________________
Dravyasamgraha
liberation is attained at the end, it is mentioned last.
Here merit and demerit must be included, as others have spoken of nine categories. No, it is not necessary to include these, as these are implied in influx and bondage. If it were so, the mention of influx etc. is unnecessary, as these are included in the soul and the non-soul. No, it is not unnecessary. Here liberation is the main theme of the work. So that must be mentioned. And that (liberation) is preceded by the cycle of births and deaths. Influx and bondage are the main causes of transmigration. Stoppage and gradual dissociation are the chief causes of liberation. Hence these are mentioned severally in order to indicate the chief causes and effects. It is wellknown that the particulars implied in the general are mentioned separately according to needs. For instance, ‘Kșatriyas have come, Suravarmal also (has come)'.
It has been mentioned that the word tattva is an abstract noun. How can it be in apposition to the words denoting substances such as the soul? The same relation is attained as it is not different from the others2 and as substance (dravya) is superimposed on quality (bhāva). For instance, we say that consciousness alone is the soul.
In this compound sentence, 'Upayoga eva ātmā', upayoga is bhāvavāci (abstract noun) and ātmā is dravyavāci (concrete noun). Still these two are in apposition. If so, the gender and number of the adjective must be the same as the gender and number of the noun. No. Even in a compound composed of a noun and an adjective, owing to the nature of the words, these do not give up their own genders and numbers. (So it is not
1 Suravarma is also a ksatriya, still he is mentioned separately with some
object.
2 Qualities are not separate from substances.
94
