________________
if we try to hold this common place whole of ideas to the exclusion of its negative, if we try to hold it to itself, it disappears.
I. We submit, therefore, that such a reFurther elu- mark as made by Shankar is due to his gross cidation of the dialectic misunderstanding of the dialectic principle principle.
of our reasoning. For, as we interpret and use the principle, it is all right. We, the Jains, hold that every thought or being is only in relation to the fourfold nature of itself but is not in relation to the fourfold nature of the other (सर्बमस्ति स्वरूपेन arraa TfET 7): for instance, the jar when it is thought of in relation to (i) its own constituent substance,-earth ; (ii) its own locality of existence in space-Calcutta ; (iii) its own period of coming into existence in time-Summer and (iv) its own mode existence as revealed in its colour (red or the like)and capacity for containing and carrying such and such quantity of water, the jar is said to exist i.e., only in relation and particular combination of the four-fold nature of itself known technically as svachatustaya, the jar is (afer), and has the nature and character of being (aqxa). But when thought of in
150
