Jaina Philosophy of Non Absolutism

SR No.: 001213
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Satkari Mookerjee, S N Dasgupta
Publisher: Motilal Banarasidas
Publication Year: 1978
Total Pages: 314
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, B000, & B025
File Size: 18 MB

Page 232

210
The Jaina Philosophy of Non-Absolutism
specific nature of the terms designating them as terms quâ relations (svarūpasambandha).
As regards the contention that inherence is one and consequently eternal, it too cannot stand scrutiny. Being a relation it is not intelligible without reference to the terms. And as the terms vary, the relation cannot be uniformly identical. That it is so is proved by the case of conjunction, which is also a relation The conjunction of the pen and the table and the conjunction of the table and the floor are certainly not identical. By parity of reasoning the inherence of sweetness in sugar and that of whiteness in the latter cannot be the self-identical relation. The numerical difference of inherence will be manifest from the consideration that inherence is supposed by the Vaiśeșika to be subsistent in the terms. Subsistence implies that it is a content and such being the case it is unthinkable that the content will not vary with the terms containing it. The unity of inherence is thus seen to be an unjustifiable assumption. And eternity being only a consequence of the unity, it should be equally regarded as an unfounded assumption. Inherence has been compared to existence in respect of its unity. But existence is not absolutely one, but also must vary with the terms. As existence is one and manifold both, such also should be the case with inherence. But this is opposed to the Vaiśeşika position. It has been further maintained that inherence, being a relation, does not stand in need of another relation to make it related to the terms. But if inherence be a distinct unity from the terms, it is absolutely a miracle that it should not require a relation to belong to the terms. A relation is unnecessary only if it is supposed to be identical with the terms. But in that case the terms alone will remain and they will function as relation, which is the Jaina position. The Jaina does not believe in a relation apart from the terms as something connecting them from outside. In point of fact it is the terms themselves which come to have relation as an internal determination induced by a change of their nature. The relation of part and whole, substance and quality, universal and particular etc., which are not capable of being separated in thought and actuality, is nothing but identity-in-difference. In conclusion
i
saņņām āśritatvam anyatra nityadravyebhyaḥ. PDS, p. 16.