Studies in Indian Philosophy

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

Page 74

47
Tamas and Chāya in the Jaina view So even what the opponent resorts to for self-defence become the cause of his undoing. To wit, Chāyā is positive in character, because it is something on which movemant is superimposed, like a tree". A person in a boat pushed ahead by the force of a powerful wind superimposes his own movement on the trees on the shore which are positive in character, and not of the nature of negation. So even for rendering tenable the superimposition of movement on chāyā, it should be accepted as positive in character. And therefore it is very well proved by inference that it has movement because it reaches from one place to another.
Vyomašiva further argues, "When it is said that chāyā reaches another place, does it signify contact (samyoga) with that other places or inherence (samavāya) in it? It could not be contact for that also is something that is yet to be proved. Only if chāyā is established as a substance could its contact be established, and if its contact is established, could its being a substance be established Thus, there would be the fault of mutual dependence. If reaching signifies inherence, that too is not estabished. That which has iphered in one does not inhere in another, whereas chāyā which has been seen to be connected with one is seen to be connected with another.”8
Vādi-Devasūri's reaction to this argument is that it is trivial, for here the prāpti-samyoga (contact in the form of reaching) is spoken of And if the fault of mutual dependence is urged, that is because the opponent has lost his moorings - he has lost the grip over the link in the argument. We are not trying to establish that chāyā is a substance because it reaches another place. But we are trying to prove that it has mevement, and from that to prove that it is a substance.
It may be argued that thus we would be landed into a greater calamity of cakraka (argument in a circle)—from contact with another place its having motion would be proved, from its having motion its being a substance would be proved and from its being a substance contact with another place