________________
knowledge of a slice of reality cannot be false unless the fanaticism of the observer makes it the sole and sufficient character of it. This is called Sangrdha Naya-the synthetic approach and observation.
All extremism is by its very nature bound to create a reaction in the opposite direction. This has been called the dialectic movement of thought by Hegel. An extremistic assertion is compelled by the dialectic of its nature to pass into its opposite. The purely monistic outlook as exemplified in the aforesaid approach and angle of vision finds itself confronted by its diametrically opposite point of view, which is called Vyavahra Naya-the analytic and particularistic approach. The exclusively synthetic approach culminates in positing pure being as the only reality. But pure being is equivalent to non-being because both of them have no character and are as such indistinguishable. It may sound paradoxical that being and non-being should be regarded as identical. But the paradox will disappear if one calmly reflects on both. It is generally supposed that pure being represents plenitude and non-being stands for absolute poverty. But both are abstractions, pure and simple. And when one thinks that being is something positive and affirmative as opposed to the negativity of non-being, one has before ones mind the idea of some concrete real. A pure universal is only an empty idea, if it is divorced from concrete facts of experience. V experience is always a concrete individual and the so-called universal is only an ideal abstraction. Whatever has no individuality of its own is a chimera. The sky-flower, a barren womans son, a mares nest are only names. They are never perceived by anybody. It is only individuals-say a pen, a table, a jar, a coatèthat we happen to observe
YUR
Moreover, the criterion of reality is found in causal efficiency. A universal ex hypothesi has no causal efficiency. It is the individual cow that yields milk and not the so-called cowhood. It is the pen that writes and not penhood. The so-called universals are only hypostatized concepts which pass for reals only because the mental inertia of the average man prevents him from the labour of judging their worth. Not only the verdict of experience is against these universals but also logic confutes their reality. Is the universal different from the particulars or identical with them ?
If it be identical, then it becomes the individual only, and if it be different, it transpires to be an illusory fiction just like the asss horn. A universal unrelated to individuals is a mere name. What is the tree-universal apart from the trees ? If it be different from the particular trees, it will be the negation of the tree and so, like the jar or pen, will cease to have any connection with the tree. No honest thinker can think of a real tree which is not the oak or the mango or the teak etc. Experience is the proof of existence of a thing, and not pure thought. A universal as such is an unperceived fact.
THAT YFU -41E, 2004
A
97
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
