________________
Tattvārthasūtra
different substances, belonging to the same class, under one common head. For instance, the words existent (sat), substance (dravya), and jar (ghața). The word “existent' (sat) groups together, without distinction, all substances characterized by existence as per the general rule of perception and discernment. Further, when the word 'substance' (dravya) is mentioned, the soul, the non-soul, etc., and their subdivisions are grouped together, as all these fulfill the definition of substance. When the word 'jar' (ghata) is mentioned, it includes all jars which are inferred from the word jar and its perception and discernment. Other things also are the subject matter of the generic point of view (samgraha naya) in the same way. The division of reality or objects comprehended by the generic viewpoint, in accordance with the rule, is the systematic standpoint (vyavahāra naya). What is the rule? The rule is that the analysis or division into subclasses proceeds in the order of succession. It is as follows. That, which is comprehended as existence by the generic view, without reference to the particular objects, is not conducive to the ways of the world. Hence the systematic standpoint is sought. That which 'exists' (sat) is either a substance or an attribute. Social intercourse is not possible even by the word 'substance' (dravya) of the generic standpoint, without its subdivisions like the soul (jīva) and the non-soul (ajīva). Further, the soul (jīva) and the non-soul (ajīva), solely from the generic standpoint, are not conducive to worldly occupations. Hence these are further subdivided into the deva, infernal beings, etc., and jar, etc., by resorting to the systematic standpoint (vyavahāra naya). This standpoint operates up to the point beyond which no further subdivisions are possible. That, which addresses the straightforward (present) condition, is the straight viewpoint (rjusūtra naya). This viewpoint leaves out things of the past and the future and comprehends the present mode of things, as no practical purpose can be served by things past and things unborn. It confines itself to the present moment. It is contended that it would violate the ways of the world. No. Only the object of this viewpoint is indicated here. The intercourse of the world is promoted
54
