Dr. Samani Mangal Pragya
The soul and the body are not at all identical entities. Had they been completely identical, then they may have become one substance. At the same time, they are not absolutely different too. If there had been radical difference between them, then no relation between the two could have occurred. Hence, due to some special attributes, they are mutually different and due to some general qualities they are identical too. If the radical difference between the two is accepted, then, the results of the actions done by the body should not be borne by the soul and if both are one and the same, then, the soul would become inexistent with the death of the body, and the concept of rebirth, etc. will vanish away. In the worldly state, the relation of the soul with the body is like a fire in the iron ball or like a mixture of water and milk, that is why when an object comes into contact with the body, sensations are felt in the soul. The fruition of the karma, as a result of the activities undertaken by the body, is also experienced by the soul. Hence, the body and the soul are one. The soul exists even after the death of the body and in the liberated state; the soul exists without the body. Hence, both are different. Adjuncts such as colour, smell, etc. for the soul and formlessness and livingness etc. for the body become pertinent, only when the relation of identity between the soul and the body is accepted. There are also terms such as formless, karma-less, colourless etc. used for the soul in the Bhagavatī.[1] The body has been mentioned as nonliving, having form etc. This explanation of Bhagavatī proves the difference between the two.
Worldly soul cannot be explained without matter. Worldly soul itself means soul accompanied by matter. The soul and body become one with each other, like milk and water in the worldly state. So, they are identical. One is conscious and the other is non-conscious, hence, there is a difference in the very nature of both. Acharya Siddhasena Gani has propounded the mutual unity-cum-difference between the body and the soul, by applying non-absolutistic points of view.[2]
Soul is Consumer and Matter is Consumable
There are multiple relations between the soul and matter. At one place, the Bhagavatī mentions that they have a consumer- consumable relation. The soul consumes or uses the matter, hence it is consumer. The matter is received or used by the soul hence it is the consumable. The soul becomes the consumer of matter, due to its conscious nature and the matter becomes the consumable due to its non-living attributes.[3]
Conclusion
In the worldly state, both matter and soul, affect one another due to their mutual relationship. The relation between these two heterogeneous substances can be explained easily, through a non-absolutistic approach. Jain philosophy upholds non-absolutism. Thus, soul and matter are neither absolutely different nor completely identical. Only those who have an absolutistic viewpoint are unable to reconcile this. Jain philosophy solves this problem through anekānt (non-absolutist standpoint).
