________________
The Jaina world of Non-living
Moreover, the logic is contradictory like wise-foolish. If one is wise, he is not foolish. If one is foolish, he is not wise. Similarly, if the attributes like colour etc. are non-different from the reality due to their inherent relationship, they may not undergo destruction or origination (as the reality is permanent). However, if they undergo these processes, they cannot be non-different. Where is the justice in stating that the nondifferent attributes undergo destruction and origination while the reality stays permanently. Similarly, the reality is not that which is approached by attributes, as the two entities are entirely different. How a fabric can be approached by a pitcher? They are so different. If they approach, there is contrariety in differential characterisation of the reality and its attributes.
Q.
The receiver-received-ness is observed under differential condition as in fire and smoke etc. It is not observed under non-difference as nothing could exist in itself. The tip of the finger does not touch the self (it is already touched).
A.
It is correct that receiver-received-ness (definable-definitionrelationship) is observed in materials different from each other as the fire and the smoke. However, the reality and its attributes are not noted for their difference as they are not found separated from each other.
Moreover, it is inconclusive to state that the non-different ones cannot exist in themselves. It is observed that this is so as in the case of lamp which illuminate itself alongwith others. It does not require another lamp of illuminate it. If it does so, it will have the property of nonilluminator like the clothes etc.
Further, it is to be questioned whether the knower or instructor of the reality knows himself? If he does not know himself, it will be contrary to your (Vaiseṣika) tenets as it is said in 9.1.11 of V.S. aphorisms that the self-perception is there when there is special contact between self and the mind in the self itself. If the self does not know himself, how it could know others? Thus, the self will turn out to be a non-omniscient. If it does know itself, your earlier thesis is contradicted. Thus, the modes exist in realities and they characterise them.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
72
www.jainelibrary.org
