Studies in Indian Philosophy

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

Page 78

Tamas and Chaya in the Jaina view
51
is known to be dark, and so on; so it cannot be established as being aqueous in character. And once it is established that it is not aqueous in character there is nothing against even cool touch which is different in characteristic from the cool touch of water being present here. Even as the neither hot nor cool touch though present in earth (prthivi) is with some subpeculiarity present in wind, even so in this case also a special kind of cool touch can be present in chāyā. Otherwise there would be the contingency of wind having to be subsumed under earth. Thus it is established that chāyā does have touch. Thus the argument, "Chāyā does not have the quality of dark colour, because it is devoid of touch' is not proper; and there. fore the quality of dark colour is established. Similarly, it can be said to have number, size, separateness, conjunction, disjunction, posteriority, priority, momentum, etc. Therefore also because chāyā has qualities, it is proved to be a substance.
In this connection, a Prābhākara (follower of Prabhākara) says : "Chāyā may be a substance but it cannot properly be a substance over and above light, earth, space, etc." Vādi-Devasūri's retort to this is that it is only a gesture of his showing off his upstart, capricious scholarship. For this could be said if only the portion of earth and the like were apprehended as chāyā, or if there were no proof in support of the existence of chayā as distinct from the portion of the earth and the like. The first is not proper, as it is not established. We do not see chāyā as in apposition with the portion of the earth or the like-'the portion of earth is chāyā'. On the contrary we have the apprehension, Chāyā is on the portion of the earth or the like' which shows that they are two distinct things. It cannot be said that this latter apprehension is a false, one, whereas an apprehension of the former sort would be non-erroneous--for such an apprehension is not there at all. This stand of the Prābhākara is like giving up a morsel in hand and wanting to lick the toes, and so deserves to be ignored by the intelligent. And this is really strange that though this one is proud of being a