Jaina Tarka Bhasha

Author(s): Dayanand Bhargava
Publisher: Motilal Barasidas Pvt Ltd

Page 90

68
Jaina-Tarka-Bhāṣā This non-existence is not imaginary because this is experienced independently like the existence, otherwise, the three-fold characters of the cause would be disturbed, because non-existence in the heterologous example would not be real. From a particular point of view it exists and from a particular point of view it does not exist--this is the third statement taking positive and negative aspects into account, respectively. The fourth is that from a particular point of view it is indescribable—where the negative and the positive aspect have been given predominance simultaneously, because both cannot be simultaneously expressed in one word, because even by the continuous participles like being' etc. the two meanings are shown one by one and because by such words as 'one of the two', even though somehow both of them may be known, yet each one of them cannot be expressed by one word even by the Lord creator. The fifth is : from one point of view it does exist and from another point of view it is indescribable - here the positive aspects and the positive and the negative aspects have been kept in view simultaneously. The sixth is that from one point of view it does not exist and from another point of view it is indescribable-here the negative aspect and the positive and the negative aspects have been kept in view simultaneously. The seventh is that from one point of view it does exist, from another point of view it does not exist, and from yet another point of view it is indescribablehere the positive aspect and the negative aspect (respectively) and the positive aspect and the negative aspect simultaneously, have been kept in view.
*64. This seven-fold statement is the full and the partial with reference to each statement. The statement is full which is made simultaneously about an object whose infinite aspects have been proved by an organ of knowledge, identifying by transference of epithet or by making the identical aspect pre-dominant by times etc. That statement is partial which states one by one about an object, which has been made the subject of one point of view by differentiating by transference of epithets orby making the aspects of difference dominant. What is this order and what is this simultaneity? We explain it - when the difference is desired to be expressed by means of times etc. of