 is that the entity that knows is soul, thoughts are not soul.
13. Asit Chandmal, 'Why the brain is limited', The Sunday Review, The Times of India, Delhi edition, July 30, 1995, page 8.
14. Paras Mal Agrawal, Soul Science: Samayasara by Jain Acharya Kundakunda (Part-1), Kundakunda Jñānapīṭha, Indore (2014), see stanzas 46-49.
15. Acharya Amritchandra, Samayasara Kalash No. 23 and 34.

Dr. Paras Mal Agrawal
Research Scientist and visiting professor (Retd.)
Oklahoma State University, Stillwater OK 74078  USA
Ex. Professor of Physics, Vikram University, Ujjain MP
([email protected])