Book Title: Concept of Matter in Jaina Philosophy
Author(s): J C Sikdar
Publisher: P V Research Institute Varanasi

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 153
________________ 118 The Conception of Matter in Jaina Philosophy Next, Ācārya Sankara raises the question whether the conjunction of one atom with another atom is sarvātmaka (all-embracing), i. e. one whole atom combines with another whole atom, or ekadesin (partial), i. e. one whole atom combines. with the part of another atom. If it is sarvātmaka there will arise the problem of aņumātratva (only one atom) because of there being untenability of increase (upacaya). If it is ekadesin (partial or partly), then there will arise the problem of sāvayavattva (atom having parts). If it is said that there are imaginary parts of atom, the conjunction will be unreal (nonentity due to the cause of imaginary objects, because of being avastu (non-entity) and the conjunction will not be the cause of object-like effect, and the effect-substances like dyads, etc., will not be produced, if conjunction does not become cause. Just as in the first stage of creation there does not take place the action in atoms because of there being no production of conjunction due to the absence of nimitta (cause), so in the great dissolution also it does not take place in atoms because of there being no production of disjunction, for in that case also no determinant cause is coming forth into perception. Adrsta is also meant for the attainment of enjoyment, pleasure, pain, etc., but not for the attainment of dissolution. Like this the heaven of the Vaiśesika will not be there in that state on account of the process of dissolution, and the view that the atom is the ultimate cause will be untenable. 1 Ācārya Sankara says that the Vaiśesikas conceive that the dyad produced from two ultimate atoms is very different from these two atoms, and it maintains the relation of inherence with atoms. But they can not support the causation of atom (anukāranatā) by such conception because the fallacy of infinite regress arises on account of the sameness (identicality) of the mark of causes, e. g. a dyad which inheres in two atoms is different from them and the relation of inherence which is equally different from two atoms must be inherent in them on 1. $Bhā. on BS. II, 2.16. Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only www.jainelibrary.org

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412