Book Title: Studies in Jainism
Author(s): M P Marathe, Meena A Kelkar, P P Gokhle
Publisher: Indian Philosophical Quarterly Publication Puna

Previous | Next

Page 107
________________ 92 STUDIES IN JAINISM to some Tattvas, every Dravya and each Sat. That is, it seems that the problem would still remain with regard to Ākāśa, Dharma, Adharma and Pudgala. Instead of pressing this point further, let us, however, turn to the next problem. The reason hy the separate definitions of Sat and Dravya are given is perhaps that, it may be argued, although Umāsvāti takes every Dravya to be Sat, he does not seem to take every Sat to be a Dravya. But this prima facie plausible line of the explanation of the weak link in Umāsvāti seems to turn out to be unacceptable one. For, first. Umāsvāti himself does not seem to favour this defence as he seems to take the sets of things which are Sat and Dravya to be co-extensive. Secondly, both of these could plausibly be taken to be definitions of Dravya or Sat itself. Actually, Pūjyapāda maintains26 that these are not two different things at all. Similarly, he states that these are not two different definitions of different things either. They are the two ways of stating the definition of Dravya itself. But both Umāsvāti and Pūjyapāda seem to be silent on the necessity of giving these two definitions of Dravya. Thus, Dravya and Sat seems to be another set of amphibious expressions in Umāsvāti. III So far we endeavoured to point out two possible sets of amphibious expressions in Umāsvāti. Our inquiry shows that, even .fter making sufficient allowance to Umāsvāti, there appear certain weak points in his explanation. Before we close, we wish to draw attention to one more weak point that seems to emerge by way of a corollary. In the commentary on 1.4, Umāsväti states his intention to explain each one of the Tattvas, Arthas or Padārthas definitionally and stipulatively 27 But in the fifth chapter, while talking about Dharma etc., he states that he would explain their nature definitionally.23 Further, in the same chapter a question is raised : How is one to say that there are Dharma etc ? This question is answered saying definitionally. Now, the two ways mentioned in 1.4 are to be understood conjunctively or disjunctively. On each count, there seems to remain some weakness. It conjunctively understood, Dharma etc., which one is to comprehend definitionally alone, are not to be counted as Tattvas even derivatively. Since Tattva, Artha, Padārtha, Dravya and Sat seem to be the same, Dharma etc.,

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 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