Jaina Ontology

Author(s): K K Dixit
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 83

70
JAINA ONTOLOGY
resides in a particular spot in one's house, according to sangraha in the couch on which one is seated, according to jusūtra in the space-units which one is occupying, according to śabda in oneself.: 9 Lastly, there is a passage which lays down that according to naigama pradeśas (units) belong to dharma, adharma, akaśa, jiva, pudgalaskandha, deśa (part), according to sangraha they belong to the first five of these six, according to vyavhāra one should rather say that pradeśa is five-typed, according to rjusūtra one should rather say that pradeśa might be either dharmapradeśa or adharma pradeśa, or aksāapradesa or jivapradeśa or pudgalaskandhapradeśa, according to śabda one should rather say that pradeśa is in dharma or that psadeša is dharma, that pradeśa is in adharma or that pradeśa is adharma, and so on and so forth, according to samabhirūdha one should say that pradeśa is dharma, that pradeśa is adharma and so on and so forth, according to evambhūta one should not at all speak of pradeśas inasmuch as dharma, adharma, etc. are all impartite entities. 90 All these instances of nayas make one thing clear, viz. that the seven nayas are conceived as increasing in the measure of sophistication exhibited, the following being the serial order : naigama, sangraha; vyavahāra; jusūtra, śabda, samabhirūdha, evambhūta. But the fact that naigama and vyavahāra are so often bracketed together must create difficulty, for as a result of this it is not easy to see the precise point of sophistication underlying the naya scheme. Certainly, if naigama and vyavahāra are equally sophisticated and less sophisticated than sangraha then we cannot say that sangraha is more sophisticated than naigama and uyayahāra more sophisticated than sanaraha. Then there is a particular difficulty with the three sabdanayas. Sometimes they speak on the same level as the earlier four nayas (though, of course, in a more sophisticated vein than the latter) but sometimes they speak on a different level altogether; in the latter cases we find the ear. lier four nayas speaking of the thing conceded but sabdanayas speaking of the person having a knowledge of this thing. [In these latter cases it will be more proper to call the last three nayas jñāna-nayas]. In any case, no instance discussed in Anuyogadvāra corroborates the picture of sabdanayas that is most usual with the later authors. Of course, towards the end Anuyogadvāra offers a general definition of each of the seven nayas and in the case of subdanayas we here find being said something that looks like the statement of the later authors; (in these definitions difficulties arise rather with earlier three nayas) 1. But that only confirms our basic point, for the precise difficulty is how to make tally with each other the instances of sabdanayas discussed in the body of the text and the definitions of them offered at the end of it,
Here a word might also be said about the saptabhangi doctrine vis-a-vis Anuyogadvāra. We have already seen that the text enumerates the alternatives that result in the case of naigama-vyavahāra and in the case of