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 296

The Jaina Philosophy of Non-Absolutism
forth similarity as identity. This identity is as metaphorical as the identity of man with an ass in the proposition "the man is an ass". The case in apposition is not an evidence of real unity but of a make-believe unity which is asserted for emphasizing closeness of analogy.
274
Vidyanandi definitely asserts that the objections, that have been urged against the mode of existence of a unitive universal by Dharmakirti, do not affect the Jaina position in the least, since the Jainas do not believe in the existence of a selfsame universal in several individuals. The universal is nothing but the similar transformation of different things, numerically different in each case. The assertion of unity of class-character or of being is only a case of rhetorical device.1
We need not reproduce the arguments of the different writers as they are all couched in the same strain. So let us now consider whether the Jaina version of the Buddhist position really effects an improvement on the original Buddhist position. We do not see any material difference between the Buddhist position as expounded by us in the previous chapter and the Jaina representation of it. It will be too much to expect that the idea of unity can be successfully accounted for by a plurality without a unitary principle running through them. We have recorded the objection of the Naiyayika against the Buddhist's position that if the unity of members of a class be only an unfounded idea, why should not the plurality be successfully affiliated to a unity? This objection also applies to the Jaina position which is nothing but a re-statement of Dharmakirti's conclusion. The criticism of the Buddhist's position by the Jaina, that the individuals are not exclusively dissimilar and the element of similarity in them should be regarded as a distinctive attribute, savours of prevarication and intellectual dishonesty. The Buddhist also does not deny similarity among the different individuals. The attempt to criticize the Buddhist position therefore on the ground that dissimilar entities cannot account for identity of conception is only a pretence or a deliberate misrepresentation.
1. na hi vayam sadṛśapariņāmam upagacchamo'nyatro'pacārāt - TSV, p. 320.
anekavyaktivyāpinaṁ
yugapad