Book Title: Studies in Indian Philosophy
Author(s): Dalsukh Malvania, Nagin J Shah
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

View full book text
Previous | Next

Page 72
________________ Tamas aod Chāyā in the Jaina view A for it has already been refuted; and no other inference is noticed which could contradict chāyā's being a substance. On the contrary, there certainly is an inference establishing that chāyā is a substance,' 'Chāyā is a substance, because it has motion, like a jar'. We see with our eyes the chāyū (shade, shadow) moving; and its motion can be determined by inference also “Chāyā has motion, because it reaches from one place to another, like Maitra”. Vyomaśiva says in respect of this argument, “This is not true, for shadow is of the nature of negation of light. To wit, where the presence of light is warded off by an obstructing substance, we say that there is chāyā (shade, shadow ). And superimposing the movement of the obstructing substance on the absence of light we say, 'Chāyā is moving'. Had it not heep so the movement of the chāyā would not have been dependent on the movement of the obstructing substace. 6 Vādi-Devasūri says in answer to this that this feat of Vyomaśiva's can be compared to the ambition of a lame man to gain a victory over the speed of a race-horse. For superimposition finds a place only when the primary meaning (of an expression) is contradicted. And we do not see the littlest thing that could contradict the fact of the shadow's movement, Perception evidences that a boy cannot be fire, and so when someone says · The boy is fire', it is meant te be a figurative or secondary usage. But perception does not go against the fact of chāyā's having movement, for it has been put forth as cogoising the movement of shadow. It might be argued : "Perception dependent on the functioning of the sense-organ which cannot be otherwise established is a valid means of proof. Here the functioning of the senseorgans can be otherwise established as giving rise to the cognition of the movement present in the obstructing substance, and so it is not a cause in respect of the knowledge of the movement of the chāyā”. But this is not a correct stand. For if the umbrella and its chāyā (shade, shadow) simultaneously become visible ( the Jain Education International For Private & Personal Use Only www.jainelibrary.org

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352