________________
XXVIII. The Jain doctrine of the nayas (Methods)
155
on the other hand, not very vital, because Demonstration does not apply to them, and because without Demonstration consideration cannot be made. And, as they are non-real, what is the use of further examination in regard to them? As thus: Changes of substances taking place at prior and posterior time, or differentials defined as momentarily perishing atoms, do not in any way help to conduct the business of the world. Therefore they have not the form of real entities, since only things that subserve the business of the world are entities. And this is why such usages as 'the path goes', 'the pitcher flows', 'the mountain is on fire', 'the benches cry out', have validity. And to this effect the Chief of Expositors!!), "Equivalent to the popular, with much metonymy, and with wide-scattered meaning is usage".
The 'straightforward' again has this view: Only that which appears in the present moment has the form of an entity, not the past or the future. Because the past, as having perished, and because the future, as not having attained to its own-being, are of a form void of all potency, without distinction from asses' horns, etc.; they have no capacity for exerting practical efficacy, and from absence of that have no reality; because of the saying: "only what is effective of practical efficacy is ultimately real"). And, on the other hand, an entityform embraced by the present moment is (actually) used in all practical efficacies, so that only that is ultimately real. And that is also to be taken as partless, because a comprehension of parts is void of logic; since a single thing, without plurality of own-natures, is incapable of comprehending plural parts of its own. If it is said, 'Let there be a plurality of own-natures', - No!, because it is breathed upon by the tiger of contradiction. (213) As thus: If the ownnature is one, how is it plural? If it is plural, how is it one ? Since one and plural stand only with mutual avoidance. Therefore only the atoms, submerged in their own - form, taking, in a way, by way of mutual approach, the form of accumulation, have operation in all productions; so that only they are the self-marked (sva-laksana) ), not largeness carrying, ultimately real. So on the understanding of this (naya, method) only what is its own is real entity; not what belongs to anything else, because of not being of any service.
As for the Verbal: As many sounds as from usage are current for any object, for instance Indra, Sakra, and Purandara for the Lord of the gods, of all those it understands in each case) a single object, by virtue, of course, of the presentation. Just as the object's nondivergence by word is made out, likewise also is its unity or plurality to be made out. Nor are the synonymous words 'Indra', 'Sakra', and 'Purandara', etc., ever presented as denoting different objects; since always we see usage in the one same way with unfailing occurrence of origination of an uniform reflection from them. Therefore there is a single denotation of synonymous terms. Because of the etymology, 'with that intent the object is put into sound (sabd yate), called up', there is use of synonymous sounds only with intent of evoking one object. And just as this Mode understands a single object belonging to synonymous terms, likewise in tatas tați tatam, because of additional connection with an attribute defined as contrary Genders, it affirms also 14) a difference of entity. For in an entity which undergoes difference due to different attributes non-application of contrary attributes is not apprspriate. Likewise also from difference of number, time, Case relation, Person, etc., a difference
11) Umāsvāti in Tattvārthädhigama-sútra, I. 35 (bhäs ya) (M. L.), pp. 15, 223.
18) The familiar Buddhist tenet. Exact source of quotation untraced: the doctrine is discussed in Sammati-tarka, p. 399.
13) On the Buddhist sva-lakşana, denoting the allsolutely individual and real, see Stcherbatsky, Buddhist Logic, II, pp. 7, 304, etc.
4) Sc. just as it identifies 'synonyms', so it distinguishes according to differences of denotation the variants of each single word. The cited instance, tatas, tati, tatam, where the difference of Grammatical Gender accompanies shades of meaning, seeras to have been usual as an illustration of this.
