Vaishali Institute Research Bulletin 1

Author(s): Nathmal Tatia
Publisher: Research Institute of Prakrit Jainology & Ahimsa Mujjaffarpur

Page 20

INTRODUCTION
are alleged to be cases of inference without minor premiss. But these are not cases of the lack of minor premiss. The relation of the child with the parents is the decisive factor. The religion of the parents determines that of the child on the ground that the child is the progeny and inheritor of the parents' religious persuasion. If the parents are not related to the child it will be a case of non-sequitur,
9
Dharmakirti's influence on the development of Indian logic and philosophy is unchallangeable. The inductive logic of John Stuart Mill also banks upon causality. Dharmakirti's formulation of essential identity (svabhava) is a striking illustration of his or his predecessor's genius. It lays unerringly its finger on the logical basis of arithmetical and geometrical deductions.
The affinities of Jaina's speculations with those of Dharmakirti deserve to be worked out by patient researches. Fortunately we belong to a scientific age which cares for the discovery of truth more than communal triumph regardless of facts. It will be a bad day for science and philosophy if religious bias or political interests are allowed to subdue the disinterested pursuit of truth which has enabled science to score unexpected triumphs. Dharmakirti's refutation of a unitary universal objectively inherent in each and every individaul of a class has divided philosophers in India into two warring groups, namely, realists and nominalists. The Jaina also does not believe in unitary universal. The universal according to him is only the development of similarity among individuals. But objectively this similarity is inherent in each individual. Thus the conception of common character underlying a number of individuals is nothing better than a subjective construction This might have been differently interpreted by the Jainas in conformity with their law of Anekanta which reconciles one and many without logical contradiction. The contention that a real is the unity of general and particular, individual and universal, thus loses much force. It is only in the individual substance that the law is found to operate on an objective basis. The position of the Mīmāmsist and that of Samkhya philosopher in the material plane are more faithful to the law of Anekanta. The Buddhist is a believer in unrelieved pluralism and the Jaina philosopher has not been able to transcend this pluralistic conception. It is individual substances according to the latter which are objective reals. But each of them stands in its solitary majesty.
Dharmakirti denies objective relation among individuals, homogeneous or heterogeneous. The Jaina also affirms that there is no objective relation running through the individuals. There is the concep