________________
210
PROBLEM OF AVIDYA
[CH.
as the absence of separate cognition and identity' may be understood to mean absence of numerical difference'. In other words, the negation of separate cognition may be made the ground for the inference of 'negation of numerical difference. But this is not possible because there can be no necessary relation between two negations. As regards such negative inferences as of the absence of smoke' from the absence of fire', of the 'absence of triangle from the absence of figure', they are legitimate only because they derive their cogency from the necessary concomitance between their positive counter-terms. Thus there is necessary concomitance between effect and cause, and so the negation of cause leads to the inference of the negation of effect. Likewise, there is necessary concomitance between 'figure' which is the genus and triangle' which is the species. And so the negation of the former entails the negation of the latter. There is no independent relation possible between two negations. The Buddhist argument could be effective if the positive concomitance between separate cognition and numerical difference were possible. To be explicit, the Buddhist is the last person to assert that a separate cognition of the content from that of the cognition concerned is possible by means of which the numerical difference of the cognition and content can be established ; for the admission of the possibility of the cognition of the content, separate and numerically different from that of the cognition will knock out the Buddhist position of identity of cognition and content. The Buddhist therefore is precluded from asserting a logically necessary relation between their corresponding negations as negations have no independent logical relation apart from that of their opposite positives. The result will not be different even if either of the terms be given a positive interpretation. Thus if the probandum be asserted to be positive identity, it cannot be proved from negative probans, because there can be no relation between a positive and a negative term. Causality and identity of essence are recognized to be the two types of necessary relation. But these two relations are found to obtain between positive entities and not non-entities, nor between an entity and a non-entity. The same difficulty will stand in the way if the probans is supposed to stand for a positive fact. But let us see if the Buddhist can establish his position by making the probans and probandum both positive. Thus it may be interpreted that the necessity of being known together' means
identity of the cognition and the probandum is identity of the two'. But this interpretation would make the inference a case of tautology because the probans will not be different from the probandum. What the Buddhist seeks to establish by this argument is that the content and the cognition are not different but identical. So identical cognition' is found to be the probandum and the probans is also
Jain Education Intemational
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
