________________
SOME AMPHIBIOUS EXPRESSIONS IN UMASVATI
Discussion
J. C. Sikdar :
If we want to study Umāsvāti we shall have to take into consideration the background of the whole Indian philosophical systems. His date is later, as somebody has pointed out, 4th century A. D. His book was influenced by other systems of thought. Consequently the terminology he employs is also available in other systems like Nyāya, Vaseșika etc. His work does have its roots in the Jaina Āgamas. But he was also influenced by others, as he paid attention to the disputes, argument etc current in his times in other systems of Indian philosophical thought. Then he worked out his own systems. Hence there arise number of problems as Dr. Marathe has very ably drawn our attention to. It is possible to resolve some of the problems only if we deal with the whole account with the background of Indian philosophy.
S. S. Barlingay :
Granting that Umäsväti has used certain words and expressions ambiguously, sometimes, I think, to be vague is an ornament of language. What I mean is not that it is a figure of speech but that there cannot be a language without vagueness at some stage or the other. Some kind of vagueness is bound to be there. Even if we try to use certain words in a certain way, yet each word has a certain place in a time sequence. At a particular time, two, three or more meanings would go consistently. Umāsvāti has used certain words, as Dr. Sikdar also pointed out, in a certain way. For instance, Vaišesikas have used the word Padārtha and the Samkhyas used the word tattva. And as a matter of fact Sankara's criticism of Sankhya has really been based on this fact that what they regard as tativas are in fact padārthas, dravyas or something else. Sankara further, I think, correctly points out that if Prakrti ard Purușa are to be taken as existent then it will create confusion. So whereas I appreciate Dr. Marathe's point of view very much, his criticism seems rather theoretical and neg In spite of the fact that Umāsvāti uses expressions amphibiously it might be a step in the direction of enrichment of philosophy. When Sankara criticised Sānkhyas he pointed out that tattvas understood in the sense of Padarthas or dravyas would not only
