Pushkarmuni Abhinandan Granth

Author(s): Devendramuni, A D Batra, Shreechand Surana
Publisher: Rajasthankesari Adhyatmayogi Upadhyay Shree Pushkar Muni Abhinandan Granth Prakashan Samiti

Page 704

Some Amphibious Expressions in Umāsvati
X€
Some Amphibious Expressions in Umasvati
Dr. M. P. Marathe, M. A., Ph. D. (Deptt. of Philosophy, University of Poona.]
Umāsvati's Tattvārthādhigamasutra (TAS), written in short, pithy sentences is devoted to the statement and elaboration of the threefold Mokşamārga. He himself wrote a commentary on it for the purposes of explanation and clarification. But in both these works Umāsvāti seems to have used certain expressions amphibiously and equivocally. In some places he has attempted to explain the significance of one expression by another expression. This seems to give the impression that he reckons these expressions as synonymous. In some other places he appears to have used certain expressions interchangeably. These instances tend to gen rate certain mbiguities and confusions. It is the object of this paper to focus on some of them and point out that, neither in the TAS nor in the commentary, Umāsvāti has made any attempt to avert them. It will also be pointed out that he does not clearly demarcate the boundaries of the significances of those expressions. The expressions in question are: Artha, Tativa, Padārtha, Dravya and Sat. Of these, the discussion of the first three expressions seems to give rise to one set of amphibious expressions, while that of the last two to another. After dealing with them, we shall hint at one methodologically weak point in Umāsvāti that seems to emerge. We shall concentrate on the first and the fifth chapters of the TAS. For, it is in these chapters and commentary on them that the discussion of the significances of these expressions figures mainly, if not exclusively.
Coming to the first set of amphibious expressions, let us first deal with 'Tattva'. After the prefatory remarks, in which Umāsvāti tells us that Samyakdarśana, Samyakjñāna and SamyakCaritra are the three pillars of the Mokşamärga, he begins the discussion of Tativas. For, Samyak darśana, according to him, is nothing else than either acceptance of Tattvas or Arthas, or acceptance of Arthas as they are ! We are not told what the word Artha signifies. Since difference of opinion about the commonly accepted convention is not registered, it seems that by Artha is meant an object, no matter of what kind. Similarly, regarding the significance of the word 'Tattva' too any deviation from the convention is not noticed. This means that Tattva seems to signify that which is the case or that which is accepted to be the case. On the contrary, the word Artha means an object, no matter given or not. It (Artha) can be an object pre-supposed, talked about, mentioned or of any other sort. Umāsvāti seems to hold that the expressions 'tattva' and 'artha' are loosely interchangeable, if not totally synonymous. Our contention is not that they cannot at all be so, but that they need not necessarily be so. That the expressions 'artha' and 'tattva' cannot necessarily be taken to be synonymous does not seem to have stuck Umāsvāti. That is why he appears to have taken that which is accepted to be the case and that which is considered to be an object as the same. Something may be pre-supposed to be a case or a fact; but every fact is not an object. For example, it is raining' is a fact, not an object. Again something may be an odject, but need not necessarily be a fact. Nor should it necessarily be taken to be so. For instance, according to some, a proposition is an object, but this need not make it a fact too. Or, according to some, there are negative facts; but that does not signify that there are negative