________________
262
The Jaina Philosophy of Non-Absolutism a matter of logical necessity. Thus it is asserted by the Naiyayika that the relation of inherence is possible only between definite classes of entities and it does not lie in us to call in question its propriety or to demand its extension outside its observed scope. Things have a determinate nature of their own which can be discovered by experience and not by a priori consideration. The difference between the Naiyayika on the one hand and the Jaina or the Mimāṁsist on the other is thus fundamental. The former does not believe in the possibility of identity in difference, far less its logical necessity as the presupposition of relation. The Naiyāyika would answer the question 'why should not the horse-universal be found in a cow ?' by saying that the nature of the terms does not permit of the combination, which would make the perception of the horseuniversal possible.
It has been shown that the Naiyāyika has ultimately to appeal to the determinate nature of the terms for the explanation of the relation of the universal and the individuals in spite of their numerical difference. Numerical difference, it has been argued, does not connote incompatibility and so does not preclude a relation. It is assumed that identity of being, partial or total, of the terms is not the condition of relation and consequently numerical difference is not repugnant to it. The condition is to be found in the nature of the terms themselves. But the opponent observes that this appeal to nature is only a camouflage for disguising the failure of rational explanation. If the unquestionable nature of things can be accepted as an explanation of a philosophical problem, the Buddhists also can make this appeal. Dharmakirti denies the existence of universals and asserts that it is the individuals themselves, which in spite of their lack of a common nature do possess a natural capacity for generating identical concepts. The hypothesis of Dharmakirti satisfies the Law of Parsimony. And his attempt to take shelter under the ultimate nature of the individuals does not stand in a position of disadvantage as compared with the similar appeal made by the Naiyāyika.
The Naiyāyika is emphatically of the opinion that the two cases are not similar. The appeal to the ultimate nature of things is the last resource which is necessitated by the failure of
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
