________________
96
STUDIES IN JAINISM
be ambiguous but also inconsistent. I want the scholars to consider whether ambiguity in Umāswāti leads to any inconstency.
सागरमल जैन :
जैन दर्शन में या उमास्वाती में जो द्रव्य, तत्त्व और पदार्थ इन शब्दों का प्रयोग हुआ है, वह विभिन्न अपेक्षाओं से या विभिन्न स्थिति में हुआ है। 'तत्त्व' ethical realities है, जब कि अर्थ और पदार्थ epistemological realities हैं और द्रव्य तथा सत् ये metaphysical realities है। इस प्रकार इन शब्दों का प्रयोग अलग अलग संदर्भो में हुआ है। हमारा न्यायदर्शन मुख्यतःज्ञानमीमांसा को लेता है। इसलिये वहाँ पदार्थों की चर्चा है । सांख्य में ethical या metaphysical बातों का प्राधान्य होने से तत्त्वों की चर्चा की गयी है । जैन आगमों में भी तत्त्व और द्रव्य का अंतर स्पष्ट रूप से है । मेरे ख्याल से मोक्ष, निर्जरा आदि को कहीं भी पदार्थ या द्रव्य नहीं कहा गया है । इनको केवल तत्त्व कहा गया है R. Sundara Rajan :
In his paper Dr. Marathe seems to suggest that he would be prepared to accept that the word “exits' has many meanings. Does Dr. Marathe really believe that in the ultimate analysis *exists' could have a plurality of meanings ? Dr. Marathe also seems to allow the possibility that a relation between two concepts may be a contingent relation. He has argued that certain relation between two categories need not be necessary and that it could be contingent. Could there be continent conceptual relations ? Conceptual relations are either necessary or non-existent.
M. P. Marathe :
My intention in this paper is this: When we are dealing with any author or any philosophical text, to be able to write history of Indian philosophical ideas or history of Indian philosophical trends, we must first study every author, every philosophical work minutely and we must present the thought of the author with as much clarity as possible. It is this kind of clarity which I found at some points to be lacking in Umāsvāti. And it is situation of this kind that I thonght to be fitting to be brought to the attention of learned scholars.
