Pushkarmuni Abhinandan Granth

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

Page 706

Some Amphibious Expressions in Umāsvāti ६६१
concepts. Perhaps, it presupposes an inter-relation between or among such concepts also. But it is doubtful whether a consideration of Tattvas also presupposes any concepts and the interrelation between or among them.
Supposing again, even if one grants, for the sake of argument, that there is some relation, proximate or remote, between Tattvas and Padarthas, it does not follow that one should accept as many Tattvas as Padarthas. Further it is irrelevant for any philosophical inquiry to talk in terms of both of them. The number of items which the employment of significant expressions in a language designates and the number of topics or items that figure in a philosophical discussion need not necessarily bear any relation to one another. Nor should there be one to one correspondence among them. This is not of course to say that they cannot at all be related. The only point is that there is no necessary relation between them and the acknowledgement of a contingent relation between them does not seem to suffice for the establishment of the synonymity or interchangeability of the expressions. This being the case, it seems equally doubtful whether sets of Tattvas and Padarthas could be taken to be co-extensive. As pointed out earlier, Umāsväti seems to take the sets of Tattvas and Arthas as co-extensive. Now, since he holds Tattvas and Arthas on the one hand and Tattvas and Padarthas on the other as co-extensive, he seems to favour the view that the sets of Padarthas and Arthas are also co-extensive. Indeed this seems difficult to accept for there is not any additional explanation and clarification in Umäsvati's works.
Further, Umäsvāti states that he intends to explain Padarthas in detail, definitionally or symptomatically (lakṣaṇataḥ) and (ca) stipulatively (vidhānataḥ). There may not be any objection to this procedure provided one does not intend to derive any ontological implication from one's discussion of Padarthas. But it is not correct to hold that the procedure of explaining Padarthas and Tattvas can be the same. Even if the procedure of explaining both of them may contingently meet and tally. it is doubtful whether it would hold universally and necessarily. This seems, therefore, to be another weak link in the procedure of Umasvati's discussion. It seems that Umāsvāti would adopt the same procedure, with regard to Arthas. One might ignore this as a similar kind of weak point in Umäsväti's explanation just mentioned. But it all depends upon how the logical connective and (ca) is to be understood and interpreted. If it is interpreted conjunctively it would lead to one consequence. If, on the contrary, it is interpreted disjunctively, that would lead to another consequence. But more about this, at the end of the paper.
II
Up to the close of the fourth chapter of the TAS and Umāsvāti's Bhāṣya thereon, the discussion centres around the explanation of the nature of Jiva and other related topics. At the very beginning of the fifth chapter he declares his intention of proceeding to consider the nature of Ajivas,' they being the second Tattva. This, as far as it goes, is in line with his declaration of considering various Tattvas or Padarthas in the same sequential order in which they have been mentioned in I. 4. At this juncture, Umäsväti seems to introduce another set of amphibious expressions. It is to this set that we now turn.
At the beginning of the fifth chapter, Umāsvāti enumerates four Ajivakāyas or Ajivas. He states that he intends to explain them symptomatically or definitionally. In the next Sutra he tells that Jiva etc are Dravyas. 10 In his commentary on V. 2, he states that the four Ajivakāyas and living beings (prāṇināsca) are Dravyas. 11
One may not dispute Umasvati's statement that there are five stipulation here seems to disagree with his statement in the first chapter.
* Really here Umāsvāti put the word 'Kaya', Kaya narrates Astikāya. But the author mis-takes it to Dravya. While really Kaya and Dravya have different significance in Jaina technology.
-Editor
Dravyas.* But his After the enumeration