________________
Jaina Logic
329
different standpoints. The contradiction of opposite attributes in a thing is really apparent and can be removed by viewing the thing from different standpoints. Different standpoints yield contradictory attributes which are synthesised in a coherent whole by syādvāda. Thus syāduāda is a method of synthesis.
One and the same person is father with respect to his son and son with respect to his father, uncle with respect to his nephew and nephew with respect to his uncle, father-in-law with respect to his son-in-law and sonin-law with respect to his father-in-law, and so on and so forth. Accordingly, we accept all those opposite attributes-father and son, uncle and nephew, etc.-in one and the same individual from different standpoints of relations he is having with different persons. In the same way, why should we not accept in one and the same thing the opposite attributes, if on reflection we find them reconcilable from different standpoints?
What is a pot? It is well-known that earthen vessels like a pot, a bowl, etc., are produced from the same clay. After having broken a pot, a bowl is produced from the same clay; now, will anybody call the bowl a pot? No. Why? Is clay not the same? Yes, clay is the same but the form or mode has changed. As the form has changed, clay cannot be called 'a pot'. Well, then it is proved that a pot is a particular form or mode of clay. But one should remember that the mode or form is not absolutely different from clay. Clay itself is called 'a pot', 'a bowl', etc., when it assumes different forms or modes. So how can we consider clay and pot to be totally different? From this it is proved that the form-of-a-pot and constitute the nature of the thing called 'pot'. Now let us see as to which of the two natures is permanent and which is impermanent. We observe that the form-of-a-pot is impermanent. So one nature of the pot, viz. the form-of-a-pot is established as impermanent. And how is the other nature, viz., clay? It is not impermanent. It is so because the forms or modes which clay assumes go on changing but clay as such remains the same. This is established by experience. Thus, we see that a pot has both these natures—one permanent, and the other impermanent. From this we can naturally maintain that from the standpoint of its impermanent nature, a pot is impermanent and from the standpoint of its permanent nature it is permanent. In this way to see and ascertain both the permanent and impermanent natures in one and the same thing from two different standpoints is a case of anekānta (synthetic or synoptic or many-sided) viewing
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
