________________
I. 10 ]
CHAPTER I
[ 15
ent provinces have been clearly demarcated. From this, one is likely to suppose that there is no connexion whatsoever between these two Nayas or for the matter of that, its subjects or provinces. Here this erroneous notion is removed from the minds of the reader, by stating the truth about this theory. Really speaking, there cannot be any general without a particular nor any particular without a general. But one and the same thing assumes the aspect of universality from one point of view. Hence there is bound to be an overlapping of these two Nayas in one and the same statement. This being the case, when a particular statement is said to be the legiti. mate subject of a particular Naya, it only means that the speaker gives only a prominence to that Naya in that statement and assigns a subordinate place to another Naya. Thus, for instance, when the standpoint of Sāmānya or universality is predominent the statement is said to fall under Dravyăstika. Similarly when the standpoint of particularization predominates, the statement is said to belong to the province of Paryāyāstika. 9
What is the attitude of each Naya towards the other or the rival Naya is discussed in the following verse :-:
दव्वट्ठियवत्तव्यं अवत्थु णियमेण पजवणयस्स । तह पन्जववत्थु अवत्थुमेव दव्वट्ठियनयस्स ॥ १० ॥
Paryāyāstika does not view the positive assertion of Dravyāstika as its legitimate
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
