Book Title: Comparative Study Of Jaina Theories Of Reality And Knowledge
Author(s): Y J Padmarajaiah
Publisher: Jain Sahitya Vikas Mandal

Previous | Next

Page 264
________________ 244 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE acceptance of the view that relation is of the nature of identity-and-difference to which the Jaina subscribes. The Śānkara and the Saugata view, which treats relation to be mind-created, contradictory and even illusory, shows scant regard to the intrinsic objectivity of the relational element in the make-up of things. These considerations leave the Jaina view of relation as identity-of-differents' unaffected. It strikes a golden mean between regarding relation as a solid and independent entity and a fanciful myth in the subjective realm. 1. It is interesting to note that in recent contemporary Western philosophy also a similar development of thought, concerning the problem of relations, has taken place. F. H. Bradley's view approximates to that of the idealist Sankara and Dharmakīrti. Russell opposes Bradley and takes the line of the Naiyāyikas. Several writers like Parker, William James and McTaggart have views which come between the two extremes of Bradley and Russell. There are, of course, fundamental differences in their metaphysical postulates, not merely among these western thinkers themselves but also between them and the Indian philosophers. There is, however, an unmistakable correspondence, in the three major trends of relational thinking between the western thinkers and their Indian counterparts. The following few statements and references from some of the western writers will indicate their respective alignments : Bradley : "Relational experience must hence in its very essence be called self-contradictory....it can claim no title higher in the end than that of a necessary makeshift.” CE, Vol. II, p. 635. A little further he writes that accepting "relational truth as final" leaves us "hopelessly in a blind maze of unending regress" ibid., p. 641, and the chap. on Relations, p. 62, f.n. 1. See also p. 207, f.n. 6, in this work. Russell: "Hence we admit that the relation, like the term it relates, is not dependent upon thought, but belongs to the independent world which thought apprehends but does not create." Problems, p.98. "When it ('a fact') consists of a rela

Loading...

Page Navigation
1 ... 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446