Philosophers & Scientists specifically Physicists, and humans in general have been driven by the quest to find a unified theory of everything. However, scientists themselves believe that they may never be able to find the same.
“By that, do scientists mean that it doesn’t even exist?”, asked Driṡṫi
No, not really. They do believe that such thing might exist. But that would go beyond the materialistic world – the world of space, time, matter, energy – which is what the current science typically deals with.
Then, why are they still striving for it?
Because they believe that even with materialistic world science, they can go far more closer to it, than what they are today.
That’s at least motivating. And I assume, philosophers do have a different view.
You got it. They believe that if we attain kewal knowledge, we’d know the theory of everything, as that knowledge, by definition itself, is complete and infinite, going beyond the materialistic world.
Ok. Then the philosophers must be working towards it?
They do and they had. In fact, in the past, people have attained kewal knowledge. That’s how we know that it’s possible.
Then, why don’t we know it? Didn’t they share or tell it to the whole world, as the scientists do by publishing papers.
The only challenge is that all our means of knowledge sharing or transfer are all finite, and hence incapable of sharing the infinite knowledge.
So, everyone interested in theory of everything has to get to it, on its own.
Yes. At the least, to the final major part of it. However, the techniques to get there are somewhat shareable.
At least, do we know those?
They were known, but many got lost with the sea of time. Not all are currently available. But we can definitely start with the ones available and work towards exploring the rest.
Great. So, when do we start?
All of our these classes & concepts therein are steps in that direction only. Getting to know more and more of it. So, let’s take a leap further into it by doing a classification of everything.
“Wow! Classification of Everything – that sounds interesting”, quipped Tatva.
Okay gals n guys, so if we would like to categorize everything in two baskets, what would it be?
“Gross and subtle”, replied Tatva.
Not a very clear classification, as it would be relative.
“I guess, living and non-living”, responded Dhyān.
Exactly.
“Aha! that was easy – I thought unnecessarily complex”, interrupted Tatva.
No worries. That’s were we start – simple & obvious. But then dive into it to understand the more complex & non-obvious details in there. So, now what would be the categorization of non-livings?
“Matter and energy is all non-living”, answered Dravya.
“But if everything have to be categorized in two, wouldn’t all which is not living is non-living”, interrupted Dhyān.
“Yes, but we would like to further list them out all”, professor emphasized.
Okay… Then, also add space (आकाश) and time (काल) to the list.
Good. And there are two more to complete the list of non-livings.
Students went thinking but ran out of choices.
I know its difficult, as science has not yet recognized them. They are dharmāstikāy (धर्मास्तिकाय) and adharmāstikāy (अधर्मास्तिकाय) – the two non-observable implicit assistants of motion and non-motion, respectively.
Motion and non-motion of what all?
Matter, Energy, and Living beings.
So, does that mean they are in vacuum also?
Yes. In fact, both of it occupies the complete lok – lok as understood in our previous class.
But definitely not in alok, right?
Yes, perfect – as alok consists only of space and nothing else. Moreover, each of dharmāstikāy and adharmāstikāy, as such, are single stationary entities, composed of innumerable inseparable pradesh.
What is pradesh?
Smallest indivisible unit of anything is called its pradesh. For another example, even space is composed of inseparable pradesh, just that it is not composed of innumerable but infinite pradesh.
So, even time is composed of pradesh?
No. However, that’s the only exception, as it is only a conceptual non-living thing.
Being the tiniest, would it be anywhere possible to separate out the pradesh?
Yes, it may be, in case of matter & energy, together called pudgalāstikāy (पुद्गलास्तिकाय). And in such case, the separated pradesh is called parmāṅu. Contrast that, this is not the atom of current science, neither any sub-atomic particle like electron, nor photon. It is way too smaller than all these. In fact, a sub-atomic particle, or even a photon is composed of infinte number of parmāṅu. It can be termed as wavicle, a thing yet unknown to science.
If I understood correct, parmāṅu is a pradesh – just that it is separable from other pradesh, right?
Yes. Additionally, parmāṅu are the only pradesh which has attributes of colour, smell, taste, and touch.
These attributes at this tiniest level?!
Yes.
“What exactly do you mean by attribute of touch?”, queried Viṡay
It includes the attribute of temperature, charge, hardness, mass, where the latter two are optional, and if present are created by the combination of the former two.
That’s quite a different way of putting the stuff around.
Yes it is and it is not.
With that rings the bell.
And, I am sure you’d like to explore this further. Check out ‘Microcosmology: Atom in Jain Philosophy & Modern Science’ by J S Zaveri & Muni Mahendra Kumar, for further reading. We are still to do further classification of living beings. Let’s do it in our next session.