जैन द्रव्यानुयोग- न्याय


#1

क्या किसी भी वस्तु का ऐसा लक्षण बनाया जा सकता है जो सजातीय एवं विजातीय तत्वों से भिन्नता दिखावे?


#2

लक्षण निर्दोष तभी कहलायेगा जब पूरे लक्ष्य में रहे और अलक्ष्य में बिल्कुल न जाए |

यद्यपि विजातीय तत्त्वों से भिन्नता बताना सरल है, लेकिन सजातीय को हमें और स्पष्ट करना होगा |

(Taking cue from argument in Āptamīmāṁsā against अवाच्यैकांत): वे सजातीय तत्त्व यदि लक्ष्य में गर्भित होते है, तो उनसे भिन्नता बताने की जरूरत नहीं है और यदि वे लक्ष्य के बाहर है तो फिर विजातीय के समान ही हो गए |


#3

Can you give an example on this?


#4

TL,DR: - The word सजातीय is applicable to the members of the same class and not to a class in itself. Whereas, the word विजातीय can be applied to both - class as well as members of that class.

(Part 1)

It is difficult to think of an example, as the word सजातीय, at least in this context, is ambiguous. When we are trying to look at the differentia (लक्षण) which invariably corresponds with the class / object which we want to define (लक्ष्य), there is only one thing apart from the लक्ष्य, which is अलक्ष्य. Hence, it hardly leaves any scope for something like सजातीय.

Either it has to be the member of the same class, in which case, all are at par; or it is a member of another class, in which case, it will come under the category of अलक्ष्य, and therefore, विजातीय (this was a kind of rhetoric).

(Part 2)

If we are looking at how to differentiate members of the same class, then what the word सजातीय would suggest is that there are some species which are relatively similar to other species. Similar insofar as they are members of the same class and yet dissimilar among themselves due to some other micro-sets that can be formed.

Here, we can give an example:

Say, for instance, let us consider the class of existence (सत्). The word सजातीय will then be used to refer to the members of the same class as all of them equally have the property of existence. There is nothing like सजातीय class. It has only one dissimilar case (विजातीय तत्त्व), which is, non-existence.

Moving forward, let us take the class of जीव. Even over there, all the members (संसारी / मुक्त) are जीव since they are members of the same class. So, संसारी and मोक्ष (as long as we are looking at them as members of one class) can be called as सजातीय. And what is apart from जीव has to be radically different such that it would come under विजातीय तत्त्व. And hence, no सजातीय ‘class’ as such.

As far as this task is concerned, there is no need to differentiate the सजातीय then since it is difficult to think of something like सजातीय class.

Thanks for the question!