Book Title: Facets of Jain Philosophy Religion and Culture
Author(s): Shreechand Rampuriya, Ashwini Kumar, T M Dak, Anil Dutt Mishra
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
View full book text
________________
128 Anekāntavāda and Syādvāda
negative (niședha) element in the determinate context of the concrete nature of the jar in the example. That is, despite its name 'negative element this concept is a co-ordinate and constituent element in the full make-up of the jar. Negation151 constitutes a necessary element in reality. This important fact warrants the formulation of a distinctive conditional predication which is provided for in the second mode. The main significance of the second mode lies not in the false statement that the jar does not exist as the jar but in the irrefutable statement that the jar does not exist as linen or anything else. When we focus our attention exclusively (pradhänatayā) on this negative aspect of the jar, as we do under certain conditions, we are said to be viewing the jar in the perspective of the second mode. Non-existence in the second predication is not, therefore, a vacuous predicate but is the obverse of the existent side of the object. In other words, non-existence or ‘non-being' is a determinate fact with a content and not a void. This is so because under the category of the ‘non-being' all that should not figure within the ‘being' of the jar is sought to be ruled out.
An objection of treating the present mode as a logical complement to the previous mode is that the two modes being mutually opposed, are self-contradictory. A refutation of this objection forms the subject of a specific account in an earlier chapter 152 and, indeed, runs as an undercurrent throughout the body of this work. It is. therefore, sufficient to remember here that the two elements, constituting the two modes, are not merely non-contradictorybecause, if they were, the qualification 'without incompatibility'153 (avirodhena) in the definition of syadvāda, would be meaninglessbut are mutually necessary complements in the real. Contradiction would arise if the opposition were between the two absolute assertions “the jar exists” and “the jar does not exist”. The source of such a fault lies in the objector's mistake in construing the latter assertion, viz., "the jar does not exist”', as being equivalent to "the jar does not exist as a jar". The true interpretation of it should be that "the jar does not exist as linen, or water etc.” There is surely no contradiction in the latter interpretation because of the fact that it is based on the assumption that the assertion is a relative (kathañcit) and determinate (niyata) abstraction from a
151. For a discussion on negation see supra. 152. See supra. 153. See supra.
