________________
: 146 : Jinabhadra Gani's
[The third the combination of the bhūtas also, just as oil cannot be found in a samudaya of Bands when it is not present in each individual praticle of sand. From this, a rule can be deduced that whatever is absent in an individual state should be absent in the colleative state also, “and whatever is present incollection should be present in the individual also, e. g., oil when present its prithak avasthā of sesamum is found in its collective state also.
In the present case, cètanā is not found in the prithak avasthā of bhūtas, and hence, it is improper to accept that cètanā is produced in the samudāya of bhūtas. Really speaking, it is produced by some other cause totally different from bhūtasamudāya. That cause is nothing else but jiva which is amurta on account of the amūrta cetanā.
Here again, the opponent may argue that the abovementioned rule is wrong. For, mada is not found in the individual state of a constituent like dhātakt puspa of the madya; and get the quality of intoxication does exist in its samudaya. But it is not proper to say that mada-bhāva is altogether absent from dhătakt puspa etc. For, mada does exist in the individual state to a certain extent. A dhātakt puspa can induce insanity in its individual capacity; the juice of jaggery, vine, sugar-cane etc can produce contentment and water can quench the thirst. By the word “ādi" other constituents of wine should also be included, as they too, possess some capacity or the other as far as possible. Now, if caitanya-Śakti were present in the individual bhūtas like prithart eto. even to a limitted extent, caitanya would certainly bave been manifested in their combination also. But when cetana is absent in the very prithak state, it can never be produced in the combined state.
Now, what would happen if the constituents of wine had no power of intoxication at all ?
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org