________________
Panchastikayasara
51
we have a house and a measure. The rest is quite clear. The illustrations leave us in doubt as to the meaning of the Naya. House-building or making a measure refers to the purpose or the ideal. It relates to "samkalpa mâtra” as Pujyapâda says.
The next question we have to face is "How does Mallisena manage to give one explanation and to bring in the illustrations pertaining to the other interpretation?" Here we must confess we are driven to conjecture. We do not know wherefrom he is quoting the examples. It may refer to another, from whom both Pujyapâda and Mallisena draw their inspiration. What justification is there for Mallisena's attempt to bring the two views together? The teleological element or purpose may be taken to be the common basis for both the views. In the case of house-building or measure-constructing the thing which is to be the goal is indicated by the purpose of the individual. This purpose embodies the ideal nature of the thing which is the concrete realisation of the same. Similarly the distinction between the universal and particular is purely teleological. What is particular from one point of view may be universal from another. In fact, the particular is drawn out of the universal. It is through the medium of the particular that the universal expresses its nature. If we remember this point, then it is clear to us that the distinction entirely depends upon the purpose in view. It is this purposive nature that brings the two views together. What are apparently divergent, have this common foundation. Perhaps Mallisena had this in his mind when he interpreted the Naigama in one way and illustrated it in another. This compromise is offered as a provisional suggestion.
(ii) Samgraha Naya
The next naya is the class point of view. The nature of things as understood by the Jaina system is such that there is a similarity and identity among a number of individuals.
These individuals naturally fall into appropriate classes. When we consider them as individuals belonging to a class, our attention is directed to the underlying similarity to the exclusion of their individual and proper characteristics. From this underlying principle of classification we may consider the individuals as a whole and a unity. Here again the unity is only relatively true. The unity here rests on the underlying similarity among the number of individuals brought under the same class. But there is a great danger in forgetting the elementary fact of this class point of view. The individuals forming the class, though spoken of as a whole and unitary class, are really distinct from one another and may be really differentiated by not only their intrinsic natures but also by intervals of space and time. To emphasise the unity at the cost of the plurality and difference would be a distinct metaphysical error. It is this erroneous application of Samgraha Naya that accounts for the system of Advaita Vedanta. Too much emphasis on the unity and the complete ignoring of the diversity
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
