Sambodhi 1982 Vol 11

Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, H C Bhayani, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 13

R; -D. Hegde bo imposed by imagination on the videşas as qualities. It is a waste and needless effort which in vain makes the list of categories lengthy.
The Nayaya-vaiseșika philosophers have for certain agreed as far ag etornal substances are concejned that they are partless and ultimate. It is also true that each of them is different from the other. This individuality is their special charactoristic. Naturally it means then that the problem rotates around the point whether vigera alone is capable to show tho separateness of the eternal substances or is it sufficient to think that the eternal substances are self-differentiated. Direct and simple approach scems to be a safer one tban the prolixity of imgioation. By the by it may be said that the Vaiseșikas may escape the fatal blow on their popularity as realistic thinkers if they bo direct and lucid.
REFERENCES :
1. Vide Nykyalil vati of Mm. Vallabhacarya p. 53 quoted in Nyayakosa pp.
784-86. 2. "Avayavabhedat avayavibhedah" Also see the Prasastapáda Bhāsya p.p. 321-22.
"Nityadravyavrttitvād Višeşāstu anantā eva".-Saptapadárthi. 4. See Nyayasiddhanta Muktavali. Stan za 11 5. Karikaväli "antyo nityadravyavrttirvisegah parikirtitah. "Studies in Nyaya
Vai esika Metaphysics" by Sadananda Bhaduri. pp 143-146. Vide Nyāyasiddhanta Muktavali, under Stanza 8 "Vyakterabhedaḥ tulyatvam
Samkarothānavasthiti”. Rūpahānirasambandhah jātibādhakasamgrahah". 7. Nyāyākandali. p. 324, VSS edition.
Vide, Padārthatattva nirūpana, p. 91, Benares edition. 9. Also see, Dinakari of Mahadeva Bhatta; and, also Tärkikarakță, Stanza 5. 10. "Evolution of Nyāya-Vaiseșika categoriology" by Harsh Narayana, Bharati
Prakasana, Varanasi, P. 225.