________________
52
371
63/1,
6-4
2010
sibility as existence if he belongs to another community or if his genius moves into another direction. So there appears to be again alternation among existence. But this alternation for only on thought level, We compare thought with other thoughts. And what is comparison ? Comparison involves thinking and reasoning, so it is thought-process. Some are bound to admit alternation. My stanpoint is only a possible one. But I cannot always fly in the air of possibilities, I must have moorings in some actuality. I must adopt one standpoint.
Jainism is against all kinds of imperialism in thought. For each community there is a special absolute. But the absolute themselves are alternatives so far as they are probables. But this is only on thought level. But when I have chosen one it is more than possible, it is existence or actual. So there is wonderful reonciliation between conditionality and unconditionality. Every thing is conditional on thought level, but on the level of existence. Thus there is no real contradicion.
To avoid the fallacy of infinite regress, the Jains distinguish between valid non-absolutism (Samyaka Anekanta) and invalid non-absolutism (Mithiya Anekanta) Like and invalid absolute judgement, an invalid non-absolute judgement, too, is invalid. To be valid, Anekanta must not be absolute but relative.
If we consider the above points, we cannot say that the "theory of relativity cannot be logically sustained without the hypothesis of an absolute". Thought is not mere distincion but also relation. Everything is possible only in relation to and as distinct from others and the Law of Identity. Under these circumstances, it in not legitimate to hold that the hypothesis of an absolute cannot be sustained without the huypothesis of a relative. Absolute to be absolute presupposes a relative somewhere and in some forms, even the relative of its non-existence.
Jaina logic of Anekanta is based not on abstract intellectualism but on experience and realism leding to a non-absolutistic attitude of mind. Multiplicity and unity, definability and non definability etc. which apparently seem to be contradictory characteristics of reality are interpreted to co-exist in the same object from different points of view without any offence to logic. They seem to be contradictory of each other simply because one of them is mistaken to be the whole truth. Infact, intergrity of truth consists in this very variety of its aspects, within the rational unity of
