________________
No. 11 Astinasti Vada
29 certainly be 'no'. The piece of furniture is not made of rose wood in spite of its appearance. The appearance is due to painting whose object is merely to hide the real nature of the timber utilised. Hence he would assert that the table is not made of rose wood. If the expert by scraping the paint in a small corner of the furniture in order to expose tha true nature of the wood employed then it will be made evident that the timber used for making the furniture is some jungle wood of an inferior type. Then the purchaser will learn from the expert the exact answer to his question, 'What is the timber of which this piece of furniture is made?' The answer to the question would be an affirmative proposition stating that the table is made of jungle timber. Thus, two propositions, one an affirmative and another negative are asserted with reference to the same piece of furniture and both propositions are certainly valid. With reference to the true nature of the timber utilised for making the table the statement that it is made of jungle wood is a valid affirmative proposition. When we want to make a proposition from the mere appearance whether it is made of rose wood, the valid answer is a negative proposition, it is not made of rese wood. Thus, the negative proposition arises when the object is related to another nature which is not its true nature. The true substance is jungle wood and another substance with reference to which the negative proposition is made is rose wood. This point is explained by Jaina thinkers in a technical way.
Sell and Alicn :
In the case of the two contradictory propositions the affirmative proposition is valid with reference to 'Svadravya', its own substance, the negative proposition is valid with reference to 'Paradravya', the alien substance. The illustration may be multiplied. If we have an ornament made of pure gold and the question is asked what is the nature of the substance, the valid answer would be, it is made of gold. But, if the similar ornament is made of imitation gold the answer would be, 'No, it is not made of gold.' Here also the object from its own 'Svadravya' point of view would be described by an affirmative proposition, from the 'Paradravya' point of view by a negative proposition. Similarly, if you are interested in finding out whether your cow is in the cattle shed and if you ask your servant
