________________
of reality or that of knowledge. The statement that all knowledge in relative is in a sense self contradictory because itself it showed not be considered to be relative, otherwise it will undermine the very basis of relativism. If non-absolutism is absolute, it is not universal, since there is one real which is absolute and if nonabsolute, it is not an absolute and universal fact. Thus tossed between the horns of the dilemma non-absolutism simply evaporates. The non-absolute, is in fact, constituted of the absolute as its elements and as such would not be possible if there were no absolutes. Samantabhadra is therefore, correct when he says that non-absolutism is not absolute unconditionally. To avoid the fallacy of infinite regren, the Jainas distinguish between valid non-absolutism (Samyakanekānta) and invalid non-absolutism (Mithya-Anekānta). Like an invalid absolute judgement, an invalid non-absolutistic judgement too is invalid. Therefore, valid, anekānta must not be absolute but relative. Anekānta is thus opposite to anekānta a one-sided exposition irrespective of other view points. To regard syādvāda, as absolute is to violate its very fundamental character of non absolu. tism. So Samantabhadra says that even Anekānta is Anekānta or non-absolutism is non-absolutistic. This makes quite clear the distinction between the real and the false non-absolutism. Jainism takes great pains to distinguish between the false and real with a purpose to find out a philosophical basis of non-violence. Non-violence to them was not a matter of policy but a life-creed and hence any false metaphysical -base will simply weaken its functioning in all walks of lifesocial, political and economic.
As regards Budhism, we have noul-absolutism in a different way. It is called vibhajya-vāda. The intention of Budha was to avoid the extremes and work out a modus vivendi between the two extremes. For example, Budhism wants to avoid both (Sasvatvāda) and nihilism (Ucchedavāda) in metaphysics or asceticism and licence in the field of morality. In other words Budha followed the middle path (Madhyama pratipada) being free from difficulties. Explaining the meaning of 'samyak', it is said that samyak or right is that which stands between the two extremes. Hence Right views (Samyak dristi) is not an extremist view point. It is not one sided or ekānta as the Jainas would like to say. Hence, the doctrine of the middle path is fundamentally non-absolutistic. Budhism has always rejected the one-sided absolutistic position in metaphysics and morals. To them, truth lies midway, which is quite safe (madhyam abhayam) as the vedas would say. Aristotic propounded the doctrine of the "golden mean." As a matter of fact, the extremist position is always unsafe. No body can claim to possess the absolute truth. The absolute truth as Nāgārjuna is beyond the four-fold cate. gories of existence (asti), non existence (nasti), both (ubhaya) and neither (anubhaya). This doctrine of four.cornered negation is essentially non-absolutistic in spirit. The reality is so mysterious and complex that we cannot take any side.
Mahavira Jayanti Smarika, 76
4-17
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
