________________
280
The Jaina Philosophy of Non-Absolutism
that similarity is an ultimate category which cannot be reduced to a simpler and more self-evident category. These philosophers have further endeavoured to prove the identity of reference of concepts in terms of similarity. Similarity is not deemed to be susceptible of being reduced to identity, which is done by the Naiyayika.
But the attempt to equate identity with similar ty seems to be an extremism of pluralistic bias. Let us take it for granted that similarity can account for identical reference of concepts and the postulation of unitive universals is not logically necessary. But the question must be answered whether similarity is an identical principle subsisting in the particulars thought to be similar or numerically different in each instance. The first alternative, if granted, would only make the difference of views a question of nomenclature. An identical entity existing in different individuals may be designated as a universal or similarity, but the designation does not make any difference to the ontological problem. And the second alternative, which makes out the varying similarities to be numerically different, raises further problems. Is the similarity quâ characteristic different from the individual or identical with it? If it is different, how can it belong to the individual and introduce a change into its constitution, that is to say, make it similar? The Jaina philosopher at any rate cannot maintain that the relation of a characteristic to its substratum is either one of absolute otherness or of absolute identity. Even the Madhvas, who believe in the absolute difference of things, are compelled to admit that the relation of a characteristic to the thing characterized is not one of absolute difference or of absolute identity, but as identity-cum-difference. At any rate the element of identity involved in the very constitution of relation makes the situation far from intelligible if identity of being is denied.
'A is similar' is a proposition and it follows that similarity is identical with A in some respect, which the relation of subject and predicate between the two logically entails. But similarity is not only a characteristic but also a relation. The similarity of A is not confined to A, but has necessary reference to B. To say that similarity is a characteristic entirely self-contained is to speak unintelligible jargon. Similarity holds between A and B
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
