________________
अनेकान्त 63/1, जनवरी-मार्च 2010 definitelyassertivel, Yet he is more sceptical than any sceptic in the world so far as the definiteness of the ultimate reality is concerned. He would go beyond avaktavya or Sunya so far the Advaitins and Sunyavadins are concerned with regard to their statements regarding ultimate reality.
50
Hence, Anekata stands against all mental absolutism. We can substantiate this relativistic standpoint on the cosmo-micro-physical ground supported by Einstienian doctrine of relativity and Maxwell's equation of electromagnetism which go foundamentally against the notion of absolute truth. When we say, we know this, we are saying more than is strictly correct, because all we know is what happens when waves reach our bodies. Researches in psychology of thinking, perception of self and conception of self in Child Psychology and phycho-analytical studies in Freudian narcissism or Adlerian power-factor support relativism. From socio-cultural standpoint, the doctrine of relativism is justified for no smooth funcioning of society is possible without mutual accomodation and adjustment which presupposes catholicism in thought, and sence of tolerance. In ethics and morality, we know so far relativism is domination. In the field of logic, the doctrine of the universe of Discourse is sometimes limited to a small portion of actual universe of things and is sometimes co-extensive with that Universe. The Universe of Discourse controls the interpretation of every word. Logic of Relatives too recognises the truth of SyadvadaAnekantvad when it discusses all relations embodied in propositions.
Much of the confusion either of Buddhism or Advaita Vedanta is dure to false exaggeration of the relative principles of becoming and being into abslolute truths. Some is the fault with Parmenidian Being and Heraclitan Fulx. These may be called the variety of philosophical doctrines.
Hence Anekant doctrine is the exposition of the principle of 'comprehensive perspectivism'. No perspective is final or absolute unless it is understood in terms of relativity. Therefore, even Anekant (non-absolutism) is subject to Anekant (non-absolutism). If non-absolutism is absolute, it is not universal since there is no one real which is absolute. And if it is not a non-absolute, it is not an absolute and universal fact. Tossed between the two horns of the dilema, non-absolutism thus siply evaporates. But we can meet this difficulty by making a distinction between the theory and practice of anekants. Every proposition of the dialectical sevenfold judgement is either complete or Incomplete. In the former, we use only
