________________
The Jaina Theory of Anekānta
23
substantially different truths and must not be a purposeless repetition of each other in different verbal order only. If a synthesis and its factors be mutually implicatory, the synthesis implying the factors must mean some thing concretely different from the factors implying the synthesis. It cannot mean simply that the factors are presupposed by the unity; for that means substantially the same thing as that the factors pre suppose the unity. The two sides are but the verbal explications of the same fact viz., the thought of identity-in-difference or synthesis. Synthesis' implying the factors should mean then that the unity must break out actually into difference. In the last resort it will amount to saying that the Absolute should be experienced, not merely thought, as necessarily reproducing itself in actuality. But is the actual universe experienced as necessary? It is only thought to be necessary; and accordingly the implication by the Absolute of actual differences—the necessity of its self-reproduction is not distinct as a substantial truth from the mere presupposition of the Absolute by the universe.
10. The identity then of a synthesis with the retained being of the distinction within it is not an identity in the sense of mutual implication. If the relation be still called identity, it must be taken as simply intuited, as all identity is taken to be in the Nyāya. Apparently then the Hegelian, while subordinating distinction to identity, has to admit two utterly different kinds of identity, corresponding to the difference of thought and intuition, which cannot be reduced to further identity. This, however, is a contradiction.
11. A similar contradiction may be brought out in the Nyāya view. Here, however, we start with the priority of distinction to identity and we have to end, as will appear presently, by admitting an identity that is not distinct from anything at all. Confining ourselves to positives, we have synthetic identity of positives in this system in the form of Samavāya or the relation of inherence. Without going into the subtle technicalities of the Nyāya in this connection, we may indicate that Samavāya is understood by it as the relation of attribute to its substratum and of a whole to its part. It is a relation of distinct objects and is regarded as what is presupposed by every other relation of existents. It is not a mere formal relation of identity: the distinction of the terms of this relation is taken to be real and to be in no sense
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
