________________
163 attribute of it ? The contention is based on a three-fold misconception. Firstly, 'inexpressibility attributed to the thing by the fourth Bhanga is not a real attribute of it. Inexpressibility' as we have already pointed out, does not form & real element of the nature of a thing; it is only a confession that the real element of the thing as found out by the fourth Bhanga cannot be expressed in language. To call a thing 'inexpressible' is not to express any real nature of it but is only to make a negative statement about it. If, then, ‘inexpressibility' is not a real attribute, no question of including 'expressibility' as a category of understanding or of reality can arise. Secondly, the inclusion of • expressibility as an additional category as opposed to 'inexpressibility' is wholly uncalled for. because in the first three Bhangas, 'expressibility: of the nature of a thing is distinctly assumed in three ways viz., its expressibility as a positive real, its 'expressibility' as a negative real and then, its expressibility as a real, successively positive and negative. And lastly, it may be pointed out that if one insists on 'inexpressibility' being acknowledged as an attribute of a thing,-well, he is welcome to consider it in connection with the thing in the way of Sapta
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
