________________
110
Anekanta : Philosophy of co-existence
could not be a part of the former. By accommodating the both as parts of existence, the divergence between Idealism and Realism is automatically resolved. It would complicate matters if we say that the non-living is merely a reflection of the living. But if they are regarded as parts of existence, then there is no problem. Consciousness is the dividing line between Jiva and Ajīva, while existence is a compact formation and there is no duality left. This way, we can justify the views of Idealists (Pratyayavādis) too. When put simply – “It (sat) exists”, it denotes 'Parama Astitva', whereas when we say - "a particular thing exists” – it is 'Apara Astitva' (empitical existence). In the case of Param Astitva, there is no division between dravya (substance) and parayāya (its various modes). In case of Apara Astitva, there would always be divisions on account of various modes and their infinite numbers. In dravya (substance), there are two basic qualities – 'sāmānya' (general) and višeşia (particular). One without the other cannot exist. The former maintains the existence of the substance, whereas the latter invests it with independent properties. How certain things appear to our eyes is conditioned by our approach? If we adopt 'sāmānya darśana' or generic viewpoint, and accept its general qualities, we see 'Param Astitva'. But when we look at particular qualities through a particular view-point - Višişța Darśana, it is Apara-Astitva. Such divisions are always there due to diversity in our approaches. There is partial truth in both the Pratyayavāda and Vastuvāda, but they are not contradictory to each other. The former is
Jain Education International
For Personal & Private Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
