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 246

224
The Jaina Philosophy of Non-Absolutism
cannot be a positive real, which has invariably 'being' as an inalienable part of its nature. A real cannot own the character of being and non-being. But both these characters are predicated of the cow. So the cow, which is the subject of the propositions, cannot be supposed to stand for an objective reality. It must, therefore, be a concept consisting in the negation of the opposite. It is only negative concepts that are amenable to a positive and a negative determination. The concept 'amorphous' is an instance in point. It can be predicated of such a real as space, thought and the like, which are accounted as positive reals, and also of such fictions, as a square circle. Neither thought nor square circle has any dimension. Our concepts are invariably such of which negative and positive predication is permissible without offence to logic. It should be concluded, the Buddhist argues, that concepts are of the nature of negation of their opposites on a par with the negation of dimension. The positivecum-negative can belong only to a subjective idea and not to an objective real. Secondly, it is only negation of the opposite that can make a synthesis of absolutely divergent facts. The example of the concept 'amorphous' which applies to real and unreal facts alike, as set forth above, should be a pointer to the truth of the proposition. Concepts as synthesising ideas should, thus, be equated with negation and a subjective creation at that.
Udayana observes that the Buddhist here attempts to determine the nature and meaning of a physical existent by means of pure logic, a procedure entirely ultra vires. The Buddhist has failed to carry conviction when he maintains that our concepts are negative fictions. The question is, is the concept felt or not? If it is felt, it cannot be a fiction. Even such constructions as a rabbit's horn or a square circle cannot be fictions, if they have a meaning. The unreality of these constructions does not belong to the elements, rabbit or horn, square or circle, but to their combination, which also in its turn has its foundation in objective reality. If any conceptual construction is inconceivable, it should be dismissed as unmeaning nonsense as abracadabra. But if it has a meaning, it must have elements and a relation which are found to be objectively real in another context. Whatever may be the ontological value of concepts, there is no reason for supposing that they are to be treated like such unreal constructions