Basic Principles Of Jainism

Author(s): Narayan Lal Kachhara
Publisher: Narayan Lal Kachhara

Page 53

The doctrine is formulated in seven steps:
1. Syadasti (may be, is)
2. Syadnasti (may be, is not)
3. Syadasti Nasti cha (may be, is and is not)
4. Syadavaktavyam (may be, is inexpressible)
5. Syadasti cha Avaktavyam (may be, is and inexpressible)
6. Syadnasti cha Avaktavyam (may be, is not and inexpressible)
7. Syadasti cha Nasti cha Avaktavyam (may be, is and is not and inexpressible).
An illustration will make these propositions clear. The seven predications are expressed by the permutation and combination of the three expressions: asti, nasti and avaktavyam, the word syat being common to all of them. Where the predicate is simple, it relates to an object: where it is complex, the predication is relative with reference to the characteristics of dravya, its place, time or space. Take for example, a jar made of clay and another substance like a cloth.
So far as the first mode is concerned, the jar exists as one made of clay; when we consider the second mode of predication, it does not exist as a jar made of gold or of some other metal. The significance of the second mode is not of creating a contradiction with reference to the first but of clarifying that the jar does exist but not as one made of a metal. The third mode refers to simultaneous states of existence and non-existence. Apparently one might say that this is self-contradictory: but a logical examination of the statement would disclose that it relates to two statements and two states of existence. It exists in the sense of a jar made of clay but it does not exist as made of gold. There is no contradiction in the joint statements. Supposing with reference to a building, it is initially built for residence but subsequently used as a godown. One can say that it is a house while another might say that it is not house but a godown. The first part of the statement would be correct with reference to the purpose for which it was built while the second one would be correct with reference to the actual user. There is therefore no contradiction in the third mode of expression.
The fourth predication refers to the state of inexpressibility of a thing. The medium of expression of reality is language and sometimes a word conveys more meanings than one; in such cases, the word carries out the functions of two words depending upon the concept intended to be conveyed and the context under which the alternative meaning is required to be conveyed. The situation of inexpressibility may arise due to the insufficiency of the word to convey the entire concept or due to the inability to comprehend all the attributes of an object. So when there is a simultaneous presentation of the two concepts of "being" with reference to the jar or any other object, when the predicate becomes inexpressible. The logic of this predication becomes clear when we remember that impossibility of one word conveying two meanings simultaneously. The whole range of truth cannot be conveyed by an expression and hence the predication of inexpressibility. Take for example; there is the fresh juice of a palm tree. We call it nira; it is kept for sometimes and its starts to ferment. There would be a stage in the state of
53