________________
214
The Jaina Philosophy of Non-Absolutism
universals to be elements of the meaning of terms. But what is the source of his knowledge of this universal ?The meaning of the term 'cow' is not expressly felt as a universal, but as a generic image which fits in with all the individual objects falling under the class. The presence of the universal is derived from an analysis of the generic image. Similarly, the Buddhist makes out negation to be the meaning of a term from an analysis of the concept felt as distinct.
But the Naiyáyika does not agree with the Buddhist interpretation. He insists that the meaning of the term 'cow' is a positive concept, which fits in with all the particulars, and there is no reference, implicit or explicit, to negation, either as a substantive or as an adjectival element in it. That the concept 'cow' is a determinate concept and is distinguished from all that is not cow is a fact, which is admitted by all. But the 'negation of the opposite' is only a logical concomitant of the positive concept and is never psychologically felt. The position can be made clear from an analysis of the concept cow'. To be sure, no man moves forward to tether a cow with the idea that it is not not-cow. Our idea of a cow is always of a positive entity and negation has no part to play in it. If, on the contrary, the concept were entirely negative in character, there would be no activity possible with regard to such a negation. Suppose, for instance, that a man were called upon to fetch a pitcher. The idea, that would move him to activity, cannot be supposed to be of the form that a not-pitcher does not exist, but it must be of the form that there is a pitcher. It should, therefore, be admitted that the idea of the pitcher is that of a positive real, which, though not absolutely identical with one particular, as it is appropriately capable of being affliated to many such particulars, and as such something other than particulars, still, it must be something which particular things partake of. “It is not fleeting or changeable like the things of sense; it is eternally itself, immutable and indestructible”.1
It might be contended, that the concept of a pitcher need not be cognisant of a positive universal, the objective existence of which is riddled with insuperable logical difficulties. The concept is negative and is cognisant of the negation of 'not-pitchers' as a
1. The Problems of Philosophy by Russell. p. 144
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
