________________
58
inclusion of subjectivity concept in the process of knowing stregthens further the theory of Anekantavada by increasing the number of aspectal issues for much better understanding of reality. The mind and matter or objects become complementary to each other specifying the result with mental design.
TULSI-PRAJNĀ
Comparision
The Tables given show us that the relativity theory supports the basic concepts of Anekantavada regarding infinity of attributes, aspectal and total truth and integral complementarity of opposites in a unitary system. These concepts lead one to better and deeper insights into the nature of reality. This is an appreciable part of Anekantavada theory based on mental construct. However, when physical phenomena are examined under these concepts, they show quite dis-similar results to those postulated in Jaina scriptures. Jain canons do not seem to support the modified views through relativity theory regarding space, time and matter as they postulate absolutism, independance and non-effectism, even though interrelated, about them Of course, time is an exceptional reality which has an absolute and relative variety. There seems to be some difference of opinion about their definitions in the two Jain schools,19 however, relative aspect of time as a frame of reference is common in both the schools. Muni Mahendraji has mentioned that Jain concepts seem to be more in tune with Newtonian or classical concepts. However, he has opined that the postulate of absolute space or time may not be useful in realistic world, but that should not mean their negation at least logically. It seems to be due to incapacity of the experimenter rather than their objective negation. He has quoted Reinbach to confirm Jaina postulates about seperate realities of space and time. This is a philosophical and transcendental approach not subject to verification. However, Anekantavada may be applied to these issues of absoluteness or relativity of space and time. Nothing has been commented on the variablity of mass with velocity as per chance, mass may not be a speculative object. These variant views are also found in case of concepts of gravitation and other physical pheno
mena.
Further. Munishriji has comparatively analysed the results of relativity and has supported the canons on the ground of questioning the crediblity of ever-changing science in contrast with neverchanging characters of canons based on omnisciental perfect knoledge. This seems to be a traditional indirect disregard for the highly dedicated labour and intelligence of scientists in contradiction
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
