________________
BANERJEE : ANEKĀNTAVĀDA AND LANGUAGE
143
calamāṇe calie. udirijjamāṇe udirie. vediijamāne vedie. pahijjamāṇe pahīņe. chijjamāṇe chiņņe, bhijjamāņe bhiņņe, dajjhamāṇe daddhe, mijjamāṇe mae, nijjarijjamāṇe jijjīņņc.
ee naṁ cattāri padā egaţthā nāņāghosā ņāņā-vaṁjaņā uppaņņa-pakkhassa.
ee naṁ paṁca padā ņāņatthā ņāņā-vaṁjaņā vigayapakkhassa. [Bh. Su. I. I. 11-13).
"[Is it proper to call] moving as moved, fructifying as fructified, feeling as felt, separating as separated, cutting as cut, piercing as pierced, burning as burnt, dying as dead, and exhausting as exhausted."
"These [first] four words are of the same import, though of different sounds and different suggestions.
"These five are of different imports, different sounds and different suggestions"
Apart from its philosophical implication on Karmatheory, this passage has a linguistic implication as well. The expressions calamāṇe calie have two tenses in one breath. Grammatically calamāṇe (moving) is a present participle tense implying the sense of continuous action; and hence it can be a present continuous tense. The implied underlying meaning is that the action has started but still continuing, and so the action is incomplete. But calie ('has moved') is a present perfect tense which means that the action has started and has continued for some time and now the action is complete and the result is there, and hence it is completive. So the use of two tenses is not congruous in the same expression. Mahāvira's contention on this sort of expression is that when an action continues for some time, it can easily be said that some portions of that continuous action have been completed and the remaining portion is still continuing, when the continuity of action is over, the action is finished, and so
