Soil and stones are ekindriya jivas. So when do they die? Stone that I find on the road is it living or dead?
In Jain philosophy, soil and stones are classified as Prithvikäya (earth-bodied) one-sensed beings (Ekendriya Jivas), meaning they possess only the sense of touch and are considered living as long as they remain connected to their source or root [1][2]. According to the Dashavaikalik Sutra, these one-sensed beings are alive while joined to their original source, but once separated—such as a stone broken from a mountain or sand removed from the earth—they gradually become lifeless [1]. The text elaborates that a cluster of living organisms, like a lump of sand or a rock, remains living until it comes into contact with a "weapon" or fatal thing, which can include mixing with another type of organism (e.g., water mixed with sand), at which point it becomes non-living [1].
Regarding the stone you find on the road: if it has been separated from its original source (like a mountain or the earth), it is considered to have slowly become lifeless or non-living [1]. However, if it were still attached to its source, it would be considered living. This distinction is important in Jain practice, as harming or separating these beings is a form of Himsä (violence), though the degree of violence is lower for one-sensed beings compared to multi-sensed beings [4].
Sources
Related questions
In Jain philosophy, the earth itself is considered a living being (Prithvikāya), a one-sensed (ekendriya) being with only the sense of touch. This includes seemingly inanimate forms like clay, sand, metal, and coral, which are all considered to have earthly bodies and are thus alive [2][3]. The top few inches of soil are not considered "dead" in this framework; rather, the entire earth body is a living entity, and the individual organisms within it are part of a larger cluster of life [1]. Pebbles and sand are also considered alive as part of the earth-bodied (Prithvikāya) category of one-sensed beings [1][2]. However, a cluster of living organisms, such as a lump of sand, can become non-living when it comes into contact with a "weapon" or other fatal thing. This includes mixing with another type of sand (Swakaya), mixing with water (Parkaya), or a combination of both (Ubhayakaya), which is fatal for the organisms in both [1]. So, while sand on a beach is considered alive, it would become lifeless if mixed with a different type of sand or water, as this contact is fatal to the organisms within it [1].
Based on the provided context, the living beings specifically mentioned in relation to Nandishvar Dveep are divine beings (gods). The sources describe that many Bhavanapati (residential-class gods), Vaimanik (celestial gods), and other divine beings came to Nandishvar island to celebrate an eight-day festival [3]. The context also mentions that the Ratikar Parvats (entertainment mountains) and other structures in Nandishvar Dveep are the homes of gods, including Deva, Asura, Nāga, and Suparṇa [4]. The context does not provide a detailed list of other living beings (such as animals, plants, or humans) residing in Nandishvar Dveep. The descriptions focus primarily on the geography—the seven continents, seven seas, mountains, and lakes—and the divine beings who visit and reside there for celebrations and worship.
The question of why you cannot kill an animal even if it will die anyway is addressed in Jain philosophy through the concept of *himsā* (violence) and its karmic consequences. The key point is that the act of killing itself—regardless of whether the animal is already dying—generates negative karma for the killer, because the animal experiences pain and suffering at the moment of death, and the killer is responsible for inflicting that suffering [1]. Even if the animal's death is inevitable, the violence of killing it causes the being distress, mental anguish, and forces it into a new birth, which is why wise people deliberately avoid such acts [1]. Additionally, Jain philosophy holds that killing an animal, even one that is diseased or injured, does not actually end its suffering—it merely destroys the present body while the soul continues its journey, often into a worse condition [4]. The animal has a strong will to live and values its life above all else, as even a dying creature would reject gold or kingdoms in favor of continued life [2]. Killing it prematurely breaks the natural cycle of its existence and destroys the evolutionary progress it has made through countless lifetimes [3]. Furthermore, the argument that killing a suffering animal is an act of mercy is rejected as self-deception; it is considered *himsā* pure and simple, because the killer's duty is to alleviate suffering through care and service, not to destroy the body under the false notion that this terminates the soul's suffering [4].
संवत्सरी (Samvatsari) का हिंदी अर्थ है "वर्ष का अंतिम दिन" या "संवत्सर" (वर्ष) से संबंधित पर्व। यह जैन धर्म का एक महत्वपूर्ण पर्व है, जो पर्युषण पर्व के अंतिम दिन मनाया जाता है। इस दिन जैन अनुयायी "मिच्छामि दुक्कड़म" कहकर एक-दूसरे से क्षमा मांगते हैं, क्योंकि यह क्षमा और मैत्री का दिन होता है। [2] के अनुसार, संवत्सरी का दिन जैन कैलेंडर (पंचांग) में भादरवा (भाद्रपद) शुक्ल पंचमी को मनाया जाता है, और यह तिथि विभिन्न जैन संप्रदायों (जैसे श्वेतांबर, दिगंबर, स्थानकवासी) में अलग-अलग हो सकती है। [3] संदर्भ में यह भी बताया गया है कि संवत्सरी का संबंध "संवत्सर" (वर्ष) से है, और जैन आगम साहित्य में पाँच प्रकार के संवत्सर बताए गए हैं—नक्षत्र, चंद्र, कर्म (ऋतु), आदित्य और अभिवर्धित संवत्सर। [1] हालांकि, सामान्य बोलचाल में "संवत्सरी" का अर्थ विशेष रूप से क्षमापना पर्व से है, जब जैन लोग वर्ष भर की गलतियों के लिए क्षमा मांगते हैं और सभी प्राणियों से क्षमा याचना करते हैं। यह पर्व आत्मशुद्धि और अहिंसा के सिद्धांतों पर केंद्रित होता है।
Yes, the devas (gods) can be seen, and Jain scriptures describe their clairvoyant perception (avadhi-jnana) in detail, which also implies their visibility to beings with the appropriate perceptual abilities. The range of what devas can see depends on their celestial abode: gods in the Saudharma and Īśāna heavens see up to the first hellish ground, those in Sanatkumāra and Mahendra see up to the second, Brahma and Lāntaka gods up to the third, and Śukra and Sahasrāra gods up to the fourth [1]. Gods in Āṇata, Parāṇata, Araṇa, and Acyuta heavens see up to the fifth hellish ground, the Graiveyaka gods up to the sixth or seventh, and the gods of the five Anuttaravimānas can see the entire universe downwards [1][2]. Additionally, the devas themselves are visible to humans under certain conditions. The context notes that hellish creatures, gods, and Tīrthaṅkaras have clairvoyant perception from birth and can see wholly, while others who acquire it through spiritual efforts see only partially [1]. In general Jain belief, devas possess luminous, transformable bodies and can appear to humans, particularly to those with spiritual attainments or during auspicious events like the pañcakalyāṇaka celebrations of a Tīrthaṅkara [3]. However, ordinary humans typically cannot see them without such special perceptual abilities or divine intervention.
The Dashvaikalik Sutra (Dasavealiyam) is one of the mula sutras of the Svetambara Jains, written by Aryya Sayyambhava, who was fifth in line from Sramana Bhagavan Mahavira, around 429 B.C. [1] The text was composed to help in the spiritual progress of his son, who was destined to die within six months after initiation. [1] Regarding the vritti (commentary) on the Dashvaikalik Sutra, the knowledge base mentions that in the "Savruttik Aagam Sootraani" series, there is a "Dashvaikalik Mool evam Vrutti" (Dashvaikalik Mool and Vritti) published by Vardhaman Jain Agam Mandir Samstha, Palitana in 2017, but the specific author of that vritti is not named in the provided context. [4] Additionally, the context notes that there are two ancient churnis (explanatory works) on the Dashvaikalik Sutra: one by Agastya Simha Sthavir (probable period 3rd or 6th century Vikram) and another by Jindas Mahattar (7th century Vikram). [2] These are the earliest known commentaries, though the specific authorship of a "vritti" as such is not explicitly attributed in the sources provided.