Book Title: Indian Logic Part 02
Author(s): Nagin J Shah
Publisher: Sanskrit Sanskriti Granthmala

Previous | Next

Page 173
________________ 162 INDIAN LOGIC that that is possible because a sound is produced not in a concealed sky-portion but in an unconcealed one. The Mimārsaka has also contended that a word cannot be a quality of some substance; by way of countering this Jayanta shows how so many positions maintained by his school on the question are mutually interconnected and yet do not involve a mutual dependence. Thus he argues that a sound is a quality because it resides in one substance viz. sky and produces another sound; for all this precludes the possibility that a sound is either a substance or an action-not a substance because a substance is either independent or it resides in more than one substance, not an action because an action does not produce another action. The opponent objects : “Thus while seeking to prove that a sound is a quality you already presuppose that it resides in sky; but it is by presupposing that a sound is a quality that you argue that it must reside in sky because it cannot reside in earth etc.93 Similarly, you argue that a sound produces another sound because it is a quality-while a quality, produced here cannot be cognised at another place unless it moves upto that place in a wave-like fashion; but it is by presupposing that a sound producing another sound proceeds in a wave-like fashion that you preclude the possibility that a sound is an action, it being impossible for an action to produce another action.""94 Jayanta replies : “Neither 'mutual dependence' thus urged vitiates our position. For we do not argue that a sound resides in sky because it is a quality, nor that a sound producing another sound proceeds in a wave-like fashion because it is a quality. Thus according to us a sound resides in sky because it is grasped through ear which is itself of the form of a sky-portion, it being impossible for ear thus conceived to grasp a sound unless it resides in sky; similarly, according to us a sound producing another sound proceeds in a wave-like fashion because it cannot be grasped by ear thus conceived unless it proceeds from the place where it is produced upto the ear which grasps it.'*95 Thus Jayanta starts with the supposition that ear is of the form of a sky-portion, then argues that an ear thus conceived cannot grasp a sound unless a sound resides in sky and a sound producing another sound proceeds in a wave-like fashion, and lastly concludes that a sound thus behaving must be a quality of sky. Thus for Jayanta the very fact that a sound is an object of auditory cognition implies his whole thesis on the question, and if we recall that he has argued that

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 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