________________
140
also be and non-existence can also be. Then why can we not think that yoghurt can be a camel and that a camel can be yoghurt?" While this argument is humorous to hear and if no object was always independent then why can a camel not be yoghurt and vice versa? The camel will turn into yoghurt and the yoghurt into a camel. This seemingly right idea has a fallacy. If a conclusion was arrived on the basis of the relativity of time, one would not have the courage to call syaadvad a doctrine of the indefinite.
On the basis of relativity of time, anekanta accepts that a camel can become yoghurt and yoghurt can become a camel. The question arises, if a man is ill and he needs yoghurt, can a camel be brought to him instead? Similarly if for travel across the desert, yoghurt were placed at one's disposal, would it help? There will be chaos. We should not neglect the manifested modes of the present. Anekanta would never give the result that the yoghurt is capable of carrying passengers or burden. Or that the camel can be used in the place of yoghurt for food. This is not acceptable even to anekanta. Anekanta says the conclusions arrived at on the basis of the present, are managers of contemporary affairs. Contemporary
Jain Education International
Acharya Mahaprajna
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
