________________
182
The Jaina Philosophy of Non-Absolutism all other relations. Exchange of service may be possible between two existent terms. But what can be the nature of such service and why should it be required at all ? The service is not required by either term for achieving existence, which they already possess; nor can it be possibly required for the realization of an additional efficacy in themselves. For the efficacy, being distinct from the terms, would require a further relation in order to belong to them. And this relation might be possible, if there were again exchange of services between the efficacy and the terms. But the postulation of a second exchange of services would necessitate that of a third and so on to infinity. The truth of the matter is that relation, whatever be its character, either presupposes or involves causality, and if causality cannot be an objective relation, the reality of other relations cannot be established by logic. Take, for instance, the relations of conjunction and inherence, Conjunction may be considered as an effect of the terms The terms may be said to become conjoined by virtue of generating conjunction between themselves. But this supposition is not maintainable. If the characteristic of being conjoined' be a property of the generator of conjunction, it would be the property of motion (karma) also, which is posited as the cause of conjunction by the Vaišeşika. But motion cannot have the quality of being conjoined according to the Vaišeşika, as quality can in his theory belong only to substance. Conjunction with a part again is supposed to generate a fresh conjunction with the whole. If causality be the determinant of conjunction and of the consequential attribute of being conjoined', conjunction itself in such a situation should come to have the attribute in question. But this is absurd and is repudiated by the Vaišeşika himself. Nor can conjunction or the quality of being conjoined be supposed to be a characteristic of the terms placed in a particular situation, because the supposition begs the question. What places the terms in that situation? Certainly situation is not an uncaused event. And thus the difficulties inherent in causality would crop up. As regards inherence (samavāya) it is also consequential to causality. The whole inheres in the parts,
1. saryogajanane 'pi 'sțau tataḥ samyoginau na tau. karmādiyogitāpatteh sthitiś ca prativarnitā. ibid. Cf. the comments of PKM, p. 509.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
