benodeArticleMenu_layout

Jāti selon Krishna Chandra Bhattacharyya

Studies in Vedantism, 1909

p. 23, § 43–44

43. Not that universals among these shadowy names and forms, concatenating them, are unknown in Vedanta. The realist jati or universal is admitted both in Nyaya and Vedanta, though the latter emphatically disclaims the abstract denotational jati of the former. According to Nyaya, this jati is an eternal reality and its being co-ordinate [sic] with individual things. As has been already indicated, to Vedanta nothing is an eternal reality except the pure self. As to the other point, if an individual and its jati be taken to be distinct (and co-ordinate in reality), they cannot be unified in any way. The inherence, according to Vedanta, is a fiction. (This recalls the famous criticism of the Platonic doctrine of Ideas by Aristotle in his Nichomachaean Ethics.)

[…]

What view, then, does Vedanta itself hold? It understands the jati, not as the denotational real but as the connotational real (tatrānugato dharmah), not as co-ordinate with and distinct from the vyakti or individual, but identical with it on the one hand and of a different grade of reality on the other. The identity between attribute and substance (Dharma—Dharmin) is characteristic of the hylozoistic [sic] speculations of Vedanta and Sankhya (regarding māyā which is one yet many, or regarding prakriti which really evolves), following logically on the denial of inherence as a relation. This Dharma or attribute is again the essence, the persisting matter in relation to the Dharmin or thing, infinite in every individual, having the whole of the phenomenality behind it.

44. Vedanta might very well admit that co-ordinateness of jāti and vyakti in the sphere of the pure “names and forms,” that realm of shadows. The relation between jāti and vyakti, which has already been discussed, is in the region of formed matter where the more differentiated is less in reality. The realm of shadows or māyā may be compared to space, the principle of separation or “spread–out–ness,” the nearest /24/ determinate symbol of the principle of difference, in which a mode may be said to be different from another in which it is included.

Là où le Nyāya conçoit la jāti comme «réalité dénotative», dans le Vedānta la jāti est une «réalité connotative». On serait tenté d'opposer en ce sens une pensée en termes de classes (une logique) à une pensée en termes de catégories (une ontologie).