________________
RECONCILIATION.
961
of accident,' or form) with the dravyárthic (the point of view of substance). The distinction between these two standpoints may be brought out clearly by the instance of water which is gaseous matter in its essence, that is from the dravyárthic point of view, but a non-gaseous liquid in appearance or form (the paryâyárthic side ofthe question). Similarly, the individual soul is a pure divinity in so far as its essential nature is concerned, as has been established in these pages, but from the paryayârthic point of view it is only an impure ego involved in the cycle of transmigration. But this view is not open to Advaitism, which fights shy of nayavâda ; and the result is that the Advaitists have had no other alternative but to deny the very existence of the soul, calling all else but one solitary principle, or abstraction, an illusion pure and simple. It is evident what an amount of ridicule would one draw on oneself should one persist in describing water as an illusion ; but the mistake of Advaitism is exactly of the same type and form.
Buddhism, too, has fallen a victim to its antagonism to nayavada; for it has only laid hold of the principle of change and shut itself out from all other points of view. Its notion of nirvana, consequently, is a conception of extinction, out and out which is clearly opposed to the nature of the soul from the dravyarthic point of view, that is as a substance.
Coming to modern times, the metaphysicians of the materialistic school have also fallen into error like the Buddhists. They draw their inferences about the nature of the soul froin the fact that our consciousness is liable to be affected by musk, coffee and other like material things;
85
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org