________________
The synthetic unity among the particulars of a class, which renders classification possible, cannot be ignored. But the absolute identity of the universals in different individuals is not endorsed by Jaina philosophers. The universal is an empirical concept and must be given a status in the scheme of reality. The close resemblance of the individuals of a class is too pronounced and patents a fact to be dismissed without incurring the charge of infidelity to experience.
Now the particularistic approach which takes delight in the analysis of a real into particular components cannot stop short at the substantive individuals. And if the individual be regarded as an enduring and abiding entity persisting through the past, present and future, it amounts to the assertion of a universal in another way. The past is defunct and the future is unborn. And if experience be the proof of the existence of a thing, the past and the future existence of a fact must be rejected as unreal perceive is the present, and so it is the present that can be real. Furthermore, the past has no causal efficiency and so also the future. The real tree is the present one which exercises causal efficiency. The past tree does not serve any purpose or give any advantage or disadvantage. So logical consistency demands that we should regard only that as real which is existent in the present moment. This line of argument has been pursued by the Buddhist who declares all reals to be momentary in duration.
This approach has been called Rjusūtra Naya, that is, the approach which gives the straight and direct glimpse of the thing. The p real character of the individual. The past find future determinations are as alien to it as the character of other entities.
The advocate of the next Naya goes one step further in the process of particularization. He agrees with the assertion that the present alone is real. But as the real is expressed and characterized by a word, and words are significant and not unmeaning symbols, the real must be understood in the light of the connotation of the term used for it. Each term designates an action, being derived from a verbal root and it is this action which stamps the fact meant with its distinctive character. And so the word ghata. (a jar), which is derived from the ghat to exert, stands for the thing which is capable of action viz drawing water etc. This is the case with all words. The king is one who is possessed of sovereign power. If a man is called by the name King, it has not the meaning of the word king. Similarly the portrait or the statue of a man is loosely identified with the man. The heir-apparent to the throne is addressed by the sycophants Your Majesty. These are all unmeaning expressions because they do not possess the function which the word cannotes. This emphasis on function constitutes the difference of this Naya from the previous one.
98
D
-
Jet 4511 310 123
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
