World of Philosophy

Author(s): Christopher Key Chapple, Intaj Malek, Dilip Charan, Sunanda Shastri, Prashant Dave
Publisher: Shanti Prakashan

Page 839

fundamental differences in their nature i.e. that between the conscious and the unconscious, a dualism between the psychical and unpsychical realities is to be accepted. In view, again, of their exclusiveness af each other the material atoms, time, etc. are reals, as held by the Nyāya-Vaišesikas. The difference, between the three views about the ultimate reality is, thus a difference of stand-points (nayas) only. In anekāntavāda, the validity is attached to the views of the three schools to some extent and their mutual oppositions are avoided.33
34
Advaita Vedāntins, hold that, changes, modes or forms are unreal while the Nyāya-Vaisesikas state that modifications are real. The Jainas reconcile these two opposite views by stating that a mode is real as well as unreal. A mode is the form in which the substance is presented, it is real in this sense. It is unreal because, it has no existence, apart from its underlying substance. Thus, it is real in certain respects and that it is unreal also in certain respects.
The attitutde of Vedānta and Sankhya philosophy and that of Buddhist towards soul is that of eternalism and non-eternalism respectively. Eternalism claims that, soul is absolutely eternal, thus it is never tied to wheel of samsāra, while non-eternalism states that soul is absolutely transcient -unreal. Both these views are partially true and can be reconciled on the basis of doctrine of relativity. The soul is eternal, never changing from the view-point of substance and it is everchanging, non-eternal on the ground of modification point of view. Viewed from the transcendental stand-point, it is unchanged, but viewed from the phenomenal point of view, it is chained. In its own nature it is real, but as matter it is unreal. It is one from the stand point of ātmatva. It is many from the point of view of samsāra. If ātman be exclusively eternal, the experience of happiness and misery, will be impossible. For, to be eternal means to be unchangable, and there cannot be experiences of pain and pleasure one after another unless ātman could pass (or change) from one state to another. Again, merits and demerits, liberation and bondage are, not possible. Similarly absolute non-eternality of ātman is untenable. If ātman is absolutely non-eternal, everchanging, then, it means an end to the law of retribution which requires personal identity of doer and enjoyer. Again merits and demerits, bondage and liberation become meaningless.35 So, ātman is eternal with change. We have to accept pariņāminityatva of atman — the doctrine of identity-in-change, of unity-in-difference, of one-in-many.
790