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 303

The Jaina Conception of Universals
281
and as such must belong to them. Now the question arises whether similarity is a relation or a characteristic or both ? It is
o doubt a relation so far as it obtains between two terms. It is no doubt again a characteristic so far as it is conceived to be the attribute of the term in which it subsists and we have seen that the concept of similarity as an attribute presupposes a relation which is admitted to be identity-in-difference. But irrespective of whether it is a characteristic or not, it is not selfcontained in its reference and requires a second term to which it relates. If the similarity be supposed to function as a relation between A and B, it may fall outside the terms and thus fail to relate them. Or it may function also as a characteristic of both the terms and thus require a second relation in order to belong to them. But relation has been admitted to consist in or presuppose identity-in-difference. So the similarity of A an the similarity of B, whether characteristics or relation, must be identical in some respect with A and B both. And this means that there is an element in both A and B which is identical.
Let us again suppose that similarity is a self-contained attribute of each of the terms, numerically different from one another. The similarity of A will then be numerically different from the similarity of B. There will be thus two similarities and not one. But this does not make the problem of identity of reference any more intelligible than before. The question irresistibly arises, whenever one states a proposition e.g. A is similar to B, where does the similarity consist in and what is it due to ? The question presupposes that there must be something in both the terms on which similarity is founded. But it may be maintained that the question is wrong and illegitimate since it derives from an unwarranted presupposition. Similarity is an ultimate simple fact and does not presuppose any further characteristic as its basis and ground. But this reiteration of the ultimacy of similarity does not help us to understand its nature a whit more clearly. We do not mean to say that the opponent seeks to escape under a prevarication but our grievance against the solution offered is that it does not care to appreciate the difficulty, which we confront in trying to grasp the nature of similarity as a self-contained attribute of each of the terms.
Suppose that the similarity of A is numerically different from