________________
SYADVADA
155
plex in nature, so that looked at from the point of view of the presence of all the different attributes that constitute it we may speak meaningfully of the presentation of the togetherness of the attributes. In regard to the two attributes, in the example, of the existence and the non-existence of the pot : the third and the fourth propositions embody different ways of presenting the togetherness of the two modes, existence and non-existence.
In the third proposition there is the successive presentation of the two modes. In the proposition "The pot is and is not" the first part is true from the point of view of the existence of the individual property of the pot, in this case the 'property of existence. The second part of the proposition “is not” is true from the point of view of the non-existence of other properties. The two propositions constituting the complex third proposition, if successively asserted contain a definite description of Reality. It is hence said that in the third proposition there is a consequitive presentation of the two or that a differenced togetherness' of two properties is asserted.
The fourth proposition "The pot is indescribable” is born out of a realization that simultaneous attention to both aspects of it is a psychological and a logical impossibility. Existence and non-existence, being mutually exclusive cannot be simultaneously attributed to one and the same thing. Therefore when the existence aspect as well as the non-existence aspect are simultaneously asserted the object is not described at all. Hence it is said that the object is indescribable. The simultaneous presentation of the two modes is referred to also as 'co-presentation and as “differenced togetherness' of the attributes.
After discussing the first four propositions, M. Hiriyanna observes : “It may seem that the formula might stop here. But there are still other ways in which the alternatives can be combined. To avoid the impression that those predicates are excluded, three more steps are added. The resulting description becomes exhaustive, leaving no room for the charge of dogma in any form.”2
5. The fifth proposition “The Pot is and is indescribable" points to the fact that looked at from the point of view of the existent form the pot is describable but if both its existent and non
2 Outlines of Indian Philosophy (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1957), p. 165
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
