________________
Relations
179
the terms cease to be two and as relation is possible between two terms. Nor can there be a partial unification, which presupposes that the terms have parts and one of such parts is identified with another such part. But this also is no explanation, as it raises another problem. Is the part distinct from the term or not? If it is not distinct, it is uot a part, but the term itself. So the hypothesis of partial unification is irrelevant. If, again. there be real parts distinct from the terms, the unification of such distinct parts would be of no consequence to the original terms, as they would not be related on the relation of entities which are distinct. The parts again may have parts or not. On the former alternative, the question of partial or total unification would again raise itself in reference to the first set of parts and so also in reference to the second set and so on without end,
Let it be supposed that relation is neither a case of unification nor mutual dependence, but something different which simply relates the terms. But the interposition of an independent relation has been found to be of no help. If the terms are left independent of each other, the introduction of relation as a tertium quid, equally independent, would not relate the terms. The two terms, on the latter hypothesis, would remain as they were, unaffected by the relation, which would thus be a third term resting in itself and self-sufficient. A relation which does not relate is only a word without meaning. It is concluded by the Buddhist that relation is only our way of looking at things and is not an objective entity.2
The charge that unreality of relation would make causal relation unreal does not affect the Buddhist, who does not believe that causality is an objective relation. The relation of cause and effect, it is asserted, is unreal, as the two do not co-exist at one time. The antecedent is called the cause and the consequent is called the effect. But this is only a conceptual characterization. It does not imply an objective relation, which is possible between
1. rūpsaleşo hi sambandho dvitve sa ca kathar bhavet ? Dharmakirti's Sambandhaparikṣā, quoted in PKM, p. 503.
2. tau ca bhāvau tadanyaś ca sarve te svätmani sthitāḥ. ity amiśrāḥ svayam bhāvās tan miśrayati kalpanā. ibid.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
