________________
XXXVI
the class Shabda. Therefore, in his opinion Nayas are only five and not seven. Later Achāryas however adhero to the older classification into seven Nayas.
'. These seven Nayas again can be classified under two heads Dravyārthika Naya and Paryāyārthika Naya. The first four are grouped under the first and the last three under the second leading.
The former is called Dravyārthika because the subject matter of the process of analytical enquiry is the substratum or the noumenon of a thing; while in the latter case it is the phenomenon. 'A Paryāya is but a mode or state of being.' Whatever has origin and end and destruction in time has Paryāya. Paryāya is a changing modification. The last three Nayas refer only to this outward aspect of a thing and ignore the inhering substrata.
Corresponding to these Nayas there are fallacies of Nayas (Nayābhāsas). Thoy are thus enumerated : (1) Naigamābhāsa, when in estimating a soul we make a distinction between its 'existence' and its consciousness'; (2) Samgrabābhāsa, when we lose sight of specific properties; (3) Vyavahārābhāsa, when we mako a wrong distinction between substance and qualities; (4) Rijusutrābhāsa, when reality of things is denied; (5) Shabdābhāsa, when we make a distinction which is purely verbal and not real; (6) Samabhirudhābhāsa, when we use synonymous words for signifying altogether different things; and lastly (7) Evambhutābhāsa, when a thing is discarded simply because it does not at the moment possess the properties implied by the name; for instance, Rāma is not a man (thinking animal) because he is not at present thinking. These fallacies are to be avoided and the Nayas are to be strictly adhered to if we are to realise Truth within us.
Every religion attempts to explain the unknowable, the
