________________
Parinama in Tarka-period
161
The bondoge and liberation will have no meaning also, as they cannot be predicated of one and the same Atman.
If the Buddhist were to explain all the aforementioned problems by substituting samtāna for Atman, i.e. continuity for identity and thus making not the identical Atman, but the continuous stream of consciousness, which we call Atman, both the doer and the enjoyer, - karma being transmitted from one life to another in the shape of karma-vāsanās i.e. as impressions left on the Atman by karmas on the analogy of a colour which transmits itself from one piece of cloth to another - the Jain declares this explanation to be without substance and cogency; according to him, samtāna and vāsanā have no reality. This is shown by this dilemma :
Is the samtana the same as the samtanin or different? In the former case, the position remains the same (as in the view of momentariness). In the latter case, a question may be put whether the distinction of the samtāna and the samtanin is real or unreal. If it is unreal, the position remains status in quo ante. If it is real, it may be asked whether the samtana which is supposed to be really distinct from the samtanin, is itself momentary or otherwise (i.e. nitya). If the former, all the fallacies, shown in the doctrine of momentariness, stand as they are. If the latter, the samtāna will be only another word for a permanent Atman, and this would be contradicting the assumption of momentariness.
The unreality of vasana is thus shown. The two, viz., vāsanā and the stream of different moments (Ksanasamtati) cannot fit in with each other as identical interese. For if they be identical, they are either vasanā or kṣaṇasamtati; one must be merged in the other. If there is vasaṇā alone and no vasya on which vasana is to operate, the vasana would be no vāsanā. If, on the other hand, kṣaṇasamtati be regarded as the sole reality, the old difficulties stand as before. If the two, vasana and samtati, are different,
11
