________________
they are in fact so many in number and such and such in character ; but as Other than themselves i.e. relative to the fourfold nature of the Other (aragediai), they cannot but be otherwise. If this were not, if you Shankar do not agree to this, or when you say that 'True knowledge infinite is Brahman' (ATT gai gantian), if you do not thereby admit that Brahman as such has its being ; but has not its being as otherwise, that is say as Ne-science which is but an opposite of what is true knowledge, then must you be implicitly identifying Brahman which is knowledge (91a) with Ne-science (afazi) which is non-knowledge so much so that you reduce them both to a state of unity which is devoid of all differences and distinctions in it (analfeiefarfra). And this tantamounts to saying that Brahman is but å synonym of Nescience which is dull (55) and devoid of consciousness (yraafqa). But you, the Vedântins, hold that 'Brahman is true knowledge infinite'. Hence we the Jains rightly hold that the knowledge of things as determined by our dielectic movement of
153
20
