Tag Archives: touch

Creating a micro SD Image

Leave a reply

In today’s embedded world, it is very common to be creating bootable micro SDs. And then very often replicating them using raw dump of the micro SD (uSD) into an image file, say using dd command. And then creating another bootable uSD by flashing the image file into the uSD, again using dd command.

But what if one wants to create the image file by hand, rather than raw dumping from an existing uSD? Can it be done? Very well yes. And here follows the outline of the steps to follow:

First, create the image file for the appropriate size, say 1GiB:

$ dd if=/dev/zero of=file.img bs=32k count=32k

NB 1GiB has been achieved using 32 Kibi blocks of 32 KiB each, because nowadays 32KiB is quite an optimal block size in Linux.

Now, partition the image, with say 3 partitions (50MiB, 300MiB, remaining), using the GPT partition table type:

$ parted file.img mklabel gpt # Create a GPT partition table
$ parted file.img mkpart primary fat32 1MiB 51MiB # Create a partition for FAT32 fs
$ parted file.img mkpart primary 51MiB 351MiB
$ parted file.img mkpart primary 351MiB 2097151s

NB 2097151 is the last sector number in our image, but the third partition may not be able to extend till there, and the last command above may prompt for an alternative last sector. Accept it with “y”.

NB One may use any other partitioning utility like fdisk, as well.

Use the following commands to see partition details (in MiB & Byte units):

$ parted file.img unit MiB print
$ parted file.img unit B print

Here’s the expected output:

Partition Details using parted

Now, time to create filesystems on our partitions. But they are not visible as block device files. Then, how does one do it? That’s where loop device comes for rescue. Type the following commands to get the corresponding block device files:

$ sudo losetup -o 1MiB --sizelimit 50MiB -f file.img
$ sudo losetup -o 51MiB --sizelimit 300MiB -f file.img
$ sudo losetup -o 351MiB -f --sizelimit 705674752 file.img

NB 705674752 (refer to the print output above) is provided in bytes to be exact for the last partition

The three partitions would typically get available as /dev/loop0, /dev/loop1, /dev/loop2. You may verify using the following command:

$ sudo blockdev --report /dev/loop?

Here’s the expected output:

Loop (Block) Device File Details using blockdev

NB If the partition sizes are not multiple of 4096, their block size (BSZ) would reduce to 512.

Now, do all the usual partition operations. For example:

$ sudo mkfs.vfat /dev/loop0
$ sudo mkfs.ext4 /dev/loop1
$ sudo mkfs.ext4 /dev/loop2

Mount the required filesystems & copy the appropriate contents & unmount them. For example, for the first vfat filesystem:

$ sudo mount /dev/loop0 /mnt
$ sudo touch /mnt/om_arham.txt
$ sudo umount /mnt

Once done with content creation for all the filesystems, detach the loop devices:

$ sudo losetup -d /dev/loop2
$ sudo losetup -d /dev/loop1
$ sudo losetup -d /dev/loop0

All done – file.img is the desired uSD image. In fact, one may use the above learnings, to access the contents of an already existing uSD image, without raw dumping or flashing it in a uSD. Go ahead & try it out. And finally, why only an image of a uSD, you may create &/or decode any damn storage image, using just what has been learnt.

   Send article as PDF   

The Ultimate Atom

4 Replies

<< Previous Class

Parmāṅu – the ultimate atom is our topic of discussion today. As it is a big topic, we may have to extend our today’s class.

“O! Finally! I have been waiting for it. No problem in extending the class”, exclaimed Dravya. “So, is it really the ultimate?”

Yes, the ultimate eternal unit of all the observables. It can neither be created nor destroyed and cannot even be transformed to & from something else. It cannot be broken any further.

Basically it means that each parmāṅu was always there and will always be there. And even the total number parmāṅu in the lok also never changes.

Yes. And hence permanent, from that perspective. Moreover, it is a true point, occupying just one space point.

So, it doesn’t have any length, breadth or depth?

Yes, it doesn’t. It is truly infinitesimal having no beginning, end or middle.

So, does it not have shape?

No, it doesn’t. Only pudgal aggregates, spanning over multiple space points, create the notion of shape.

What about its mass?

It is truly massless, i.e. have zero mass, and hence its speed is not limited by the speed of light. In fact, it can travel from one end of the lok to the other end in one samay (smallest unit of time), thus achieving its maximum speed.

But isn’t even light massless?

Not really. Light consists of photons which are not really zero mass equivalent, as they have energy.

So then, how does aggregates composed of parmāṅu get mass?

It is not all aggregates. Only those with infinite parmāṅu, as then zero into infinity becomes some finite quantity. Interestingly, also note that, parmāṅu and other zero mass aggregates are as such of no use to jīv. Hence, if any pudgal is getting used or perceived by us – the jīv – it must have mass.

That’s really interesting.

Coming to motion or movement, parmāṅu is the only thing, ultimately responsible for all dynamism. All but pudgal & jīv are motionless. And jīv also is dynamic only in its worldly existence and that also due to its association with pudgal of karm & other vital functions.

“So basically pudgal is the only one with dynamism – motion or movement”, summarized Gati.

Sort of. More correctly, pudgal is the only substance with inherent dynamism. But that doesn’t mean that it is always dynamic. Let’s dig into it, to understand it further. Dynamism could be classified into two types: 1) Motion and 2) Fusion-Fission

Fusion is combining & Fission is separation of pudgal, right?

Yes, we already talked about this dynamism as differentiator of pudgal, and also that this doesn’t happen always. Motion can be further divided into three types: 1) Vibratory, 2) Rotatory, and 3) Migratory. Even these motions don’t happen always – there are periods of motion & rest interleaved. However, these motions could be either inherent or influenced by external forces. And this self-induced inherent motion is the one which makes pudgal inherently dynamic.

Could this vibratory motion be treated as the reason for say spontaneous release of energy?

Yes – very well thought.

Laws of Motion

Note that, these details of dynamism reveals that even dynamism of pudgal is quantized. All these and more are summarized in the following laws of motion:

  1. A parmāṅu can remain at rest on a single space point for a minimum of one samay (time point) and a maximum of innumerable samay, after which it must do one or more types of the above mentioned motion.
  2. A parmāṅu can remain in motion for a minimum of one samay and a maximum of innumerableth part of an āvalikā (Refer to our discussion on the expanse of time for detail on āvalikā), after which it must come to rest.
  3. Minimum and maximum distances covered by a parmāṅu in one samay are one space unit (space between two adjacent space points) and entire length of lok, respectively. And that defines its minimum and maximum speed.
  4. Parmāṅu moves in a straight line unless acted upon by external forces. This movement is called anushreṅī gati. The movement in one samay is always of this type.
  5. When acted upon by external forces, parmāṅu may change direction and speed, but within the above limits.

Some of these sound like Newton’s laws of motion.

Yes. In fact, these are the governing principles for Newton’s laws of motion.

Principle of Uncertainty

However, even after these definites, there are the following sets of uncertainties about the motion of a parmāṅu, which shows up as the principal of uncertainty:

  1. Exact durations of rest and motion, though minimum and maximum are defined.
  2. Direction & Speed to be taken by the parmāṅu, at the commencement of its motion.
  3. Kind of motion to be taken up by a parmāṅu at rest, i.e. one of vibratory, rotatory or migratory, or any of their combinations.

Eye opener detail with both certainties & uncertainties coded into the signature of parmāṅu. Does that mean that a parmāṅu can do whatever it likes, go wherever it likes?

Again anekāntvād in action, both yes & no – apratighāti (not restricted) and pratighāti (restricted). It is not restricted to move, by any other pudgal or jīv as such. It can without any hindrance, penetrate through them, pass through them, occupy & leave a space point occupied by them, without any effect on its rest & motion due to rest of the occupants of the space point. However, its motion & rest are restricted only within the lok (upkārbhāv pratighāti), i.e. it cannot cross the boundaries of lok into alok, as dharmāstikāy (medium of motion) and adharmāstikāy (medium of rest) are absent from alok. Moreover, its motion is restricted & influenced by others in an aggregate, when it is not lone but part of the aggregate (bandhan pariṅām pratighāti). And finally, two self-activated parmāṅu moving at high velocity may cause restrictions in the motions of each other (ati veg pratighāti).

That’s lot of pointers to research into the field of particle physics as well as astronomy, possibly to find the unifying laws of the universe.

Yes indeed, as parmāṅu is the ultimate unifier.

Laws of Fusion

As you are already motivated for further research, it’s right time to talk about the fusion & fission dynamism as well, like we have talked about the motion dynamism. The laws governing fusion in particular are:

  1. A parmāṅu with just one ultimate intensity unit of positive or negative touch never fuses with anything. However note that, parmāṅu inherently keeps changing its intensities of touch, taste, smell, and colour, i.e. the intensities are not permanent. So, it is non-fusable only till it has just one unit of positive or negative touch.

“Can a parmāṅu inherently change its colour, smell, etc, not just their intensities?”, asked Yog.

No it cannot, in its lone state. However, colour etc can be changed by the parmāṅu after its union with others.

  1. Two parmāṅu of same touch (i.e. both positive or both negative) can fuse/combine only if the difference between their corresponding touch intensities is at least two units.
  2. Two parmāṅu of opposite touches (i.e. one positive and one negative) can always combine if each of their intensities is greater than one.

Can two parmāṅu of same touch, one with intensity of one unit and other with three or more units combine?

No. As per the first law, a parmāṅu with just one unit intensity can never combine. Then only, the second and third law comes into picture.

Okay. So second law can be stated as two parmāṅu with same touch can combine only if their touch intensities are X & X + n, or viceversa, where X > 1 and n >= 2.

Yes mathematician smiled the professor. Furthermore, fusion could be of two types: 1) Natural, and 2) Produced by jīv. Natural one can have three possible causes: 1) Fusion due to opposite touch properties – bandh pratyayik, 2) Fusion due to being in same container – bhājan pratyayik, 3) Fusion due to mutation – pariṅām pratyayik.

Do we have laws governing fission also?

Not anything specific. Just that parmāṅu is non-fissionable. And, other aggregate pudgal can fission/separate into as many smaller parts as possible with all possible combinations of parmāṅu in them.

Meaning say a four parmāṅu aggregate can break into two aggregate of 1 & 3 or 2 & 2 parmāṅu, or three aggregates of 1, 1 & 2 parmāṅu, or four aggregates each of 1 parmāṅu.

Perfect. Now, after extensive discussion on dynamism, let’s come back to the four characteristic qualities of pudgal. A parmāṅu would exactly have any one colour out of the five, any one smell out of the two, any one taste out of the five, and exactly two touches each one out of the first two & next two, respectively.

“Yes, as we talked earlier. Specifically, one touch of either cold or hot, and one of either positive or negative”, completed Viṡay.

Perfect. You guys are awesome.

And, various combinations of these four touches form the remaining four touches. But can you tell us the various combinations?

Plentifulness of rukṡ (negative) touch leads to laghu (light) touch. Plentifulness of snigdh (positive) touch leads to guru (heavy) touch. Plentifulness of cold and snigdh touches leads to mridu (soft) touch. Plentifulness of hot and rukṡ touches leads to karkash (hard) touch.

“Are all parmāṅu, of different varieties, or all are identical?”, suddenly questioned Dravya.

Interestingly, parmāṅu just means the ultimate unit, and hence it could be of pudgal (matter & energy), or space, or time, or sensuous qualities, and correspondingly being referred as pudgal parmāṅu (the ultimate atom), kṡetra parmāṅu (the space point), kāl parmāṅu (samay – the time point), bhāv parmāṅu (the indivisible unit aka quantum of intensity of sensuous qualities, viz touch, taste, smell, colour). However, colloquially by parmāṅu we typically refer to the pudgal parmāṅu only, as this is the trigger or reference for the quantization of the other parmāṅu.

How is this (pudgal) parmāṅu, reference for the other parmāṅu?

Because it occupies exactly one space point – no less no more, i.e. kṡetra parmāṅu is quantized as the ultimate unit of space because it is the space exactly occupied by the smallest pudgal – the parmāṅu. However, note that even densely packed pudgal aggregates made up of upto infinite parmāṅu may occupy one space point.

How is that possible? Then, each parmāṅu of that aggregate must occupy less than a space point.

Not really. This is possible because of the true point nature of a parmāṅu. Similar to the space occupancy, movements of parmāṅu are always in integral space units per samay. For example, the minimum motion speed of a parmāṅu is one space unit (from one space point to its adjacent space point) in one samay – it can’t be a fraction, as it can’t take more time once it is moving. Hence, samay is the quantization of time due to parmāṅu’s movement. And the intensity of sensuous qualities is anyways quantized by virtue of the parmāṅu, itself. So, by the word parmāṅu, here or otherwise, we typically refer to the pudgal parmāṅu only.

So, are all of these (pudgal) parmāṅu identical to each other?

Yes & No. Yes for their overall characteristics – that’s how they all are pudgal. But no for their specific characteristic values, e.g. they could have different colours, smells, tastes, and touches.

Yes. But including these possibilities, can we conclude that total varieties of parmāṅu are just 200, i.e. 5 colour x 2 smell x 5 taste x (2 x 2 touches) = 200.

High level, yes. But, if you want to go in further detail, intensity of each colour, smell, taste, touch in different parmāṅu varies from one unit to infinite units. Thus, we have infinite varieties of parmāṅu, and hence, depending on the infinite varieties of parmāṅu participating in making an aggregate, we will have infinite varieties of pudgal aggregates. And thus, the material universe comprised of solids, liquids, and gases, atoms and molecules, light and darkness, sounds and shadows, is therefore, infinitely infinite.

Next Class >>

   Send article as PDF   

Matter and Energy

4 Replies

<< Previous Class

We started with the understanding of science as a branch of philosophy, and after that we have talked about a whole lot of things under philosophy. Lot of new information – many beyond the realm of science, like knowledge, rebirth, … – most of which seemed not directly connected with our today’s science – some seemed to have some connection, like classification of everything, living beings, space, time. And now we shall take up the one, which has the most direct connection with science, or rather is the topic of science. And this, without any doubt, would show science as one of the aspects of philosophy. Any guesses as to what it is about?

“I guess energy, atom, …”, tried Dravya.

Yes, it is about matter & energy – the physical existence – the observable world. And as it is THE topic of science, but from a different perspective, we would like to spend a few sessions on this. The philosophical term for the same is pudgal, the collection of all of which is termed pudgalāstikāy, one of the six fundamental substances of reality.

So, it includes all the sub-atomic particles, elements, compounds, all forms of energies like heat, light, sound, …

Absolutely. And till date, all of you have been knowing all of these from purely science perspective. So, now let’s look at them from the philosophical perspective. And let’s see what more do we get, to further open up doors for deep farther reaching research into science.

“That would be amazing!”, exclaimed Tatva.

The word pudgal is formed of two parts: pud meaning combine / integrate, and gal meaning separate / disintegrate. So, fundamentally anything which undergoes modification through integration and disintegration is pudgal. In the words of modern science, anything which is fusionable and fissionable is pudgal.

Okay. But that is a definition based on when its changing. How do we identify it, if it is not changing?

Exactly, that’s why that is a definition just from one perspective. Depending on the perspective, pudgal can be defined, characterized, classified from many more ways. And to start with, we would look at a few important ones.

But fundamentally all of these would be based on its qualities only, right?

Yes obviously. And not just qualities, it is specific qualities possessed exclusively by pudgal, which distinguishes it from the other five fundamental substances. Now, out of these qualities, some are found in all paryāy (forms & form changes) of pudgal, and some only in some paryāy. The former ones are called characteristic qualities (lakṡaṅ). Pudgal has four such characteristic qualities. Anyone?

“Yes, yes, we already discussed that under the 16 specific qualities: colour, taste, smell, and touch”, quipped Viṡay.

Excellent. So, pudgal can be identified by these as well.

So you mean, every pudgal will have all four of them, or at least one of them?

All four of them.

But how about energy, like sound, heat, … – they don’t have any taste or smell?

Fundamentally, even they have – just that, it is subtle in them. Moreover, as these are the characteristic qualities of pudgal, it is the only observable or mūrt substance out of the six fundamental substances. All others are non-observable aka amūrt. But beware that, pudgal is observable doesn’t mean that we’d be always able to observe it. Observing even the observables is finally limited by our capabilities, not just of our senses but even of our instruments. So in fact, there are many observables aka pudgal, which we won’t be able to observe.

“So, humanly is it not always possible to identify pudgal using even these four characteristic qualities”, questioned Indriya.

Yes. And that’s why, we have various perspectives to look at, so that it at least fits in some. On those lines, let’s explore a very commonly used method (in philosophy) of characterising any substance. It is using the four fold determinants: dravya (substance), kṡetra (location in space), kāl (time), bhāv (qualities), plus the fifth one swabhāv (also at times called guṅ) (behaviour).

Can all substances be characterized using this technique?

Yes. But remember that it is just one of the perspectives of defining. Let’s apply the technique for pudgal. Substantially, i.e. by dravya, pudgal is infinite in number, meaning there are infinite number of different physical entities. Spatially, i.e. by kṡetra, pudgal fills the complete lok (universe). Temporally, i.e. by kāl, pudgal is eternal, i.e. without any beginning and without any end. Qualitatively, i.e. by bhāv, pudgal possesses colour, taste, smell, and touch. Behaviourally, i.e. by swabhāv, pudgal is fusionable and fissionable.

In a way, we have summarized all our (till now) understanding of pudgal in the above five determinants.

Sort of. Additionally, we can talk interactionwise, i.e. about pudgal’s interaction with soul. pudgal is capable of being taken in and transformed by soul in eight forms. Five in form of the five types of bodies, we have already discussed, while discussing variety of living beings.

“You mean: oudārik, vaikriya, āhārak, tejas, kārmaṅ”, confirmed Sharīr.

Yes. The corresponding pudgal vargaṅā (collection) is taken in by soul to transform into the respective body, e.g. oudārik pudgal vargaṅā to form the oudārik body, and so on. And, the remaining three forms are to do with the vital functions of breathing, speech, and thought. All these physiological functions of living beings are possible only by taking in the corresponding pudgal vargaṅā possessing specific properties useful for specific function.

Is it that all pudgal falls into these eight vargaṅā?

No. No. There is a infinite bunch of pudgal which doesn’t interact with soul but only with other pudgal. They don’t fall under these eight. These eight are just an interactionwise understanding of pudgal with soul – so that we know that even these are non-living pudgal, not living things.

“Hmmm. Seems like many angles to understand pudgal, but none seems to completely define it”, Viṡay expressed unsatisfactorily.

Not really true. The four characteristic qualities – colour, smell, taste, touch – completely define pudgal – it is just our incapabilities that we cannot perceive them always. Let’s further categorize them for a better understanding of pudgal.

Ok.

Colour: There are five fundamental colours – black, blue, red, yellow, white.

Meaning all other colours can be formed using these. But why black & white, they are just absence & presence of all colours, right?

Yes from science perspective, but not from inherent colour perspective of pudgal. Smell: good & bad smell. Taste: acrid / spicy, bitter, astringent (kaṡailā), acidic / sour, sweet. Touch: cold, hot, positive, negative, hard, soft, heavy, light.

So, does each pudgal have one category of quality from each of the four, meaning one colour of the five, one smell of the two, one taste of the five, one touch of the eight.

That’s not really a correct question. pudgal is a general term. So, your question is like asking – does each matter has one category of quality from each of the four. And in that case, the answer also would be a general answer – it could have multiple of them. The more specific question would be about the ultimate constituents of pudgal.

“You mean atom, or electron, or may be sub-atomic particles”, added Paryāpti.

Yes – in those lines. But even they are constituted of infinite of parmāṅu – the smallest unit of pudgal. That’s why, even they could have multiple of colours, smells, tastes, and touches.

So, even these sub-atomic particles are not the smallest unit of pudgal?

No way. Think of energy. That is also pudgal. Smallest unit of pudgal has to be the smallest unit of energy also.

“Okay. So, what colour, taste, etc does this so called parmāṅu have?”, continued Viṡay.

If you talk about a parmāṅu, it would exactly have one colour, one smell, one taste, and two touches.

Any one colour, any one smell, any one taste, and any two touches. But why two touches?

Yes, any one colour, any one smell, any one taste, but NOT any two touches. Specifically, one touch of either cold or hot, and one of either positive or negative.

What about then of the other four touches?

They are formed at a grosser level by the various combination of (parmāṅu having) the first four touches.

“So, the various pudgal vargaṅā (collection) we talked about earlier, would possibly also have the other four touches”, questioned Paryāpti.

Possibly yes, but not always. For example, the vargaṅā of each of kārmaṅ body, speech, thought always constitute of only the first four touches. Shwāsochchhwās (Breath) vargaṅā may be constituted of either four or eight touches. And the remaining four vargaṅā constitute of all the eight touches. With this level of detailing, I hope that we’d understand the intricacies of pudgal better.

“Yes, that’s lot of detailing, and wow, there is actually an ultimate unit of pudgal – the parmāṅu. Can you share more details about it?”, probed Dravya.

Definitely, we would talk about it separately. But before that we shall complete discussing some more perspectives of defining & identifying pudgal, which might be handy when we are unable to perceive its four characteristic qualities.

Next Class >>

   Send article as PDF   

Fundamentals of Existence

2 Replies

<< Previous Class

Hope you guys had enough time to go through the reference text ‘Microcosmology: Atom in Jain Philosophy & Modern Science’ by J S Zaveri & Muni Mahendra Kumar?

“Yes Sir”, came a chorus from a big bunch of the class.

That’s great. Then, today let’s start discussing about what is reality, with reference to your reading. Then, we could dive into more “realistic” stuff like matter & energy.

“There is so much of information in the text, and so much to relate with science & beyond”, added Viṡay.

Yes. Exactly that’s why I asked you guys to go through it, so that here we could just summarize the key points, and get into more of Q & A style discussions.

“After going through it, our thinking perspective have hugely expanded, many previous questions got answered, and some more new questions added. It would be really enriching to have such discussions”, supported Tatva.

So, what is Reality?

Reality is self-existing, self-consistent, and self-contained. It doesn’t depend on something outside it for its existence.

Perfect. Alongwith, it is free from all absolutism (single perspectives), and rather a composition of opposites.

“How can opposites be in together?”, quizzed Gati.

That is what is non-absolutism, multi-perspective, or so called anekāntvād. Now, take this. Reality is both change and permanence, it is both universal and specific.

That sounds really weird.

Yes. But if you dig deeper, you will see a beautiful coherence between the opposites. In fact, anything which is real aka exists, i.e. padārth is characterized by persistence-through-change, is a culmination of opposites. If it is not, it is not real. This is the ultimate truth, the very nature of things, since our common experience gives this as a fact.

Padārth meaning any thing or substance which exists?

Yes. Other synonyms for the same are sat, tatva. At times, we use the term dravya for it, as well.

“Can you please elaborate on this persistence through change?”, asked Dravya for further clarification.

Any padārth was there, is there, and will be there, in whatever form, thus proving its persistence. However, no padārth remains in its same form, thus continuously changing – leaving one form and entering the next – through infinite past, present, and infinite future.

Any example for a better understanding?

Let’s take example of say gold. Now that is permanently gold. It was gold, is gold, and would be gold. But it could have been raw in mines, or as biscuits, or coins, or ornaments, etc. These are the various forms. So, while the gold is changing through various forms, it still remains gold.

But gold can be changed into other elements using nuclear reactions?

Ya ya! That’s fine. That was just for an example to understand. The permanence goes even more fundamental, say for gold it would always be pudgal.

Pudgal meaning matter, right?

Yes, which includes energy as well. So, to elaborate further, any substance has permanence of its fundamental attributes or qualities called guṅ. And has change of its forms or modes called paryāy. This trinity of substance (padārth), its qualities (guṅ), and its modes (paryāy) is inseparable, and forms the ultimate truth of everything existing in the world, i.e. reality.

And there are a total of six (mutually exclusive & exhaustive) fundamental substances.

Yes. Can you name them?

Dharmāstikāy, Adharmāstikāy, Ākāshāstikāy (Space), Kāl (Time), Pudgalāstikāy (Matter & Energy), and Jīvāstikāy (Soul aka Psyche).

Excellent. And, their fundamental qualities are permanent. Thus, giving them their unique identity. Let’s dive a little deeper into their qualities. Can anyone list them out?

“Fundamentally there are two types of qualities: Universal & Specific. Further elaborating, there are 6 universal and 16 specific qualities, which sums up all types of guṅ”, answered Rāsi.

Can anyone else elaborate more on what is universal & what is specific qualities?

“Universal meaning quality which exists in every of the six substances. And specific quality meaning which is found in only a particular substance or a set of of substances, but not all – making it a unique characteristic of the substance, or the set.”, replied Bhāngā.

Now, who is going to list out the 6 universal qualities of all substances?

“I’ll”, jumped in Yog, as these were fresh in his mind from his recent read.

Go ahead.

Astitva, Vastutva, Dravyatva, Prameyatva, Pradeshatva, Agurulaghutva. Astitva means Eternal Existence, i.e. the quality which makes the existence of a substance permanent, making it to be never created or destroyed. Vastutva means Causal Efficiency, i.e. the quality which emphasizes the aspect of change of the substance, leading it to have various modes. Dravyatva means Substancehood, i.e. the property of the substance by which it becomes the platform for its qualities and modes to exist with it, i.e. it being a substance in complete sense. Prameyatva means Objectivity, i.e. the property of being an object of knowledge, i.e. by virtue of which a substance is known. Pradeshatva means Extension in Space, i.e. the property of occupying space. It is also called kṡetratva. Agurulaghutva means Eternal Persistence, i.e. the quality which makes the identity of a substance persist, giving it its unique identity, maintaining its individuality.

Wonderful. Excellent. Anyone else about the 16 specific qualities?

When no one approached to answer, professor continued, “16 as a number may be big, but it is logically easy to remember the 16 specific qualities as well”.

Out of the 6 substances, each of the first four have their own one specific quality, pudgalāstikāy & jīvāstikāy each have their own four specific qualities – that makes it twelve.

“I’ll try categorizing the first four”, interrupted Tatva.

Gatihetutva – Property of being Medium of Motion – A property of dharmāstikāy.
Sthitihetutva – Property of being Medium of Rest – A property of adharmāstikāy.
Avagāhahetutva – Property of being Space Provider – A property of ākāshāstikāy.
Vartanāhetutva – Property of causing Temporal Succession – A property of kāl.

Good. To add to the temporal succession, it is this which becomes the necessary condition for duration (continuity), change (modification), motion, newness and oldness of substances.

“I think the four specific qualities of pudgalāstikāy are touch, taste, smell, and colour”, added Viṡay.

Correct. Anyone on the four specific qualities of jīvāstikāy?

“Knowledge (jynān), Perception (darshan), Bliss (sukh), Power (vīrya)”, added Ātmā.

With these twelve in place, the last four are:
Chetanatva – Property of Consciousness – A property of jīvāstikāy.
Achetanatva – Property of No Consciousness – A property of the other 5 substances
Mūrttatva – Property of Perceptibility by Senses – A property of pudgalāstikāy.
Amūrttatva – Property of Non-Perceptibility by Senses – A property of the other 5 substances
That makes up the 16 specific qualities, with first four substances having 3 specific qualities each, and the last two having 6 each.

With that rings the bell.

We have summarized reality, real substances, and their permanent qualities. We are yet to discuss about their ever-changing modes. Guys who have not yet had a chance to go through the reference text ‘Microcosmology: Atom in Jain Philosophy & Modern Science’ by J S Zaveri & Muni Mahendra Kumar, please go through it. That would make the discussion more fruitful. And, let’s continue our discussion on the ever-changing modes in our next session.

Next Class >>

   Send article as PDF   

Classification of Everything

4 Replies

<< Previous Class

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.

Next Class >>

   Send article as PDF