________________
80
So also when we talk of this four-fold negation, we are denying the nature of being qualified by the number five' to negation, but we are not denying the reality of negation, since it exists as 'qualified by the number four'. Still one may feel that all this is nonsense for 'Indrabhūti's lordship of the three worlds' and 'negation's being qualified by the number five' are negated and these are non-existent, therefore it is not correct to say that what is negatived must be an existent thing'. To set aside such a doubt, Mahā vira says that the quartet of conjunction, etc. too is established as definitely existent in other objects'. The conjunction of Devadatta is denied in respect of his house but this conjunction does exist with respect to another object. For instance, Devadatta is in conjunction with a field or a road and even though the house is not in conjun with Devadatta it is in conjunction with furniture, etc.. Similarly inherence of the horn is not present in the ass, . but it is there in cows etc; genus too is not existent in the moon alone, because there is not another moon and a genus cannot be found in what is only one of its kind, but it is present in other objects, e. g. in jars, kine and so in the other cases too. Lordship of the three worlds is not present in Indrabhūti, but it is certainly there in tīrthaikaras and others. Keeping this in view it is said that what is negatived does exist, but thereby it is not intended to state that what is negated must exist there only. Indrabhūti cannot at this stage say that he denies the existence of the soul in the body alone, not elsewhere. This would make the task of Mahāvīra very easy. Indrabhūti had started by doubting the very existence of the soul. If now he accepts this, it will automatically be proved that the soul exists in the body. The soul cannot exist without a support, a locus and it is very easily seen that the body is this support for we have marks of its residence in the body, viz knowledge, etc.. One may feel inclined to say that it would be simpler to regard the body itself as the soul, but it is not so. Werę it so it would not be possible to explain statements like 'He is living', he is dead', 'he has fainted', as the body would be
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
