________________
118
and in some respects, they are non-eternal. The result of maintaining such indefinite and uncertain ideas would be an utter want of impulse to act. The Jaina authoritative literature describes the eternally free natures of some souls etc. The doctrine of the Anokanta would justify one in questioning the definiteness of the eternally free natures of these. In this way, it is impossible for two such contradictory features as being and non-being to inhere simultaneously in one and the same Real, e. g. tbe soul etc., If there is being in it, there cannot be non-being; if there is non-being in it, there cannot be being there. The Arbata doctrine is accordingly improper. And in this manner, are also to be set aside such ( Jaina ) doctrines as, 'an object is one and many'; 'eternal and non-eternal'; ' different
from others and identical with them”. The greater part of Sankara's criticism is based on the point that to attribute contradictory attributes to an object would lead to doubt and an uncertain or indefinite idea about it. This ques. tion has again and again been taken up for con. sideration before. Here it is enough to point out that the cognition of an object becomes un.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
