পাতা:পৃথিবীর ইতিহাস - ষষ্ঠ খণ্ড (দুর্গাদাস লাহিড়ী).pdf/২৪৬

२.७४ ।। ভারতবর্ষ। DD DS DDBS BBBB BBBDDDS DDDDD DDDD DB BBB BBBBBS DDDDDS তর্কবাদ এই কারণেই শিক্ষা দেয়,—চিস্তায় পার্থক্য আছেই, আর সে পার্থক্য ভিন্ন চিন্তার jar is what it is, because it serves certain purpose, has certain shape, certain colour &c'. These different ideas constituting one whole is what we know as the jar. May it not be said then that this whole of the different ideas is what it is only by virtue of some thing or some other which is its negative 7 For if we try to hold this commonpface whole of ideas to the exclusion of its negative, if we try to hold it to itself it disappears, “We submit, therefore, that such a remark as made by Sankara is due to his gross misunderstanding of the dialectic principle of our reasoning. For, as we interpret and use the principle it is all right. We, the Jains, hold that every thought or being is only in relation to the fourfold nature of itself. But is not in relation to the fourfold nature of the other (*xfooto otoid atsu 5) : for instance, the jar when it is thought in relation to ( i ) its own constituent substanceearth ; (ii) its own locality of existence in space—Calcutta ; (iii) its own period of coming into existence in time—Summer ; and (iv) its own mode of existence as revealed in its colour (red or the like ) and capacity for containing and carrying such and such quantity of water, the jar is said to exist, i.e. only in relation and particular combination of the fourfold nature of itself known techincally as Svachatustaya, the jar is (*fo ), and has the nature and character of being (*). But when thought of in relation and particular combination of the fourfold elements, wig, constituent substance, locality, period and mode ( RJoãotosef; ) as belonging to the other, say, the picture, the jar is not ( affs ) and is of the nature of non-being (****). Thus the picture is the negation of the jar and viceversa the jar is the negation of the picture. Everything is in relation only to the fourfold elements of itself but is not in relation only to the fourfold elements belonging to the other. If it were, otherwise, were everything said to exist in either relation of itself as well as of the other, then every thought and being, making up this our universe would have been transformed into one uniform homogeneous whole ; then light and darkness, knowledge and ne-science, being and non-being, unity and plurality, eternity and non-eternity, knowledge and the means thereof, all that go in pairs of opposites, and the like must needs be one homogeneous mass, so to speak, of one uniform nature and character without any difference and distinction between one and the other or between the parts of one and the same thing. But such homogeneity of nature and character in things all round us is contradicted by our sense perceptica which reveals but differences and diversities in things and realities. "*al now to turn the table, when you, Shankar, say ‘B3ing is B ahman', you must