________________
The Jaina world of Non-living
2.
The destruction is defined as the loss of earlier mode of the entity despite maintaining its basic class. It can be illustrated by the loss of wet mode of earthy mass to originate the dry earthy pot.
3.
The permanence is defined as the continued maintenance of the basic entity due to absence of origination and destruction in its eternal and inherent nature. It can be illustrated by the continued existence of earth during its mode of wet mass and pot-form etc.
4. Q. The aphorisms 5.30 contains the term 'Yukta' (with a sense of 'has') associated with origination etc. The use of this word is not proper here because it is used with reference to the conjunction of two separately existing entities like a staffed man where man and staff are separately existing.
A. This is not correct. The root 'Yuji' involves the sense of existence.
Q.
How the root 'Yuji' involves the verb of existence ?
A. All the verbal roots represent modes. Modes mean actions or existence. All root words are subject to this existence with specific meaning. Thus, there is no difference in meanings whether there is association of the word 'Yuktam' (has) or not in the aphorism 5.30.
Q. If all the root words have existential meaning, how the roots like 'Edha' (root: to grow) etc. will have the meanings of 'to grow' etc.? A. The specific meanings like 'to grow' etc. can be there only when there is the general meaning of existence. Nothing can grow which does not exist like the ass's horns.
Q.
Let there be the aphorism with a possessive ending.
A. This is not correct. It will also involve the same objections and refutation as before. It is seen that Devadatta and cows are separate entities, still he is said to be the owner of cows (possessive suffix, gomân). This is not the case with the three-fold characteristics and the realities. They are not separate from them. Hence, the use of possessive suffix is objectionable in this case. However, there are many cases like 'man with soul' and 'pithed stem' where possessive suffix is used even in the case of non-different entities. This is a refutable issue. Hence, the possessive suffix is not justifiable.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
248
www.jainelibrary.org
