________________
A Critique
143
characteristics has, therefore, nothing paradoxical about it. They are a natural deduction from the reality of change. The Jains believe in the dynamic nature of rcals and, in deference to the demands of reason and experience alike, they sum up the triple characteristics as the component factors of the constitution of Reality. One can avoid this triple characteristic only by the declaration of change as appearance, which is the position of the Vedānta. One must offer onc's allegiance either to Vedāntic monism or affirin the multiple nature of Reality, which is the tcaching of Jaina unekāntaruda (non-absolutism).
Viewed from the Jaina standpoint, a rcal is a continuum through the infinite variation of its modes at every moment of its being. The continuum is a reality as much as the variation. Thus, there is unity as well as multiplicity in perfect harmony. The real viewed as identical with the changing modes is thus coming into being cvery moment and perishing every moment. That it comes to evolvc a new mode implies that the previous mode has ceased to exist. So a real qua its modes is becoming into something new by ccasing to be its old self. The birth of the new is thus the logical concomitant of the death of the old. The affirmation of the three apparently incompatible clements as making up the constitution of a real is thus the result of a logical analysis of a real as it is. Either pure (absolute) ncgation or pure (absolute) affirmation are the only alternatives left for acceptance. The former is the position of the Buddhist Sūni ya vādin and the latter is that of Vedānta. Is the paradox greater in the Jain view than in the two other systems? Is the Sūnya vādin who dismisses the whole world of experience as an unfounded illusion, less paradoxical ? Is the Vedāntic view, which endorses the Sūnaudin's repudiation of the whole world of pluralities, calculated to satisfy the abhorrence of paradox in a more satisfying manner ? The paradox is only apparent as it alone provides a satisfactory experience and thought. The criterion should be whether or not it succeeds to explain the world as we know it.
Again, the Jains assert the non-absolutistic position in respect of the relation of modes with substance. The mode is a mode of the substance because the identity of substance is
