Studies in Indian Philosophy

SR No.: 001580
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Dalsukh Malvania, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1981
Total Pages: 352
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, Epistemology, & Religion
File Size: 21 MB

Page 70

Tamas and Chāyā in the Jaina view
by light only, just like prag-abhāva of light (whereas pradhvamsabhava is endless, it cannot be destroyed and at least not by its counter-entity.) Nor is it of the nature of mutual negation (itaretarābhāva), for in that case even when the strong light of the sun be spread all over, tamas (darkness) should have been seen during the day-time also, as it is seen at night because of its presence Nor is it of the nature of the absolute negation (atyantābhāva) of light, for light is produced on there being the assemblage of its own causal factors. If tamas (darkness) were of the nature of absolute negation of light, then light would be like a sky-flower, and the three worlds would be drowned in beginningless, endless dense darkness. Thus the opponent's thesis is sublated by the inference, "Tamas is not of the character of negation, because it is not of the nature of prior negation, etc., like the sky." And the sublation of the opponent's thesis by the following inference also cannot be prevented under any circumstance: "Tamas is positive in character, for being some thing that is produced it is non-eternal, like pot." It may be noted that 'being something that is produced' is inserted to keep prāg-abhāva out of the range of this argument, and 'is non-etrenal' is inserted to keep out pradhvaṁsābhāva, and so the argument is saved from being an inconclusive one.
43
Śankara (a forgotten Naiyayika) and Bhāsarvajña (the author of the Nyaya-bhūṣaṇa) have put forth the argument, "Negation of a thing is pereceived by the very apparatus ( causal complex) by which that thing is perceived. So darkness perceived by the very apparatus by which light can be perceived is its negation". This argument is trivial, for it is an inconclusive one. On the same ground it could be said that light is negation of darkness, because it is perceived by the very apparatus by which darkness is perceived. Or because pot and cloth are perceived by a common apparatus, one would have to say that pot is negation of cloth, and cloth is negation of pot. Therefore, darkness appearing in perception as having the distinctive character of an independent entity is definitely a positive thing that is opposed in character to light.