Jain Journal 1971 10

SR No.: 520024
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication
Publication Year: 1971
Total Pages: 45
Language: English
Classification: Magazine, India_Jain Journal, & India
File Size: 3 MB

Page 16

OCTOBER, 1971
The argument, as above, is the expansion of what is implied in (A)2. It is the illuminator of reality so-apprehended and contradicted the nonreality appeared in (A)1. In nutshell, the cognition of snake in (A)1 was contradicted and displaced by the reason shaped in (A)2 and finally replaced by the clearer vision embodied in (A)3. The rope-knowledge thus became triumphant over the snake-knowledge in its final stage.
Now, let us jot down some salient points involved in the above three stages of arguments in the following manner :
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
53
All the three arguments are objective.
The object subjected to is independent of the cognizer.
The conclusion of all the arguments differ from each other in form. The conclusions of (A)2 and (A)3 are respectively contradictory and contrary to the conclusion of (A)1.
All the minor premises of the arguments are compatible with each other and they indicate the hierarchy of progressive knowledge in regard to the characteristics of object perceived. The important point is this, that the characteristics observed and expressed in the minor premise of (A)2 does not come in the way of what has already been expressed in the minor premise of (A)1, but all of them get together in the minor premise of (A)3 in the same form and manner they were originally in the previous stages.
The major premises in the syllogism No. (A)1. and (A)2 differ with one another in their denotation with respect to their subjects. The predicates of the major premises of (A)1 and (A)2 are respectively wider than, and approximately equal to, the denotation of the subject, i.e., snake. Hence the predicate of (A)2 is in definition more expressive of the existence of the snake than the predicate of (A)1. The deduction in (A)2 would naturally be more valid than that in (A)1.
It is thus ultimately proved, that the object of our perception is rope, not the snake.
Evaluation of Argumental Parity
Now the Brahma-vädin, on the strength of this analogy, endeavours to prove, that Brahman like rope-knowledge is true and real and the world, snake-knowledge, is untrue and unreal. Hence I have to point