________________
SARVODAYA TIRTHA
111
The use of the term syād makes it clear that the statement relates to a part, not the whole To illustrate this with reference to the aforesaid example of the elephant :
‘Relative to some thing', the elephant is like a wall, and so
at the 'something is not expressed, so the use of also (bhi) is imperative; but if this something is stated, then we have to make use of so (hi) without which the meaning will not be clear, and the statement will not be categorical, e.g , the leg of the elephant is so i e., like a pillar only
In other words, when a statement is wholly correct about a part, the use of so (hi) is imperative and when a statement is partly correct in the context of the whole, the use of also (bhi) is imperative.
Even if the word syāt is not expressly used, it has to be taken as understood. Kasāya Pāhuda is very specific on this:
“Suppose the speaker intends to use the word syāt but does not expressly state it; still the meaning is clear, and this is not
a lapse "111
Although every object contains many qualities which are contradictory, the extent of permissible contradiction must be within the range of permissibility, and not beyond For instance, in the context of the soul, when we talk of permanence and transcience, the question of its simultaneously being animate and inanimate may come up Dhabalā contains some discussion on it. Thus:
Question: Those qualities which are not inconsistent with the soul may stay on, but then do all qualities rest in the soul ?
Answer: Who says that all qualities, consistent and inconsistent may rest in the soul ? If the simultaneous existence of all qualities in the soul is accepted, then this will raise the issue of simultaneous existence of consciousness and its absence, of the state of being and of non-being, will come up. Anekānta does not say that all reverse qualities may simultane
111 Jainendra Siddhanta Kosa, Part 4, p 501
