________________
174
PROBLEM OF AVIDYA
[CH.
philosopher does not agree with the Vedāntist or with the nihilist in his reading of contradiction in the world of experience and of thought. The Vedāntist and so also the arch-nihilist Nāgārjuna think that causality is an irrational principle. They agree that the cause is not identical with the effect as that would annul the distinction between them, and without this distinction nothing can be regarded as a cause or as an effect. The cause again cannot be different from the effect as in that case there would be no determination possible. If the relation of cause and effect be one of otherness, pure and simple, then it passes one's understanding why should oil be produced from mustard and not from sand though both are equally other than the effect. Similarly with regard to the effect. Why should not another effect be produced from a cause different from the accustomed one when there is nothing to determine either the effect or the cause? No specific relation can be affirmed in the absence of identity and otherness which have been found to be unacceptable. Nor can it be regarded as a combination of both as the objections lying against each would apply together against this hypothesis. It is concluded by the sceptics that causality is a logically indeterminate makeshift. It is a device contrived by the human intellect to lull into slumber our logical curiosity. It is an irrational conception which, however, is unquestioningly accepted by the general mass of mankind owing to nescience which blurs the whole outlook. In conformity with this dialectic the Vedāntist, in common with Nāgārjuna, thinks that there is irreconcilable antagonism and conflict between plurality and unity. We have seen how the Vedāntist conjures away plurality as false appearance and affirms unity as the supreme truth. The nihilist, on the other hand, has declared the whole world as an unmitigated illusion including unity and plurality. The Vedāntist argues against Nägārjuna and men of his ilk that existence and consciousness cannot be denied because the denial of existence itself involves the affirmation of the existence of denial, and the denial of consciousness is possible only if there is consciousness of denial. And this involves, according to the Vedāntist, a contradiction on the part of the nihilist who denies consciousness and content with equal emphasis.
But the Jaina would pose a simple question: Why should the unqualified denial of existence involve contradiction?' The answer must be that existence of denial is felt in the act of denial. Likewise the denial of consciousness is found to be in conflict with the felt consciousness of denial. The contradiction therefore amounts to not a priori self-contradiction as is involved in the assertion of a square circle, but to a conflict based on experience. Existence and consciousness are experienced facts, and the denial of them involves contradiction of experience and its verdict. So the Vedāntist virtually
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
