Path of Arhat

SR No.: 001745
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: T U Mehta
Publisher: Sohanlal Smarak Parshwanath Shodhpitha Varanasi
Publication Year: 1993
Total Pages: 262
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Spiritual, Religion, & Principle
File Size: 15 MB

Page 151

126 )
The Path of Arhat : A Religious Democracy
particular quality but even qualities are changing and hence there is nothing permanent which can be perceived besides changing qualities of an object. Thus according to Buddhists even Ātman ( soul ) is not permanent.
A Jaina seer would say, both are correct from the standpoint from which they look at the problem, but both make their statements which do not conform to the principle of Anekānta and hence do not give a correct judgement of the reality. Jainas say that changes are as real as the original substance. A jug made of a clay substance cannot be used as anything except as a jug and since the use is real, the form of a jug which clay has assumed, cannot be unreal. If the clay substance assumes some other form of an earthen vessel meant for cooking, that vessel cannot be used as a jug even though clay substance remains the same. If this is so, how can we say that the form which the substance assumes at a particular time is unreal and only the substance is real. The substance of clay appears to be the only real thing to those who concentrate on substance and ignores the form. It is not correct to say that because there is a change in the form, the changing form is unreal. If it is real even for a moment, its reality must be accepted and recognised, if a comprehensive view of the whole reality is to be taken. If one wants a jug he would not ask you to bring a lump of clay because what he wants is a jug and not clay. Thus according to Jainism the Vedantist view is Ekanta and does not give a complete idea of the reality.
Similarly even the Buddhist view does not give the comprehensive idea because it concentrates its attention only on change and ignores the fact, that behind every change there is a constant substance, which remains the same. Analogy of river is fallacious because though it may be true that the apparent flow is made of different drops of water, we cannot escape from the fact that even in different drops, water substance remains the same. Moreover, it wouid not be correct to say that the intrinsic quality of substances are changing