________________
1914.) . JAINA GAZETTE.
263 marble, is not part of the bag of-marbles, because you have cancelled the relation, which you admit qualifies its terms. Your fallacy lies in overlooking the fact that when an entity enters into a whole as a constituent element it acquires attributes it did not, in its isolation, possess; as well as effecting a modification of the whole.
It appears that it is the very intimacy of the relation of whole and parts, that is checking your apprebension of its existence. A relation is that which binds, and the bond is so close in the case of these terms that we perforce call them correlatives, implying that the one is wholly meaningless without the other. It is a flat contradiction to say that correlatives are not related. But apart from tbis obvious reflection, can you deny that a whole is greater than its part, and that the fact of making the coin parison iinplies a quantitative relation ? Ard can you deny the transparent inference of your own remark, that in order that a brick shall be related to the wall it must be externally related - be a distance from it? If it were incorporated within the structure of the wall it would of course be internally related. And is there not a positional relation of each
wall as well as to each other? Soino are at the bottom of the wall, others at the top, and so on.
To me it appears a very curious thing that you should be attributing to me the fallacy against which all that I bave written to you is a sustained protest that, namely, of setticg up a universal or whole in rigid or fixed opposition to its particulars or parts. The burden of my whole argument is that the parts divorced from or unrelated to the whole, or the particulars apart from the universal, is every wbit as much an abstraction as is the whole or universal apart from its constituents. A genuine concrete universal is essentially self-particularising and in its very conception orgadic. The many selves, whether they be men or Gods, by the very fact that there are many, are pariiculars : and the nature of a particular is to be not self-subsistent and absolute, but reliant upon its relation to each and all of the other particulars, and to the implicated whole. To conceive all
individual ininds as a mere plurality is to ignore the logic and Shree Sudharmaswami Gyanbhandar-Umara, Surat
www.umaragyanbhandar.com
