________________
222
The Jaina Philosophy of Non-Absolutism
because it is really non-existent in it. The non-existence of difference of A from A proves that A is an identical entity. So if the difference of contents were really non-existent, that would prove the real identity of the contents. In other words, the existence of an identical universal as a reality would be left unrepudiated. The Buddhist is thus placed between the horns of a dilemma. The differences of concepts are either real or unreal. If real, the concepts would be real universals and if unreal they would be one identical principle. It may be contended that differences are superimposed upon the concepts. But the hypothesis of superimposition would make the intuition of differences inevitable and thus leave no room for the superimposition of identity. So the old dilemma would again crop up. viz. either the differences of the concepts are real or unreal and both these alternatives are fatal to the Buddhist position. To say that the concepts are neither real nor unreal, nor both nor neither, as none of these characteristics is appropriate to a fiction which a concept is, is tantamount to a confession of defeat and failure to explain a difficulty. And if the possibility of non-perception of such a fictitious difference be allowed and made the condition of confusion of identity, there would be noentity in the universe, which would not be felt as identical with every other thing. But the Buddhist would rejoin that such a contingency does not arise where the real differences of things are actually cognised. Thus, for instance, a book is not felt as identical with a pen because the difference of the pen from the book is real and is also felt as such.
Udayana observes that the Buddhist here asserts a truth, but he does not go deep enough into the implication of this discovery. It is a natural deduction that when the cognition of real differences operates as an obstacle to the possibility of mistaking of identity, the mistaking of identity should be set down to the absence of the cognition of real difference. To take a concrete example, a shell is mistaken for silver because the real difference of identity of the shell and silver is uncognised. Likewise in the case of concepts, they could be mistaken to be identical only if they were possessed of real differences and these differences were not cognised. But the reality of differences of the concepts would knock out the plea of the Buddhist that the concepts are unreal fictions. The contention of Udayana can be summed
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
