________________
SOME AMPHIBIOUS EXPRESSIONS IN UMASVATI
87
sophical discussion need not necessarily bear any relation to one another. Nor should there be one to one correspondence among them. This is not, of course, to say that they cannot at all be related. The only point is that there is no necessary relation between them and the acknowledgement of a contingent relation between them docs not seem to suffice for the establishment of the synonymity or interchangeability of the expressions. This being the case, it seems equally dobutful whether sets of Tattvas and Padārthas
be taken to be co-extensive. As pointed out earlier, Umāsvāti seems to take the sets of Tattvas and Arthas as co-extensive. Now, since he holds Tattvas and Arthas on the one hand and Tattvas and Padārthas on the other as co-extensive, he seems to favour the view that the sets of Padārthas and Arthas are also co-extensive. Indeed this scems difficult to accept for there is not any additioal explanation and clarification available in Umāsvāti's works.
Further, Umāsvāti states that he intends to explain Padārthas in detail, definitionally or symptomatically (lakṣaṇatah) and (ca) stipulatively (vidhānatah)6. There may not be any objection to this procedure provided one does not intend to derive any ontological implication from one's discussion of Padārthas. But it is not correct to hold that the procedure of explaining Padārthas and Tattvas can be the same. Even if the procedures of explaining both of them may contingently meet and tally, it is doubtful whether it would hold universally and necessarily. This seems, therefore, to be another weak link in the procedure of Umāsvāti's discussion. It seems that Umāsvāti would adopt the same procedure with regard to Arthas. One might ignore this as a similar kind of weak point in Umāsvāti's explanation just mentioned. But it all depends upon how the logical connective and (ca) is to be understood and interpreted. If it is interpreted conjunctively it would lead to one consequence. If, on the contrary, it is interpreted disjunctively, that would lead to another consequence. But more about this at the end of the paper.
II Up to the close of the fourth chapter of the TAS and Umāsvāti's Bliāşya thereon, the discussion centres around the explanation of the nature of Jiva and other related topics. At the very beginning of the fifth chapter he declares his intention of proceeding to consider the nature of Ajivas,7 they being the second Tattva. This, as
