________________
On reasoning from anvaya...
83
Of course, reasoning from anvaya and vyatireka does not concern only words in respect of what meanings may be attributed to them. It also concerns things and their properties. Now, one to whom (7) is said should understand from this that he is being taught something about himself, which he can express as
C) अहं तदस्मि 'I am that one'.
Moreover, aham clearly means 'I', as can be seen from examples like
(9) a. use 'I am light'. b. कृष्णोऽहम् ' I am dark'. This is I'.
C.
(10) a. ts: The horse is black'.
(
b. नीलमुत्पलम् The lotus is blue '.
The meaning 'I' is common to (9a,b,c), which also contain aham, but is lacking in (10a,b), which also lack this term. By anvaya and vyatireka, as shown for (3)-(4), one is entitled to say aham means 'I'. By the same token, aham does not of itself signify such properties as light or dark. Indeed, it has no specific referent. Of course, one might be content to say aham is deictic, as are other pronominals. However, an Advaitin such as Sankara or Suresvara cannot be content with this. He must insist that one must consider just what a term such as aham in (8) or tvam in (7) designates. Nor is it sufficient to say aham is used with reference to oneself, tvam with reference to another. The question remains, just what this self is. The use of anvaya and vyatireka is said to be a mode of reasoning (yukti) with respect to terms and their meanings which serves to determine just what one means by aham. 11
It is necessary to use reasoning for this because there is room for doubt and confusion. To be sure, no one doubts that something like a water pot, external to one physically and referred to by idam 'this', is not oneself. Nor does one doubt that this self is an intelligent conscious being that perceives. However, there is confusion regarding what lies between
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
