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 297

The Jaina Conception of Universals
275
The Jaina seems to have been completely unnerved by Dharmakirti's criticism. It is a pity that he failed to gauge the force and cogency of the Naiyāyika's reply to the Buddhist's criticism. The Jaina here seems to have unconsciously surrendered his doctrine of non-absolutism. It has been repeatedly asserted by the Jaina that difference is not inconsistenct with identity. The Jaina could at most assert in conformity with his allegiance to the doctrine of non-absolutism that the universal is different in so far as it is identical with individuals and identical in all cases of its occurrence in so far as it is different from the individuals. The universal would thus both be different and identical, permanent and impermanent, - permanent and identical in so far as it is the selfsame principle, and impermanent and different in so far as it is identical with the individuals. But by impeaching the clear deliverance of experience certifying the unity of the universal in different individuals the Jaina has unwillingly walked into the spider's parlour. If similarity can account for unity, how can the Jaina establish the identity of substance ? The substance is identical with the modes that occur in it. The Buddhist asserts that there is no unitive substance running through the modes. It is the aspect of similarity of the modes that is mistaken for identity of the substance. In fact, the Jaina cannot give a satisfactory answer against this contention of the Buddhist when he admits similarity to be the equivalent of identity. The Jaina repeats the empirical argument that our experience takes note of the identity of the substance together with its changing modes which are transitory as they endure only for a moment and pass out of existence the very next moment. But if the experience of the unity of substance be deemed valid in spite of the logical difficulties alleged by the Buddhist, we do not see any reason how can the Jaina deny validity to the experience of unity in different individuals. The logical difficulties in the way of unitive universals have been met by Udayana and his predecessors; and the Jaina could easily solve the logical problem by means of his non-absolutist logic, which finds no contradiction in the identity of differences.
The unity of the universal and the particular has been sought to be explained by Yašovijaya as the lack of the difference of substratum. In other words, unity is made out to be a case of