Comparative Study Of Jaina Theories Of Reality And Knowledge

Author(s): Y J Padmarajaiah
Publisher: Jain Sahitya Vikas Mandal
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/022768/1

Page #1

COO
A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
by
The Late Dr. Y. J. PADMARAJIAH
M.A., D. Phil. (Oxon.)
with a preface by
Dr. E. Frauwallner Indological Institute of the University of Vienna
54F4F4F4455195555555555555555555697955569959569749595951454545454545
JAIN SAHITYA VIKAS MANDAL
Bombay 56

Page #2

Rs. 15 (Indian)
Sh. 20 (Foreign)

Page #3

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE

Page #4


Page #5

A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
[Thesis submitted for D. Phil. Degree, Oxford University, 1954 ]
by
The Late Dr. Y. J. PADMARAJIAH
M. A., D. Phil. (Oxon.) Mysore, India
with a preface by
Dr. E. Frauwallner Indological Institute of the University of Vienna,
Austria, Europe
Published by
JAIN SAHITYA VIKAS MANDAL 112, Ghodbunder Road, Vile Parle
BOMBAY 56

Page #6

Publisher :
R. A. Doshi, Member Executive Council Jain Sahitya Vikas Mandal 112, Ghodbunder Road Vile Parle, Bombay 56
July 1963
Price: Rs. 15/- (Inland)
Sh. 20/- (Foreign)
Printer :
V. P. Bhagwat Mouj Printing Bureau Khatau Wadi Bombay 4

Page #7

PUBLISHER'S NOTE
The following asgs fostatin al bosthumous work of Dr. Y. J. Padinarajiah, M. A., D.Philfokon.), Mysore, India.
He was awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the University of Oxford early in the year 1955 for the thesis entitled A Comparative Study of the Jaina Theories of Reality and Knowledge which is published herein after purchasing the rights thereof from his widow. Although the work is mainly Jaina Philosophy, it includes treatment of many other schools of Indian Philosophy, as well as consideration of Western Philosophical theories where these have a bearing on the subject of the thesis. It displays a wide competence in all these various branches of Philosophy and it was reported on very favourably by the examiners.
His subject is the interpretation of Jaina Logic and Epistemology from the standpoint of modern ideas on these subjects. He is excellently equipped for the task. He has an exceptionally thorough knowledge of Jainism, such as can be acquired only by one brought up in it and a knowledge of Sanskrit and Prakrit which enables him to handle the original texts with ease. The thesis demonstrates that he is a keen and diligent student of Indological subjects. The work has, therefore, been an important contribution to the study of Indian Philosophy.

Page #8

vi
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
We approached Dr. E. Frauwallner through Muni Shri Jamboovijayaji to oblige us with a preface to this work. The same is received and is annexed hereto. We take this opportunity to thank Dr. E. Frauwallner.
Opinions of some of the renowned men with whom the author came in contact during his life-time are appended herewith.
JYOT, 102, Ghodbunder Road, Vile Parle, Bombay 56 A. S.
Jain Sahitya Vikas Mandal A. K. DOSHI
President

Page #9

The Late Dr. Y. J. Padmarajiah
M.A., D. Phil. (Oxon.) Mysore, India

Page #10

VICE-PRESIDENT
IN DIA
NEW DELHI 12 February, 1955
Dear Padrarajiah
I am delighted to know that you have obtained a D.. Phil.degree from Oxford. Ifan also delighted that your examiners recommended the publication of your book. But I may r you that books of this chararter do not sell well and their publication is to be undertaken by a subsidy. There ar. somo Jain publishing houses who might be interested in the project: With best wishes,
Yours sincerely, nache (S.Radhakrishnan).
Shri 1.J.Padmarajiah, c/o 28 Cockspur Street, London, s.w.1.

Page #11

OPINIONS
The late Prof. M. Hiriyanna, the great author of Outlines of Indian Philosophy and other works, reporting on Dr. Y. J. Padmarajiah's earlier research work (of considerable size and produced for the Master of Arts Degree in Philosophy) on The Concept of Time, observed : “... ... I think the thesis is very good. It is comprehensive, and gives an excellent conspectus of the theories of time held in the West, not excluding the difficult one of Einstein. But the thesis is not a bare account of these theories. It is also critical and comparative ........ The thesis is written throughout in a simple and lucid style, and it shows that the candidate has studied the subject with care and understanding."
Dr. Padmarajiah extended his investigation of the above subject (The Concept of Time), in some measure, into the field of Indian Philosophy (vide his paper on "The Theory of Time in Jainism” to the Indian Philosophical Congress, 1945, published subsequently in the Journal of the Mysore University, Sec. A, 1947).
The late Mr. H. N. Spalding, M. A. (Oxon.), Bar-at-Law, author; the founder of the Spalding Chair of Eastern Religions and Ethics (which was first occupied by Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, D.C.L. (Oxon.), D. Litt. (Cantab.), etc.) at Oxford University ; and also the founder of a Committee for a World Bible (aimed at comprising the most exalted expressions of the religious yearnings of all the significant religions of the world) of which Dr. Y. J. Padmarajiah was a member.

Page #12

viii
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
9, SOUTH PARKS ROAD
OXFORD
9TH JUNE, 1950 “......I think very highly of Mr. Padmarajiah as a man, and I should suppose as a scholar. The Acting Principal of his College tells me that he is an unusually thoughtful man. Younger men tell me that he explains some of the Sanskrit psalms and music, as well as some of the great works of Indian literature to them in extremely clear and concise terms. They speak of him as a very fine man. Judging from all that I know of him, I share their opinion."
Sd/- H. N. SPALDING Member of New College and
Brasenose College, Oxford; Author of Civilization in East and West;
Barrister-at-Law
The late Prof. S. N. Dasgupta, M. A., Ph.D. (Calcutta et Cantab), D. Litt. (hon. Rome), F. R. S. L., I. E. S., The King George Professor of Philosophy (Rtd.), Calcutta University; Principal (Rtd.), Sanskrit College, Calcutta; author of the History of Indian Philosophy (4 Vols.) and many other works-who knew Dr. Y. J. Padmarajiah and his work in the early stages of research in England, wrote:
AUGUST 10, 1950 "He (Y.J. Padmarajiah) is a very intelligent scholar and has acquired a good deal of mastery over the dialectical thought in the sphere of his research. When completed his work will be, I believe, an important performance in the field of comparative philosophy........So far as I know there is no important work in the branch of research as envisaged in the present study of Padmarajiah".
Sd/- S. N. DASGUPTA

Page #13

OPINIONS
ix
Expressing the same opinion in a slightly variant form and with some additions, on other occasion, the same great authority on Indian Philosophy observes :
“Padmarajiah has been carrying researches, at Oxford, in an important branch of Comparative Philosophy in association with the allied trends of Indian and Western thought. He was, in the course of his studies, with me for about three months during the summer of 1949 when he read with me some of the most abstruse texts and I devoted no less than three or four hours a day in elucidating the discussing problems of his work. He is a very intelligent student having a full grasp of his materials. ......he will be able to produce a really effective work on a relatively unexplored subject in the field of comparative philosophy under his present Supervisor, Dr. F. W. Thomas.”
Sd/- S. N. DASGUPTA
Dr. A. L. Basham, B. A. (Lond.), Ph. D. (Lond.), Reader in Indian History in the University of London, and the author of a well-known work on Ājivikism as well as of the recent one : The Glory that was Ind, sponsoring Dr. Y. J. Padmarajiah's work : A Comparative Study of the Jaina Theories of Reality and Knowledge (for which Oxford University awarded to the candidate the degree of Doctor of Philosophy) to one of the foremost publishing concerns in England writes :
SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL &
AFRICAN STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
LONDON, W. C. 1 31st MARCH 1955
Dear Doctor,
The enclosed thesis is a work of major importance in the field of Indian Philosophy and I would strongly recommend

Page #14

X
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
its publication. I have been in contact with the author for the past four years, and can vouch for his scholarship and ability. The subject is one which has hitherto been very little studied and a standard textbook is badly needed. Dr. Padmarajiah's work would admirably meet the need.
Yours sincerely, Sd/- A. L. BASHAM
Giving further expression to his opinion on Dr. Y. J. Padmarajiah and his work Dr. A. L. Basham again writes:
SCHOOL OF ORIENTAL & AFRICAN STUDIES
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON
LONDON, W. C. 1 31ST MARCH 1955
"To whom it may concern"
I have known Dr. Y. J. Padmarajiah for the past four years, in the course of which I have followed with great interest his research in Ancient Indian Philosophy. I have read his thesis, and am convinced it is a work of major importance and very sound scholarship.
Dr. Padmarajiah is a man of very pleasant and sincere personality and I have no doubt that he will bring honour to any University in which he serves. I unhesitatingly recommend his appointment to an academic post......to which he is suited.
Sd/- A. L. BASHAM Reader in Indian History

Page #15

PREFACE
An important point in the external history of Indian Philosophy which still remains unexplained to a great extent is the relationship between the various systems and schools. This may be due in part to the tradition of the texts the insufficiency of which does not allow us to see more clearly. Nevertheless it is striking how often important ideas and even whole systems are not being noticed beyond the limits of the own school.
Looking at things in general we may say that we encounter constructive discussion with opponent theories especially when there were different opinions on a certain subject, as for example on the problem of generality (sāmānyam) as the object of verbal cognition, or on the details of the act of cognition in the case of perception. Yet these are cases where the interest is concerned less with the opponent's theory as such but rather with the elucidation and defence of the own theory by discussing it with the opponent.
The discussion moves farther in the opponent's field if the topic is one of the fundamental theories of the other system. Of such kind are in the discussion with the Buddhists, for instance, the argument about the existence or non-existence of a soul, or with the Nyāya the problem of the existence of a supreme god. Very seldom the heterogeneous system is considered in its totality and if it happens the rendering of this system is usually not more than a rough

Page #16

xii
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
description and the polemics more often than not repeat the traditional arguments only. An appreciative investigation of another system of thought is almost not to be found and it is the most important and profound philosophical ideas particularly which remain unregarded in these polemics.
The same can be said with regard to doxographic works. A glance into the well-known Sarvadarśanasaṁgrahaḥ of Sāyana Mādhava sufficiently proves this. It is natural that Sāyana Madhava deals scantily with the old Buddhist systems, which at his time had lost their importance long ago. But from his book one does not get an idea of the philosophical importance of an Utpaladeva or even Rāmānuja either. Generally we can state that many of the most important philosophers of ancient India would be completely unknown or only very inadequately known if we merely knew them through the records of other schools and systems.
This holds good in a high degree in the case of Jinism. During the whole period of Indian philosophy Jinism has not been attended to very much by the other systems. Whatever the causes for this neglection might have been-the history of Jinism during this time is still a potential object of thorough research--the facts are, that schools like the Nyāya or the Mīmāṁsā hardly mention Jinism in their polemics. It is only since the time of Akalanka that the Buddhists pay more attention to Jinism. And it is actually striking when an author like śāntarakṣita in his Tattvasangrahah is quoting and refuting the opinions of single Jaina teachers. This is even more astonishing since the literature of the Jainas on the other hand is extensively occupied with other schools and systems.

Page #17

PREFACE
xiii
One is almost inclined to think of a continuation of this traditional fact finding Jinism likewise inadequately dealt with in modern descriptions of Indian philosophy. As an example I only refer to the extensive history of Indian philosophy by S. Dasgupta. And even in more detailed descriptions of Jinism like the well-known book by H. V. Glasenapp the philosophical import is of no account.
Under these circumstances it is to be feared that Jinism is not being adequately considered in the present-day endeavours of establishing a relationship between Indian and Western philosophy. From this point of view efforts like the present book are desirable and welcome. As the object of his investigation the author has aptly chosen those theories, which are of fundamental importance for the philosophical thought of Jinism. He arranges them according to clear aspects, comparing them with other Indian systems and similar phenomena of Western philosophy and thereby trying to clarify the connections. Thus his book offers plenty of suggestions and it is to be wished that it might help to introduce the valuable ideas contained in Jinism to the philosophical discussion of to-day.
Indologisches Institut
der Universitat Wien Wien 1, Reitschulgasse 2
E. FRAUWALLNER

Page #18


Page #19

CONTENTS
PAGE
PUBLISHER'S NOTE OPINIONS PREFACE
11
29
INTRODUCTION .. ABSTRACT PART I : ONTOLOGY (The Nature of Reality) CHAPTER I : A Preliminary Statement of an Im
portant Vedāntic and Buddhistic Objection against the Jaina View of Reality, leading to the Formulation of Five Types of
Approach to the Problem of Reality .. CHAPTER II : A Study in Contrasts : A. The
Philosophy of Identity (or Being); B. The Philosophy of Difference (Becoming or
Change) .. ... CHAPTER III : The Schools of Philosophy in which
Identity Subordinates Difference : A. The Sānkhya System; B. The Bhedābheda Systems of (i) Bhartsprapañca, (ii) Bhāskara and Yādavaprakāśa, (iii) Nimbărka, (iv)
Rāmānuja; C. Hegelianism .. .. CHAPTER IV : The Schools of Philosophy in which
Difference Subordinates Identity : A. The Vaišeșika System; B. The Dvaita System
(of Madhva) .. .. .. CHAPTER V : The Jaina Philosophy of Identity-in
Difference in which Identity is Co-ordinate with Difference
59
105
121

Page #20

xvi
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
183
203
247
CHAPTER VI : The Externalistic Doctrine of Iden
tity-in-Difference (Ubhayavāda) versus the Doctrine of a Unique and Integral Synthesis
of Identity-in-Difference (Jātyantaravāda) CHAPTER VII : Is Relation an Entity, or a Mental
Construction, or a Structural Manifestation
of Identity-in-Difference in Reality ? .. CHAPTER VIII : A Consideration of Two Contro
versies Concerning Dravya and Guņa (and/or Paryāya) with a view to Clarifying the Nature of Both : (1) How far could a Dravya be treated as a Concrete Universal ? (2) Are Guņas the Same as, or Different
from, Paryāyas? .. .. PART II : EPISTEMOLOGY : A. ANEKĀNTA
VĀDA, the Theory of Manifoldness, the Most Consistent Theory of Realism; B. NAYAVADA, the Theory of Standpoints; C. SYADVADA, or Saptabhangi, the Dialectic
of Conditional or Sevenfold Predication .. CHAPTER IX : Anekāntavāda or the Theory of
Manifoldness .. .. .. CHAPTER X : Nayavāda or the Theory of
Standpoints .. .. CHAPTER XI : Syadvāda or the Dialectic of
Conditional Predication CONCLUSION .. BIBLIOGRAPHY ... INDEXES I (A) : Index to Works Mentioned in the
Bibliography (in abbreviated) form I (B) : Index to Other Works .. II : Index to Names of Authors, &c. .. III : Index to the Philosophical Sects and
Tenets &c. IV : Index to Sanskrit and Prakrit Words ..
269
271
301
331 379 383 393
393 396 400
406
409

Page #21

INTRODUCTION
Constructive thinking thrives on vigorous criticism. The most formidable critical force ever directed against the schools of Brahminism and Jainism was Buddhism. After the disappearance of Buddhism from the scene of India, metaphysical thinking in the Brahminical and the Jaina schools became
stagnant.
In the last few decades, however, a new life has stirred in the philosophical circles of India—thanks to the impact of Western ideas, philosophical and scientific, on the traditional patterns of thinking and study. One of the forms this life has taken is the desire to understand where the Indian and the Western trends of philosophical thought meet, and where they part. Concurrently the interrelations of ideas among the Indian schools themselves have been subjected to intensive investigation. In other words, the method of comparative study which springs from the extended bounds of our philosophical knowledge, is gradually gaining ground, often unwittingly, as an important organ of investigation. A closer investigation of problems on comparative lines may reveal deeper affinities as well as sharper divergences, in these fields of study, than hitherto suspected.
In pursuing the comparative method of investigation it is necessary to be on one's guard against superficial and misleading resemblances among ideas. One should bear in mind

Page #22

2
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
that the ideas nurtured in one mental soil do not easily lend themselves to comparison with the ideas springing from a different mental soil. But this thought should not deter the seeker from his efforts. He should remember that despite their alien circumstances Sankara and Hegel (or more particularly F. H. Bradley) have, between them, more in common than Sankara and Kumārila on the one hand and Hegel (or Bradley) and Bertrand Russell on the other.
The present comparative study has been undertaken with the awareness of these difficulties. The problems selected for study are of a fundamental character and have not been treated, at any rate in recent times, by the same methods as are adopted here, nor have they been discussed in such detail.
Except in the course of a brief lecture by an Indian scholar, the important problem of relation (sambandha) has not as yet been treated by any writer. A similar neglect is shown in the case of the central problem of identity-in-difference which occupies the major portion of the first part of this study. Topics such as causal efficiency (arthakriyākāritvam), the concept of uniqueness (jātyantaratva), the dialectical implications of the doctrine of manifoldness (anekāntavāda), and the interrelatedness of anekāntavāda, nayavāda and syādvāda have not received the attention they deserve from the exponents of Indian philosophy. All this can be traced to the fact that Jainism in general and the Jaina philosophy in particular have been a neglected branch of the Indian studies. The present work has been undertaken to fill, in some measure, the gap created by prolonged neglect.

Page #23

INTRODUCTION
The scope of the subject-matter of the present study has been given in the text itself. A few remarks may, however, be made here about its nature and limitations :
This work presupposes a broad familiarity with the philosophical position of Jainism as given, for instance, in J. L. Jaini's Outlines of Jainism, or in A. Chakravarti's introduction to his edition of Kundakunda's Pañcâstikāya sāra, or in any of the historical works on Indian philosophy.
No references have been made, except incidentally, to the Jaina canonical works. This is mainly due to the fact that many of the well-developed metaphysical ideas are a product of the post-canonical period although some basic ideas such as that reality is of the nature of permanence and change are found in an embryonic form in the canonical texts. Moreover, some scholars have already brought out a few works on the canonical section of Jaina literature. Amongst these the most notable are: W. Schübring's Die Lehre der Jainas, A. Weber's Sacred Literature of the Jainas (E. T. by H. W. Smith in Indian Antiquary, 1888-1892), and N. Tatia's Studies in Jaina Philosophy, and, above all, Vijayarājendra's Abhidhānarājendra, a massive canonical lexicon (in Jaina Prakrit, 7 vols.), and Ratnacandra's Ardha-Māgadhi Dictionary (5 vols.).
The epistemological part of this study has confined itself mainly to the treatment of the methods of knowledge. Further epistemological problems, such as the 'ways of knowing' (pramāṇas) and the various issues connected with them, could not be discussed within the limits of this work.

Page #24

JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Owing to the nature of the subject-matter no strict adherence to chronology has been possible. The sequence in which the names of the various thinkers and their ideas occur has been governed by logical considerations.
Discussions on Buddhistic ideas have been restricted, mainly, to the development of Buddhism in India.
The system of diacritical marks adopted in the course of this work is that of the Royal Asiatic Society.
A few footnotes have been rather lengthy because they deal with some basic notions (e. g., continuity, relativity and divisibility) which call for a somewhat elaborate treatment. The inclusion of this matter in the body of the main text would have introduced needless complication into the discussion of the main arguments in the text. Moreover any serious curtailment in their length would, it was felt, affect the requirements of clarity and proper documentation of the text.
In presenting the ideas of some kārikās and the gathas a compromise has been adopted between a too literal translation and very free rendering into English.
In conclusion, the writer wishes to express his gratitude to Prof. T. Burrow, Prof. S. Radhakrishnan and Dr. F. W. Thomas, for the able guidance and constant encouragement he received from them while preparing this work. He is also grateful for the help accorded him by the authorities of the following libraries : The Old Bodleian, Oxford; The Library of the Indian Institute, Oxford; The Library of the School of Oriental and African Studies, London; The Library of the Commonwealth Relations Office, London; and The British Museum Library, London.

Page #25

ABSTRACT
The ontological section (Pt. I) of this study begins with a search for a balanced view of reality in which the elements of identity (abheda) and difference (bheda) would find their due place. The search results in the formulation of a scheme involving five possible approaches to the problem of reality. Four of them, viz., reality is (i) mere identity, (ii) mere difference, (iii) identity-in-difference in which identity predominates, and (iv) identity-in-difference in which difference predominates, are examined with various illustrations and found wanting as adequate explanations of our total ontological experience. The last approach, (v) a coordinate view of identity-in-difference, put forward by the Jaina thinkers, is found to meet the requirements of a satisfactory explanation. This view is, then, further examined and the validity of its approach confirmed from the philosophical views of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, Immanuel Kant, and A. N. Whitehead.
Next, certain flaws (doṣas), alleged to exist in the Jaina view, are enumerated, analysed and refuted individually. The critics' unfamiliarity with, or misapprehension of, the nature and significance of negation in the Jaina view of reality is shown to be at the back of their objections. Another misapprehension on the part of certain critics takes, it is pointed out, the form of confusing the Jaina view with a 'mixed' theory (miśravāda) in which identity and difference remain extrane

Page #26

6
ous to each other. In the course of clearing up this confusion the integral and the unique (jatyantara) features of the coordinate synthesis of identity-in-difference are brought out.
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
There follows a discussion of two aspects of reality, viz., the relational structure and causal efficiency (arthakriyākāritvam). It is shown that these, like other aspects of reality, can exist and function only within the ontological framework of a co-ordinate identity-in-difference.
An attempt (i) to determine the meaning and content of the notion of dravya' (substance) and (ii) to distinguish between the two concepts of guna (intrinsic attribute) and paryāya (extrinsic attribute) concludes Part One of this work. It should be added that several notions such as relativity or interrelatedness, continuity (and the allied notions of compactness and cons ecutiveness), divisibility and negation (apoha) have been touched upon, in appropriate places, in the course of this part.
The epistemological section (Pt. II) endeavours to present an analytical account and a critical estimation of the methods of knowledge, recognised by the Jaina thinkers, under the characteristic doctrines of standpoints and of conditional predications (nayavada and syādvāda). The presentation of these methods is, however, preceded by an investigation into the nature and the logical evolution of the theory of manifoldness (anekāntavāda) because this theory is the basis of the methods just referred to. The analysis reveals that the principle of distinction inherent in the logic of any realistic school of philosophy, has been given full play in the

Page #27

ABSTRACT
development of this theory of manifoldness. Hence the claim that it represents the most consistent form of realism in Indian metaphysics. It is sought to justify this claim through the postulation of the various logical steps, the last one of which, it is maintained, represents the climax of the realistic procedure.
Finally the analytical method of standpoints (nayavāda) and the synthetical method of conditional or seven-fold predication (syädvāda or saptabhangi) have been dealt with at some length. They are shown to constitute a comprehensive scheme of complementary methods designed to help the mind in grasping the indeterminate nature of reality in its unity as well as in its diversity. Each method has been individually treated under the scheme of these cognitive instruments and a critical evaluation of the two doctrines has been offered at the end of the chapters concerned. The essential implications of some of the more important notions such as syāt (a conditional particle) and avaktavyam (the inexpressible) have also been touched upon in their appropriate contexts.
The work has aimed throughout at a comparative treatment of the problems. Effort has been made to avoid strained and far-fetched comparisons and contrasts and to treat criticisms and controversies in a constructive spirit.

Page #28


Page #29

PART 1
ONTOLOGY (The Nature of Reality)

Page #30


Page #31

CHAPTER I
A Preliminary Statement of an Important Vedāntic and Buddhistic Objection against the Jaina View of Reality, leading to the Formulation of Five Types of Approach to the Problem of Reality

Page #32


Page #33

CHAPTER I
An Objection Stated, and a Scheme of Five Types of Approach to the Problem of the Nature of Reality Formulated.
The present study aims at a critical and comparative exposition of certain ontological and epistemological problems centering round the most fundamental metaphysical presupposition of identity-in-difference in Jaina philosophy. It will be divided into two parts: Ontology (Part I) and Epistemology (Part II). The first part will comprise eight chapters in the course of which a critical examination will be undertaken, of the various non-Jaina schools—not excluding a few striking trends of Western schools—of philosophy, as well as of the Jaina school, from the point of view of the problem of the nature of reality as identity-in-difference. The latter part will include three chapters which contain, essentially, a treatment of some topics which have a bearing on the modes or methods of valid knowledge in Jaina philosophy. These topics are the doctrines of manifoldness (anekāntavāda), standpoints (nayavāda), and the dialectic of conditional predications (syādvāda).
A firm grasp of the Jaina view of reality as identityin-difference can follow only when it is distinguished from the other views. We see among these other views several types : one of these types recognises mere identity as the

Page #34

14
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
ultimate nature of reality; another accords this status to difference; the third type treats identity-in-difference as the ultimate reality but considers identity as more primary than difference, while the fourth one adopts the converse viewpoint; and, lastly, the fifth type, represented by the Jaina view, considers identity and difference as being necessarily co-ordinate, or equal, elements in reality. Together, these types, each of which represents a basically distinctive viewpoint, give rise to a scheme of five-fold classification which will be referred to towards the end of this chapter.
Starting with an important objection made against the Jaina view of identity-in-difference by the Vedāntic and Buddhist thinkers, we shall, in the course of the present chapter, be led to a preliminary review of the basic metaphysical viewpoints of the two schools, and, eventually, to a formulation of the five-fold classification just referred to. A somewhat elaborate examination of these two schools as well as of several others—all of which come within the range of the five-fold classification-will then be attempted in the course of the following five chapters. In the course of this procedure a number of issues, connected with the development of the main problem of reality, will inevitably arise. They will also be touched upon according to their degree of relevance and importance in the present study.
Granting, for the moment, the validity of the Jaina conception of identity-in-difference, and equating this conception to that of being-cum-non-being—these and similar other equivalent concepts and epithets will be fully explained in their appropriate places, we may begin with the statement of the Vedāntic objection.

Page #35

CHAPTER I
ER I
.
15
The objection'runs as follows :
"On account of the impossibility (of contradictory attributes) in one thing, (the Jaina doctrine is) not (to be accepted)” (naikasminnasambhavāt).
Commenting on this aphorism of Bādarāyaṇa, śankara maintains that “...... it is impossible that contradictory attributes such as being and non-being should at the same time belong to one and the same thing; just as observation teaches us that a thing cannot be hot and cold at the same moment." This charge of contradiction is made from the point of view of the philosopher of being or identity which has reached its logical perfection-or rather its extreme—in the metaphysics of Sankara. The monistic foreshadowings of the Upanişadic real have been forged with
1. SBE, Vol. XXXIV, p. 428. See also BBSB, p. 127, the Vārtikam
and the Pradīpah in BSB, p. 597 f., as well as the Bhāşyabhāvaprakāśikā (by Citsukhamunim), printed at the end in the same work, p. 61, Prakațārthavivaranam (author unknown, ed. T. R. Chintamani, Madras University, 1935), Vol. I, p. 447 f., Bhāmati (by Vācaspati Miśra, Kāshi Sam. Series, 1935), p. 291 f., and Ratnaprabhā (by Govindananda in the Aphorisms of the Vedānta, ed. R. N. Vidyāratna, Bib. Ind., 1863), Vol. I, pp. 583-84.
SBE, Vol. XXXIV, p. 429. 3. Cf: eko devaḥ sarvabhūteşu gūdhah sarvavyāpī sarvabhūtān
tarātmā / svetāśvatara, VI. 11. (The Twelve Principal Upanişads, TPH, Madras, 1931, Vol. I, p. 308.) tatra ko mohaḥ kaḥ śoka ekatvam anupaśyataḥ / iša, 7, ibid., p. 8. īsā vāsyam idaṁ sarvam / Ibid., 1, p. 5. Although such utterances signify the primary reality of a unitary principle they are not to be understood as signifying the unreality or illusoriness of the world as was done by sankara and his followers. See also the following f.n.

Page #36

16
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
a radical transformation into an identity-ridden (sattādvaita) ontological and logical scheme at the hands of Sankara and his followers, who have reinforced the dialectical strength of their master. It is difficult to maintain that the Upanişads
1. The transformation relates, among other things, to two im
portant issues, viz., (a) imposing on the earlier Vedānta a twoplane reality (nirgunabrahman, indeterminate absolute, and sagunabrahman, determinate absolute, or iśvara), and a corresponding two-plane truth (parāvidyā or 'higher knowledge' and aparāvidyā or 'lower knowledge'). Thibaut says, in this connection : "If we have not to discriminate between a lower and a higher knowledge of Brahman, it follows that the distinction of a lower and higher Brahman is likewise not valid”. SBE, Vol. XXXIV, p. XCI); and (b) substituting vivartavāda (the theory of illusory world), in which the effect is unreal and the cause alone is real, for the earlier pariņāmavāda in which both the cause and the effect are real. (Cf: "Is there anything in the early Upanişads to show that the authors believed in the objective world being an illusion? Nothing at all.” E. W.
Hopkins, JAOS, Vol. XXII, second half, p. 385 ff.) 2. “The Upanişads do not call upon us to look upon the whole
world as a baseless illusion to be destroyed by knowledge, the great error which they admonish us to relinquish is rather that things have a separate individual existence, and are not tied together by the bond of being all of them effects of Brahman, or Brahman itself. They do not say that true knowledge sublates this false world, as sankara says, but that it enables the sage to extricate himself from the world-the inferior mūrta rūpa of Brahman, to use an expression of the Bịhadāraṇyaka-and to become one with Brahman in its highest form. We are trying to see everything in Brahman, and Brahman in everything; the natural meaning of this is 'we look upon the whole world as a true manifestation of Brahman, as springing from it and animated by it'.” He adds further that Māyāvāda also uses this saying but by "perverting its manifest sense". Thibaut, SBE, Vol. XXXIV, Intro. p. CXIX f. See also the following f.n. R. G. Bhandarkar confirms this fact when he observes :" The opinion expressed by some eminent scholars that the burden of upanişad teaching is the

Page #37

CHAPTER I
17
or even the Brahmasūtras' consistently advocated the śānkara view of nirgunabrahman (pure, attributeless, or relationless identity) coupled with the unreality (māyā) of the world of difference and plurality if only for the reason that they are claimed, at least with equal, if not greater, validity, as the main source of the Brahminical schools such as the earlier Bhedābheda or the later Visiştādvaita metaphysics. The weight of evidence seems, on the contrary, to tilt the balance in favour of an integral view in which both identity and difference, being and becoming, the one and the many, are real or rather stand in a relationship of real cause to real effect. Several scholars suggest, and others definitely maintain, that Sankara revolutionised, or even-in so far as he evolved the phenomenalist
illusive character of the world and the reality of the one soul only, is manifestly wrong and I may even say, is indicative of an uncritical judgement.” Vaişņavism, śaivism and Minor Religious Systems (Strassburg, 1913), p. 2, f.n. 2. Cf." That the Māyā doctrine was not present to the mind of the Sūtrakāra further appears from the latter part of the fourth pada of the first adhyāya, where it is shown that Brahman is not only the operative but also the material cause of the world. If anywhere, there would have been the place to indicate, had such been the author's view, that Brahman is the material cause of the world through Māyā only, and that the world is unreal, but the Sūtras do not contain a single word to that effect. Sūtra 26 on the other hand exhibits the significant term 'pariņāmāt'. Brahman produces the world by means of a modification of itself.” Thibaut, op. cit., p. XCIV f. The revolution consists in the superaddition of phenomenalism (māyāvāda) derived perhaps from the Madhyamika Buddhism (See Jacobi in JAOS, Vol. XXXIII, p. 54 and Sukthankar in the Vienna Oriental Journal, Vol. XXII, pp. 137-8), through Gaudapāda, to the principle of identity derived from certain Upanişadic utterances. Cf. HIP, Vol. I, pp. 493-4.
2.

Page #38

18
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
view (māyāvāda) of the world-made a break with the prevailing realistic or evolutionary viewpoint according to which the unitary Brahman transforms itself into the manifold of the physical and vital universe without losing' its primordial nature of perfection or fullness”. The view maintained by Sankara is appropriately characterised as brahmavivartavāda in contrast to its predecessor brahmapariņāmavāda.
Brahman, according to Sankara, is the sole reality which does not admit of any difference whatsoever. Ontologically, his view is, therefore, one of pure and undifferentiated being
Advaitism then, affords the best example, in Indian metaphysics, of the philosophy of identity or permanence which is the exact antithesis to Buddhism which adheres, with equal tenacity, to the doctrine of total impermanence and the consequent idea of fluxo. Except
With respect to the reality of one being, Bhartshari also seems to have influenced sankara. See S. N. Dasgupta's
Indian Idealism (Cambridge, 1933), p. 196. 1. Cf. The schools of Bhartsprapanca, Bhāskara, Yādava and
Rāmānuja in the sequel. Cf. Om pūrņam adaḥ pūrņam idam pārņāt pūrņam udacyate / pūrņasya purņam ādāya pūrņam evāvasişyate //
-The Twelve Principal Upanişads (TPH), isa, p. 5. 3. Referring to the "two contrary philosophical systems" in
regard to the problem of flux Stcherbatsky writes: "We are faced in India by two quite different theories of a Universal Flux. The motion representing the world-process is either a continuous motion or it is a discontinuous, although compact (sāndratara), one. The latter consists of an infinity of discrete moments following one another almost without intervals. In the first case the phenomena are nothing but waves or fluctua

Page #39

CHAPTERI
19
for the early sect of the Vātsīputrīyas' the ultimacy of
tions (vștti) standing out upon a background of an eternal, allpervading, undifferentiated matter (pradhāna) with which they are identical. The Universe represents a Legato movement (pariņāmavāda). In the second case there is no matter at all, flashes of energy (samskäravāda= sanghātavāda) follow one another and produce the illusion of stabilized phenomena. The Universe is then a Staccato movement. The first view is maintained in the Sankhya system of philosophy, the second prevails in Buddhism". (Bud. Log., Vol. I, p. 83. The Sanskrit equivalents within brackets have been given in footnotes in the book.) For a contrast between the Buddhist view and the views of the Vaiśeşika and the Naiyāyika on the nature of motion or change, see ibid., pp. 99-107. For a further comparison with Bergson's view in the matter, see ibid., p. 107, f.n. 9, and pp. 115-118. In spite of the overwhelming similarity between the Bergsonian and the Buddhistic view of change, in general, we should not fail to see an important difference between the two on the point of duration and moments : duration for the Buddhist is a mental construction and moments alone are real, whereas, for Bergson, the moments are "artificial cuts" in duration which alone is real. (Cf. ibid., p. 115 and p. 118.) The "running reality” of Heraclitus of ancient Greece is another ontology which has a close resemblance to the Buddhistic view of momentary change. Here again a fundamental point of divergence, which is not often patent to a superficial observation, centers round the law of opposites or of contradiction. Buddhism roundly repudiates this law, (Cf. its famous universal dictum : yo viruddhadharmādhyāsavān näsau ekaḥ, i. e., that (entity) of which two or more opposed characteristics are predicated cannot be one. Another expression of the same truth is : viruddhadharmasaṁsargāt anyadvastu, i. e., 'a thing is "other" if united to incompatible properties'. See infra, p. 23 and f.n. 3 thereon, and NBTD, p. 5.) Heraclitus, on the contrary, bases his theory on the "harmony of opposites". (Cf. Bud. Log., Vol. I, pp. 425-7.) The most admirable exposition of this school is found in Stcherbatsky's “The Soul Theory of the Buddhists" which forms "a special index" to the last chapter of Vasubandhu's Abhidharmakośa. The other works which give a statement

Page #40

20
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
and criticism of this school are the same author's Bud. Log., Vol. I, p. 343 ff., Vol. II, p. 25, f.n. 2, p. 115, etc. and The Central Conception of Buddhism, pp. 70-71. See also TSS, kārikās 336-49, and S. Mookerji's Buddhist Philosophy of Universal Flux (Calcutta, 1935), pp. 185-192. Even this school which is referred to as "the only important departure from the original scheme” of Buddhism, "dared not readmit” the substance soul, nor was it "reluctant” to deny unity or "personality" (pudgala) among the separate elements of the aggregates (sanghāta). Hence it is said to have resorted to a "dialectical" device and argued that the "personality was neither identical with the elements nor different from them". (Cf. Bud. Log., Vol. I, p. 110.) Stcherbatsky's characterization of this hesitant or "feeble" attitude of the Vātsīputriyas as a case of contradiction is right. But his comparison of this school with that of the Jainas is not well-founded : "This course of admitting dialectical reality”, he writes, "and neglecting the law of contradiction reminds us of the dialectical method very popular among the Jainas and consisting in assuming everywhere a double and contradictory essence." (Ibid.). The Jaina theory of reality does not predicate contradictory attributes of the same subject at the same time and from the same point of view, although it admits the manifold (anekānta) nature of everything. Nor does it anywhere assume "a double and contradictory essence" in the nature of things. Mookerjee states the Jaina position as follows: "The Vedāntist starts with the premise that reality is one universal existence; the Buddhist fluxist believes in atomic particulars, each absolutely different from the rest and having nothing underlying them to bind them together....The Jaina differs from them and maintains that the universal and the particular are only distinguishable traits in a real." (JPN, p. 13.) Referring to the law of contradiction in relation to Jainism he further observes, “The Jaina also believes in the truth of the law of contradiction, but he insists that the law should be sought not in a priori thought but in concrete experience of the behaviour of a thing.” (Ibid., p. 14). Moreover, it emphatically affirms substantiality or identity as a co-ordinate (not contradictory) factor with that of difference in the real so that such a positive attitude becomes, in comparison with that of the hesitant Vätsiputriyas, not a matter of difference in degree but one of kind.

Page #41

CHAPTER I
21 change or becoming has been the unchanging bedrock of the great and complex development of Buddhistic thought from its beginnings : Like Bādarāyaṇa and Sankara, śāntarakṣita and his commentator Kamalaśīla direct, from the Buddhist point of view, the charge of self-contradictoriness (viruddhadharmādhyāsa) against the Jaina synthetic view of the co-ordinate existence of the substance (dravya) and its modes or states (paryāyas): "If the oneness between the substance and the states is real” (not figurative or agauņa), observes Kamalaśila, “then the substance also becomes diversified (vyāvșttimat) like the states. If (on the contrary) the states become pervasive (anugatātmakāh) in their character, then they become identical (aikātmatā) with the substance"."
1. "All things change.... Change is the stuff of reality. There
is neither permanence nor identity with regard to the world.” IP, Vol. I, p. 368. Change, in Buddhism, does not mean a transformation occurring in an enduring medium. It is, so to say, a "revolution" rather than an "evolution", and, constitutes the sole reality. The thing must either remain or go, it cannot do both at once, changing and remaining. If it has changed, it is not the same (na hi sa cva anyathā bhavati or naikasya anyathātvam asti). The example of melted brass proves nothing. Melted brass and solid brass are "other" objects. (Bud. Log., Vol. I, p. 98.) Therefore change is both total and perpetual. “The becoming of all that is, is the central fact of Buddhism : Identity of objects is an unreality.” IP, Vol. I, pp. 368-369 ff. "In his (Buddhist's) view there is no Being at all, and the
only reality is Becoming". OIP, p. 211. 3. A real, according to Jainism, consists of substance and its
modes (dravyaparyāyātmakam vastu). TSS, kārikās 317-18, E. T. mine. See also the next three kārikās and the PK. on all the five. In kā. 321 (given below) śāntarakṣita clinches the argument against the Jaina thesis
2.

Page #42

JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Jitāri, another great Buddhist logician, adds his powerful voice to the attack in his Anekāntavāda-Nirāsaḥ.' The gist of his rather lengthy, but closely argued, polemic against the anekāntavādin's theory of identity-in-difference may be stated as follows: When the anekāntavādin maintains that dravya and paryāya are identical, owing to the identity of their nature, it means that he affirms nothing short of their total identity (ekarūpataiva). Difference, based on (the
by the following criticism: Therefore, it must be admitted that either there is destruction of all, or that all is permanent: exclusiveness (vyāvstti) and inclusiveness (anugama) cannot subsist in any single entity. (tato niranvayo dhvamsah sthiram vā sarvamisyatām/ ekātmani tu naiva sto vyāvrtyanugamavimau//). The spirit of this criticism is that either the substance (identity, dravya, or anugama) perishes with the everperishing states (paryāyas, difference or vyāvștti), or the everpersisting states become imperishable like the substance which supports them. This criticism is, of course, made against the Jaina theory of the real as a combination of the unity of a substance with the diversity of the states. It implies that the only two possibilities logically warranted by the Jaina position are either that substance should be pluralised like the inherent states, or the states should be integrated into a unity, the co-existence of unity and plurality being, according to the Buddhist, logically absurd. The adoption of either course knocks the bottom out of the Jaina metaphysics, driving it into the arms of either the eternalist Vedāntin or the fluxist
Bauddha. 1. Printed as the last section in the Tarkabhāṣā and Vadasthāna
of Mokşākaragupta and Jitāripāda, edited by H. R. Ranga
swami Iyengar, Mysore, 1944. 2. Its length forbids its full citation here. The gist of the
argument stated above, however, gives the main issue raised. The whole account in the text is but an amplification of the issue and refers to the several finer shades of the argument. The issue is dealt with, in considerable detail, in the sequel from the Jaina point of view. See infra, Ch. V.

Page #43

CHAPTER I
23
secondary consideration) number etc. (sankhyādi), will then be fictitious (kalpanāmātrakalpitaḥ syat). For, real difference (paramārthiko bhedah) between the two cannot proceed from the identity of their nature.' Or conversely, when the anekāntavädin pleads that dravya and paryaya are different, it means that he affirms their unqualified difference. Identity will then be fictitious. For real identity (svabhavabhedaḥ) cannot proceed from the difference which is their basic and total nature. The truth about the whole position, according to Jitāri, is that one cannot have identity as well as difference by the same nature. The entire argument, from the Buddhist side, may be said to have been grounded on the basic truth of the fundamental Buddhistic dictum : "It cannot be right to affirm and deny a thing at once, affirmation and denial being mutually contradictory"."
Thus we have seen that the same objection is raised by the two diametrically opposed systems of ontology, viz., the
1. na hi yayoḥ svabhāvabhedaḥ tayoḥ anyatha päramärthiko bhedaḥ sambhavati / Ibid., p. 112.
na ca tenaiva svabhävena bhedas cabhedaśca / Ibid.
2.
3. nahyekasya ekada vidhipratişedhau parasparaviruddhau yuktau / Again anyānanyayoḥ anyonyapariharasthitalakṣaṇatvāt / Kamalaśila in PK. on kärikās 316 and 1795, respectively, in TSS. The implications of this argument are again set forth, in considerable detail, with particular reference to the syadvadin's view of the universal (sāmānya) and the particular (viseṣa) in the section on "The Examination of Syadvada" (kārikās 1709-1785 and the PK. thereon). The kārikās 1726-1735, together with the comm., specifically elucidate and refute the "mutually contradictory" position of the Jainas touching, incidentally, upon the idea of diversity as conceived by the anekantavādin.

Page #44

24
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Vedānta and Buddhism, against the anekānta theory of reality.
The full significance, the necessity and the value of the Jaina defence, accompanied by a critical consideration of its opponents' fundamental assumptions governing their philosophical structure, can be fully appreciated only when the Jaina approach is viewed against the full background of Indian philosophy. Already a partial statement of the two principal opponent schools, viz., the Vedānta (Advaitism) and Buddhism, has been made mainly from the point of view of their criticism of the Jaina theory of reality. The identityview of Advaita is, in this context, a comparatively straightforward and unequivocal position, despite an immense range of internal developments within the framework of its adherence to this fundamental viewpoint. Hence, except for a further brief review, no elaborate treatment of this school is called for. A somewhat fuller glimpse into the basic ideas of Buddhism is necessary in view of the great impact, ranging over several centuries,' of this system, on the development of anekāntavāda. In between these two extremes of Vedānta and Buddhism, either of which leads to a lop-sided view, there are several schools which endeavour, with varying degrees of success, a compromise or a synthesis between the identity or substance view and the difference or modal view. These
1. Cf. "The principal actors on the Scene of The Indian Mediaeval
School of Indian Logic' (460 A. D.-1200 A.D.) were, as is well
known, the Jainas and the Buddhists." Vide, HIL, pp. 157-158. 2. These are characterised, in the Jaina terminology, as
dravyārthikanaya and paryāyārthikanaya, respectively.

Page #45

CHAPTER I
25
schools also will have to be treated severally for two important reasons, viz., (a) that in common with the Vedāntin and the Buddhist, they (e. g., Visiştādvaita of Rāmānuja or Dvaita of Madhva) impute the charge of self-contradiction against Jainism ; and (b) that they also afford rich material for a fruitful comparative study of the problem.
In surveying the field of Indian philosophy from the point of view of the problem of the nature of reality we may adopt, as our guiding principle, the following five-fold classification which includes, within its scope, the different schools of philosophical thought in terms of their adherence to “identity" alone, or to "difference” alone, or to both in unequal or equal proportions. The five types of philosophy embodied in this classification are intended to include almost any school, whether or not specifically to be mentioned in the course of our comparative study, in so far as such a school comes within the purview of our inquiry into the nature of reality.
1. The Philosophy of Being or Identity. 2. The Philosophy of Becoming (Change) or Difference.
The Sānkhya, for instance, postulates the ultimate principles of prakrti and puruşa and yet swings, in the ultimate analysis, to the side of the Vedāntin by virtue of his predominant emphasis on identity as a satkāryavādin. Conversely, the logical end of the Vaišeşika's exclusive emphasis on the postulate of višeşa or particularity leads him to import ab extra the element of samavāya (the necessary relation, see Ch. VII), the untenability of which (the samavāya) is proved by the tremendous polemical storm that has been raised, in Indian Logic, over it. Vide the sections on the Sānkhya and the Vaišesika in the sequel.

Page #46

26
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
3. The Philosophy subordinating Difference to Identity. 4. The Philosophy subordinating Identity to Difference. 5. The Philosophy co-ordinating both Identity and
Difference.
The Vedānta (Advaitism) as the school of Identity par excellence and Buddhism as the school of Difference par excellence are respectively brought under the first and the second categories in the above classification. The Sānkhya, the Bhedābhedavāda (of Bhartsprapañca, Bhāskara, Yādava and Nimbārka) and the Visiştādvaitavāda (of Rāmānuja) figure under the third category. The Vaiseșika and the Dvaita (of Madhva) systems come under the fourth type and Jainism under the last. Hegelianism, though a school of Western philosophy, will also be brought into this scheme owing to its being frequently cited as a close Western analogue or parallel of Jainism. On examination it will be found to align itself with the third category despite its agreement with Jainism in certain vital points. Incidentally the Śuddhādvaita of Vallabha (distinguished from the Kevalādvaita of Sankara) will be referred to in a small footnote under Advaitism because of its exclusive emphasis on identity (Brahman) as in Advaitism. Where it differs from the latter is in being a brahmapariņāmavāda and, therefore, in recognising the reality of the jīva (the finite self) and the jaļa (physical world) as identical with Brahman (brahmatmaka). After the necessarily brief treatment, separate or incidental, of the various schools coming under the five categories of the classification, the Jaina theory of reality as a case of the meeting of extremes, and its answer to the common charge of self-contradiction and other errors believed

Page #47

CHAPTER I
27
to issue therefrom, will be outlined in its appropriate context. The other topics which more or less form corollaries of the theory will then be dealt with reserving, as already indicated, an inquiry into some epistemological problems for the second part of this study.
We may now proceed to consider the school or schools which have been first assigned to each of the five classes of approach indicated in the classification just formulated. Among these schools the Vedāntic absolutism and Buddhism which come under the first and the second categories respectively have already been dealt with. But the treatment has been very sketchy, at any rate of the latter system (Buddhism). Owing to the great importance of the issues involved a few additional remarks on the former system and a somewhat elaborate treatment of the latter one, will greatly help us in evolving a proper perspective in which the Jaina contribution to the effort of solving the ontological and the epistemological questions can be viewed.

Page #48


Page #49

CHAPTER II
A Study in Contrasts :
A. The Philosophy of Identity (or Being); B. The Philosophy of Difference (Becoming
or Change).

Page #50


Page #51

CHAPTER II
A. The Philosophy of Being or Identity
The Upanişads taught that Brahman is the ultimate reality? although they are not definitely committed to the vivartavāda of Sankara according to which the world is, empirical or phenomenal (māyā or vivarta). Both the Vedic and the Upanișadic seers did not see any incompatibility between conceiving Brahman with and without form (rūpa and arūpa), the whole and its parts and both unity and diversity. The difference (bheda), between Brahman and the world was considered to be internal (svagata) or homogeneous (sajātīya) rather than external or heterogeneous (vijātīya). As a matter
1. The following Upanişadic utterances declare unity but do
so without perhaps repudiating difference as māyā which is not unreasonably believed to have been foisted on them by sankara : mộtyoḥ sa mộtyun gacchati ya iha nāneva paśyati (Katha IV. 11, Twelve Principal Upanişads, TPH. Edn., Vol. I, p. 80). vācārambhaņaṁ vikāro nāmadheyam mịttiketyeva satyam (Chandogya, VI. 1.4, ibid., Vol. III, p. 189). ekamevādvitiyam
(Ibid., VI. 2.1, pp. 190-1). 2. See supra, pp. 15-18 and the footnotes thereon, for the views of
Thibaut and Bhandarkar as well as for the references to the
views of Jacobi and Sukthankar. 3. See Thibaut's remarks, supra, p. 16, f.n. 1 and 2. 4. The notion of difference has been conceived in three forms,
viz., sajātīya, or the difference which exists between something and something else of the same class; vijātīya, or the difference which exists between something belonging to one class and another thing belonging to another class; and,

Page #52

32
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
of fact it was conceived to be the nature of Brahman alternately to become the manifest world, i. e., to transform itself into the world, and to re-absorb the world into itself. We can, therefore, safely say that pre-Sankara Vedanta was not a vivartavāda with its inevitable two-plane' reality-the one real and the other phenomenal-but a kind of evolutionary monism (ekatvavāda) or brahmapariņāmavāda admitting, not altogether unconsciously, the dual reality of the transforming ultimate and its transformed manifestation of the world.
While Vedic-Upanisadic monism admitted of duality or difference and, therefore, characterised it (difference) in relatively positive terms, Śānkara Advaitism, employing a negativistic method, perhaps under the influence of the Madhyamika dialectic, attempted firmly to reject it. Consequently the former conceived brahman as the basic reality
svagata, or the difference which exists between the parts within a single body. The following stanza from Pañcadasi (20) illustrates these forms:
vṛkṣasya svagato bhedaḥ patrapuspaphalādibhiḥ / vṛkṣāntarāt sajātīyo vijātīyaḥ sitäditaḥ //
1. Cf. dve satye samupasṛtya buddhānāṁ dharmadeśanā / lokasamvṛtisatyam ca satyam ca paramarthataḥ // ye 'nayorna vijānanti vibhāgam satyayordvayoḥ / te tattvam na vijānanti gambhiram buddhasasane // Madhyamika Sutra, XXIV. 8 f. See also Sukthankar's remarks in this connection, in the journal already referred to: supra p. 17, f.n. 2.
2. In
framing his celebrated four-fold (catuşkoți) dialectic the Madhyamika is guided by the principle that every view (ditți) is self-contradictory and is, therefore, self-convicted. The four moments' of the dialectic are sat ('is'), asat ('is not'), sadasat (both 'is' and 'is not') and na sat naivāsat (neither 'is' nor 'is not'). Assertion of any of these possibilities necessarily, implies, according to him, its opposite counterpart and, thereby

Page #53

1.
whereas the latter came to conceive it as the sole reality although both hold it to be permanent, homogeneous and universal. This divergence of views is traceable, mainly, to the distinction between the earlier concept of vikara, or pariņāma, or modification, and the later one of vivarta or illusoriness. Sadananda clearly describes this distinction. He observes that "(When a thing) actually appears as another, it is called vikāra, when (it) falsely appears as another, it is called vivarta." Or, to express the same idea somewhat technically: when an effect is a 'real transformation' of its material cause (which is its essence), it is called vikara or parināma, but when it is a false or 'apparent transformation', it is called vivarta." This doctrine of vivarta is a bold innovation of Sankara.
1
CHAPTER II
3
3333
exhibits the fissure or contradiction at the heart of any view. He is protected against any criticism since he does not claim to take any definite attitude with regard to any question (catuskoți vinirmuktam).
2. Cf.
Sankara must have been influenced by this dialectical technique. He does not, however, extend this to brahman. His application of this destructive method is confined to the phenomenal world alone. The mode and the extent of his application of the above method are, of course, determined by various other circumstances like his adherence to the Upanişads, etc. Śrīharşa, the greatest post-śańkara dialectician, wields in his Khandanakhaṇḍakhadya this weapon with a devastating force against the opponents of Advaitism and serves his master in the same way as Zeno did Barmenides (See for instance the reference to śrīharṣa's "Negative criticism against the notion of difference" in HIP, Vol. I, pp. 401-40).
satattvato'nyathapratha vikara ityudīritaḥ / atattvato'nyathapratha vivarta ityudīritaḥ //
Vedantasära, by Sadananda, ed. with Intro. and E. T. by M. Hiriyanna, Poona, 1929, p. 8 (text), p. 54 (translation). upādānasamasattakaḥ pariņāmaḥ/ upādānaviṣamasattāko vivartaḥ //
Quoted, ibid., Notes, p. 36.

Page #54

34
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
It is on this bold innovation of the vivarta doctrine that Śankara builds up his conception of the universe. The universe, which is either empirical (vyāvahārika) or phenomenal (prātibhāsīka), is intrinsically unreal (mithyā or avastu) from the point of view of the absolute which is the only true reality (pāramārthika-sat). It is the acknowledgement of the absolute as the only true reality (ekamevādvitīyam), which is identity (abheda) par excellence, that makes Advaitism the exemplar of the identity-view' in Indian philosophy.
1. Vallabha's suddhadvaitavāda and Bhartshari's sabdabrahma
vada (or śabdădvaitavāda) come closest to śankara's Advaitism. śuddhădvaitavāda has, or at any rate claims to have, a flavour of brahmapariņāmavāda although its rigour as an identity-view is not thereby affected. Sabdādvaitavāda develops its identity-view from the angle of the philosophy of language. Reserving for a later occasion a brief reference to this linguistic trend of Advaitism a few relevant remarks regarding how Vallabha's doctrine tends to become an identity-view, may be made here :
Vallabha's doctrine is referred to, as just noticed, as śuddhadvaitavāda or pure non-dualism in distinction from śankara's doctrine described as kevaladvaitavāda, or absolute nondualism, or, more familiarly, Advaitism. Unlike the latter the former maintains the reality of the individual world (jiva) or souls, and the insentient world (jada) and at the same time, it regards them, viz., the souls and the insentient world, as a real manifestation of brahman with which they are, therefore, said to be identical in essence (brahmātmaka). To express the same idea somewhat more specifically, their appearance and disappearance are attributed to the manifestation (ävirbhāva) and withdrawal (tirobhāva) of the will of brahman.
The living and the non-living worlds are thus ultimately regarded, by Vallabha, as at one with brahman. Here we see the rift in the structure of the doctrine. The firm affirmation, in this doctrine, of the identity of essence between brahman, on the one hand, and the living and the non-living worlds, on

Page #55

CHAPTER II
35
Giving wide berth to the modal principle (bhedatattva) is, of course, a necessary deduction from the logic of vivartavāda. But even Sankara finds it hard summarily to dismiss this massive and obstinate principle. He constructs, after the manner of the Madhyamika dialectic, an explanation by which he hopes to achieve the denial of this principle. But the explanation is more in the nature of a dialectical mystification than a genuine solution to the problem : it maintains that the universe, or the model existence which is inherent in the universe, neither ‘is” (sat or bhāvarūpa), nor 'is not”? (asat, abhāva, or tuccha), but is something other than both 'is' and 'is not' (sadasadvilakṣaṇa). This unique something is also said to be inexpressible or
the other, is incompatible with the initial acceptance of the reality, which should mean the independent existence of the living and the non-living worlds. Hence śuddhädvaitavāda may be taken to affirm the ultimacy or reality of identity in the same measure as it eventually repudiates the intrinsic reality of the living and the non-living worlds. But since the repudiation of the intrinsic reality of the living and non-living worlds is, in the ultimate analysis, complete, the doctrine may be taken to be almost as strong an identity-view as śankara's Advaitism. This is so in spite of the professed inclination of Vallabha's doctrine towards brahmapariņāmavāda, and the consequent denial of māyā as the source of the limitations such as indiffer
ence (bheda) and finitude. 1. See below f.n. 3. 2. See the following f.n.
Cf. "If it (i. e., the world arising from avidyā, or ajñāna or māyā), were real (sat), it would never be sublated; if unreal (asat), it would never appear (saccenna badhyeta / asaccenna pratīyeta /). So it must be other than both (vilaksaņa)." See Vedāntasāra (Hiriyanna's edn.), Notes, p. 24. The words within the first brackets as well as the text quoted within the last brackets are of my inclusion.

Page #56

36
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
anirvacanīya'. Being neither sat nor asat it is further suggested to be midway between the two, a 'twilight', a 'real-unreal', or a 'true lie'' It evidently indicates a 'third position' which aims at doing away with the contradiction with which sat and asat are supposed to be riddled.
But one doubts if this explanation offered in the form of a third position' is a real solution at all to the problem. It looks like an evasive device which, when shorn of its dialectical embellishments, harbours the very contradiction which it aims at banishing from its scheme. It is not, therefore, surprising if this position invokes against itself the charge which Kumārila makes in a similar context: he affirms that "that which does not exist, does not exist; and that which really exists is real, while all else is unreal; and, therefore, there can be no assumption of two kinds of reality".
1. That is, anirvacaniya is that which cannot be said to be either
'is' or 'is not': sadasadbhyām anirvacanīyam / Ibid., p. 2 (text) and Notes, p. 24. Also:
pratyekaṁ sadasattvābhyām vicāra-padavīín na yad /
gähate tad anirvacanīyam āhur vedānta-vedinah // See HIP, Vol. II, p. 155, f.n. 2 (quoted from Citsukhi). This aspect of anirvacanīya will, again, be dealt with in its relation to the Jaina notion of avaktavya, in the ch. on Syādvāda. Referring to the middle category' of sadasadvilaksaņa, A. Bhattacharya writes in his Studies in Post-sankara Dialectics (Univ. of Calcutta, 1936), p. 240 : "It is a new category which shares in the characteristics of both position and negation and therefore a middle category between the two, positive
negative in its character." 3. The words quoted in this and the next sentences are from Aspects of Advaita (by P.N. Srinivasachari, Madras, 1949), p. 41.
tasmādyannästi nästyeva yattvasti paramārthataḥ / tatsatyam anyanmithyeti na satyadvayakalpana //
MSV, Nirālambavāda, kā. 10, E.T., S. V. Jha, p. 120.

Page #57

CHAPTER II
37
The third position' is thus logically invalid although it is posited to exist somehow. Instead of bifurcating the entire course of reality into two compartments, viz., brahman, and the illusory universe which is sadasadvilakṣaṇa, and then investing brahman with the character of 'identity' (abheda, advaita) and relegating 'difference' (bheda) to an intrinsically illusory universe, it would perhaps be a more straightforward course to treat 'identity' and 'difference' as two complementary aspects of the entire concrete nature of reality. This procedure saves also the needlessly involved and paradoxical dialectic which initially treats the notions of sat and asat as contradictory and eventually combines them in a 'third position' which cannot but be contradictory but yet is believed to be somehow existent. As if these surprises are not enough Sankara springs upon us yet another surprise by asserting that the difference-ridden illusory universe is mysteriously grounded in the identity-ridden real absolute.
These incongruities, however, do not deter Sankara from converting the entire drama of reality into a grand monologue of the lonely absolute.
B. The Philosophy of Becoming (Change) or Difference
So far an attempt has been made to survey Advaitism as the most thorough-going instance of the philosophy of being or identity, the first among the five ontological approaches indicated in the previous chapter. A further attempt may now be made to review Buddhism as the unparalleled instance of

Page #58

38 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE the philosophy of becoming (change) or difference ', the second typical ontological approach forming an antithesis to the first one. Buddhism is, as already noticed, a philosophy of total change' or difference which divorces from the true or ultimate reality all notions like permanence (nityatva), identity (tādātmya), generality (jāti or sāmānya) and the subject-object relation, assigning them to the subjective
1. See supra, pp. 19 ff. 2. The sole and ultimately real (paramārtha-sat) in Buddhism, is the
'point-instant' or 'the moment' (kşaņa). Each moment is different from or other than the rest in the series (santāna): "Whatsoever exists separately (sarvaṁ pşthak) from 'other' existing things. To exist means to exist separately..... The notion of
apartness' belongs to the essential feature of the notion of existence (hāvalakşanapěthaktvāt)". Bud. Log., Vol. I, p. 103. The words quoted within the brackets are from the footnotes in the same work. Again : "Thus every reality is another reality. What is identical or similar is not ultimately real". Ibid., p. 105. See also STBS, p. 939. Stcherbatsky adds, in this connection, that "a difference in space-time is a difference in substance". Bud. Log., Vol. II, p. 282f. The moment which is the unique thing-in-itself (svalakṣaṇa) is the true or ultimate reality (paramartha-sat). (See NBD, p. 103.) It is directly inaccessible to our understanding (jñanena prapayitum aśakyam). What we apprehend as 'real' is only the constructed (parikalpita) or imagined reality which, though empirically real (samvști-sat) is an 'illusion' from the ultimate view-point (paramarthatah). Cp. Bud. Log., Vol. I, p. 70 f. Cf. "Everything past is unreal, everything future is unreal, everything imagined, absent, mental, notional, general: every Universal, whether a concrete Universal or abstract one, is unreal. All arrangements and all relations, if considered apart from the terms related, are unreal, Ultimately real is only the present moment of physical efficiency.” Ibid., p. 70 f.,
and p. 542. 5. Cf. CCBS, p. 58.

Page #59

CHAPTER II
39
realm of mental construction' (vikalpa, or kalpanā).
This emphasis on change is evidenced by the complex and varied history of the evolution of Buddhistic thought which took its rise from the three-fold truth of the Pāli Canons that everything (savvam) is impermanent (anicca),
Vikalpa or Kalpana is an ideation, or an ideal construction, conceived by the mind. It does not originate from (arthat notpadyate), or have any reference to the objective reality. Being thus independent of the objective reality (arthanirapekşam) and, therefore, purely mental or conceptual, both with respect to its form and its genesis, it is considered to "be unauthenticated and unreliable as evidence of objective reality". Cf. anapekşam ca pratibhāsaniyamahetorabhāvāt aniyatapratibhāsam / NBTD, p. 11. The two phrases quoted above, in this passage, are also from the same work, p. 10 and p. 11 respectively. Cf. The Buddhist Philosophy of Universal Flux (S. Mookerjee, Univ. of Calcutta, 1935), pp. 283 and 345.
Stcherbatsky suggests that vikalpa or kalpanā "covers, directly or indirectly, the whole range of thought, the active element in cognition". The Conception of Buddhist Nirvāņa (Leningrad, 1927), p. 147, f.n. 2. When considered in relation to what has been pointed out in the above paragraph, this comes to mean that the lack of objective reference and, consequently, of reliable evidence' with regard to the objective world, affect almost the entire range of thought. For an exhaustive account of vikalpa or kalpanā, see TSS, kārikās 1214-1311. A brief but lucid discussion is found in NBTD, pp. 9-11; Nyāyapraveśavștti p. 35f., and the Pañjikā (p.75) thereon, both being commentaries on Nyāyapraveśa (attributed to Dinnāga), Pt. I, ed. A. B. Dhruva, Baroda, 1930. In his Notes (pp. 89-94) to this work the editor draws our attention to (a) the critical references to the notion of kalpana, made by some non-Buddhist thinkers such as Uddyotakara and Vācaspatimiśra; and (b) the different shades of meaning attached to the notion of kalpanā by the different schools of Buddhism. The distinction pointed out by Stcherbatsky, between vitarka or vikalpa and vicāra, though not of material importance, also deserves our attention, in this context. See CCBS, pp. 104-105.

Page #60

40
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
soulless or substanceless (anatta) and the cause of pain (dukkha) as against the Upanişadic view of an ātman (soul) which is eternal (nitya) and pure bliss (ānanda). Philosophically the anicca and the anatta elements of the early Buddhistic thought resulted in the great and daring metaphysics of nairātmyavāda' (the doctrine of 'soullessness' or
1. The central point of nairātmyavāda consists in the repudiation
of an 'ego', or an enduring entity behind the so-called phenomenal changes in the world. The most effective disproof of an 'ego' is contained in the dialogue--not reproduced here for fear of length-between King Milinda and the monk Nāgasena as to the nature of Nāgasena and of the chariot.
At the conclusion Nāgasena, in the sense of an 'ego', is discovered to be "a mere empty sound" and the chariot to be "but a way of counting, term, appellation, convenient designation, and name for pole, axle, wheels, chariot-body, and banner-staff". There is said to be nothing beyond the five aggregates (skandhas) constituting the phenomena in the world. Nāgasena quotes the following lines from Vajira in proof of this thesis: "Even as the word 'chariot' means that members join to frame a whole; so when the Groups appear to view, we use the phrase, 'A living being'.” Buddhism in Translations (H. C. Warren, Cambridge, Mass., 1915), pp. 128-133. The other instances cited from the Visuddhimagga (Chap. XVIII) are of a "house", a "fist", a "lute", an "army", a "city", and a "tree". Ibid., p. 133 ff. The following verse from Visuddhimagga (Chap. XVI) gives an effective expression of the Nairātmya truth:
"Misery only doth exist, none miserable No doer is there; naught save the deed is found. Nirvana is, but not the man who seeks it.
The path exists, but not the traveller in it." Ibid., p. 146. Cf. also in this connection T. W. Rhys David's reflections on this subject in Pottapada Sutta, the Dialogues of the Buddha (Sacred Books of the Buddhists, Vol. II, Pt. I, Intro., p.
242, especially para 3). 2. This and the next term are as translated by Stcherbatsky in
STBS. La Vallee Poussin, however, prefers translating nairātmya into 'selflessness' to 'soullessness'. See The Way to Nirvana (Cambridge, 1917), p. 34.

Page #61

CHAPTER II
41
‘no-substance' or substancelessness) which is in diametrical opposition to the ātmavāda (substance-view or identity-view) of the Upanişads and the other schools', and runs through all schools of Buddhism'—from the Ābhidhārmika (Vaibhāșika) stage to that of Yogācāra (Vijñānavāda)—their internal differences notwithstanding. The quintessence of the nairātmya" attitude consists in the denial of the satkāyadrsti
1. See the following f.n. 2. Except the school of Vatsīputrīyas (or Sammatīyas) whose view has already been referred to see supra, p. 19 f., f.n. 1.
Yaśomitra cites a line which claims the unique right to Buddha for the teaching of nairātmyavāda: anyaḥ śāstā jagati ca yato nāsti nairātmyavādāt. Yaśomitra's Abhidhammakosavyākhyā (ed. Unrai Wogihara, Tokyo, 1932-1936), Pt. II, p. 697. Deriding Vardhamāna, Kapila and others who, like the Upanişadic thinkers, are held "in the clutches of the crocodile of the false doctrine of the 'soul' (or substance)” śāntarakṣita says:
idam ca vardhamānādernairātmyajñānamīdssam /
na samastyātmadsstau hi vinaștāḥ sarvatīrthikāḥ // TSS, kā. 3325. We notice, in the second line, that the heretical philosophers (tīrthikâh) are said to be 'lost' (vinaştāh) in the heresy of a soul (ātmadȚştau). La Vallee Poussin points out, in this connection, an interesting distinction between 'a heresy'or drsti and a sin in his The Way to Nirvāņa, p. 46, f.n. 1. This is the central point in which Buddhism differs from many other schools which believe in the substance of a soul. This is why Udayana significantly entitles his refutation of Buddhism as
Atmatattvaviveka (an inquiry into the reality of the self). 3. Literally the word means 'the state of being devoid of Ātman'
Vidushekhara Bhattacharya has drawn our attention to the meaning of'atman' as svabhāva or nature 'which never under goes any change'. He also refers to the two-fold distinction of nairātmya, viz., pudgalnairātmya and dharmanairātmya. Vide, The Basic Conception of Buddhism, Vidushekhara Bhattacharya, University of Calcutta, 1934, p. 73. For the various derivations of Satkāyadrșți (Pali-Sakkayaditthi) see ibid., p. 77 f., f.n. 30.

Page #62

42
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
which signifies an enduring entity, the "something I know not what”, as Locke puts it, behind the dynamic and discrete moments.
Perhaps the varied developments of Buddhism are a continual series of approximations to the spirit of the
enlightenment' (bodhi) which dawned upon the Buddha who must have felt that this mischievous or dangerous idea of an enduring something behind the goings-on of our life and the world breeds a craving for possession and the consequent ills' of despair and suffering at loss. In the words of Stcherbatsky the history of Buddhism is “a series of attempts to penetrate more deeply into the original intuition of Buddha, what he himself believed to be his great discovery". The same writer refers to "a sense of opposition or even animosity” as being "clearly felt" in the words of Buddha whenever he (Buddha) talked about satkāyadȚsti or the doctrines of a permanent self or substance. Mrs. Caroline Rhys Davids also remarks: "how carefully and conscientiously this antisubstantialist position had been cherished and upheld” as the "central point of the whole bulk of Buddhist teaching".
Thus the original character of soullessness or substancelessness remains the fundamental attitude of Buddhism in spite of the fact that we find several different shades of idealism and realism within the range of its philosophical
1. ātma-drştau ca satyam ātma-snehādayaḥ kleśāḥ pravartante /
STBD, Abhidharmakośavyākhyā, p. 697. 2. Ibid., p. 824. 3. Quoted: ibid., pp. 824-5.

Page #63

CHAPTER II
43
evolution'. Impermanence (anicca) and soullessness (anatta) are, according to this view, the 'pitiless' laws of all existence so that existence becomes a cinematograph” show, the discrete moments of which flash themselves into being serially
1. Cf. OIP, pp. 197-8. 2. Stcherbatsky rightly compares this to Bergson's view : "Berg
son compares our cognitive apparatus with a cinematograph which reconstitutes a movement of momentary stabilized snapshots. This is exactly the Buddhist view". Bud. Log., Vol. I, p. 117. But comparing this Buddhistic viewpoint with that of Russell, who also illustrates it with the analogy of a 'cinematograph' would be even more appropriate in view of the fact that Bergson's real is an unbroken flow of duration, while that of Russell is one of atomistic, or discrete, ultimate particulars. Russell, illustrating his point, observes that “.... the cinema is a better metaphysician than common-sense physics or philosophy". "My meaning in regard to the impermanence of physical entities may perhaps be more clear by the use of Bergson's favourite illustration of the cinematograph. ...... Where, in a picture palace, we see a man rolling down a hill....we know that there is not really one man moving, but a succession of films each with a different momentary man." Russell's statements, quoted in course of this f.n. are from his Mysticism and Logic, London, 1950, pp. 128-9. It is curious how such contrasting viewpoints as Bergson's and Russell's can use the same analogy of the cinematograph with equal effect. Bergson is a durationist and Russell is a logical atomist although both agree with Buddhism in conceiving the real as flux or a group of impermanent physical entities. For a further treatment of the relation between Buddhism, on the one hand, and some important notions of Russell's logical atomism and Bergson's durationism (especially of the former) on the other, see the rather lengthy f.n. 2 on p. 44 ff. below. The doctrine of discrete moments, or of momentariness, is the logical outcome, or the furthest extreme', of the doctrine of impermanence which, according to Vidushekhara Bhattacharya, antidated Buddhism. Vide, The Basic Conception of Buddhism, p. 83. After suggesting the general distinction between impermanence and momentariness Bhattacharya rightly adds: "In dealing with the Buddhist position by impermanence we are

Page #64

44
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
as it were and vanish without a trace (niranvaya kṣanika). Whatever story is imposed upon them is the colourful imposition of our fancy. The flow or the passage of these momentary flashings is all that there is in reality. This metaphysics of process or becoming of the discrete and unique particulars is considered to be midway between the two extreme views, viz., "everything is" (nityavada or eternalism) and "everything is not" (tucchavada or nihilism).
The main purpose of bringing in Buddhism here is to show that it concerns itself with what may be designated as the modal view of reality by its exclusive emphasis on the unique, momentary and absolute particulars which constitute reality which is becoming or flux. The particulars are absolutely unique, not sharing their essence with anything' else and, therefore, differ' totally one from another (trailo
to understand this momentariness." Ibid. Hiriyanna, however, assumes a slightly hesitant position on this issue. See OIP, p. 144.
1. Each such particular is something which has "not the slightest bit of otherness" in it (aniyasapi na aṁśena aparātmakam). See Bud. Log., Vol. I, p. 557.
2. The moments are emphatically asserted to be unique and, therefore, different from one another in a series (santāna). But they are also said to have some affinity or 'correlation' with their immediately antecedent moments, and hence, to arise in a uniform succession as, for instance, a moment of flame being succeeded by a 'similar' moment of flame. This implication of 'similarity' or 'continuity' (or 'continuation') is based on the Buddhistic causal theory of pratityasamutpada, i.e. 'dependent origination' or 'functional dependence' in contrast with that of adhityasamutpada, i. e., the theory of production at random and is supposed to permit uniformity without the need of the much-abhorred enduring entity underlying the fleeting phenomena. (For a statement of the several implications of

Page #65

CHAPTER II
45
pratītyasamutpada, and of the relation between pratītyasamutpāda and adhītyasamutpāda, see Stcherbatsky's The Conception of Nirvāņa, p. 39, f.n. 2, p. 123, f.n. 4, p. 124 and p. 240.) But admission of similarity or continuity seems to be an unsafe compromise if not a self-contradiction which is in direct proportion to the need of this element of continuity or co-ordination. Moreover, admitting something which transcends the solely real moment or point-instant (kşaņa) also leads, to that extent, to compromising the exclusive reality of the moment.
While considering the paradoxical admission of continuity in Buddhism the parallel instance of Bertrand Russell's acceptance of the same idea (continuity) in his "logical atomism" suggests itself inevitably. Besides offering a classic parallel to Buddhism, in the twentieth century, it reiterates the lesson that an essential principle surreptitiously comes back through the back door, if it is thrust away from the front. The following passage looks like the Buddhist argument in a modern garb: "The world may be conceived as consisting of a multitude of entities arranged in a certain pattern. The entities which are arranged I shall call particulars'; the arrangement of pattern results from relations among particulars. Classes or series of particulars, collected together on account of some property which makes it convenient to be able to speak of them as wholes, are what I call logical constructions or symbolic fictions. The particulars are to be conceived, not on the analogy of bricks in a building, but rather on the analogy of notes in a symphony. The ultimate constituents of a symphony (apart from relations) are the notes, each of which lasts only for a very short time. We may collect together all the notes played by one instrument; these may be regarded as the analogues of the successive particulars which common-sense would regard as successive states of one "thing". But the "thing” ought to be regarded as no more 'real' or 'substantial'than, for example, the role of the trombone. As soon as things' are conceived in this manner it will be found that the difficulties in the way of regarding immediate objects of sense as physical have largely disappeared.” Mysticisin and Logic, pp. 129-30. For a further demonstration of continuity, vide Russell's three famous physiological, psychological and logical arguments in OKEW, pp. 145-158. (The main thesis is summarily stated in the last paragraph on p. 158.)

Page #66

JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Important as it is, the agreement between Russell and Buddhism, as regards continuity, is not complete. As a matter of fact his "logical atomism” and Buddhism differ more than they agree on the issue of continuity. Russell's scathing attack on the Bergsonian La Duree undoubtedly bears comparison with the age-long battle Buddhism has waged against eternalism (śāśvatavāda) although the latter has been more thorough and many-sided. As for the interpretation of continuity Russell's approach is mathematical and complex, whereas Buddhists' approach is dialetical and relatively simple : Buddhism understands by continuity a mere "consecutiveness" or a uniform "uninterrupted succession of similar events". For Russell even “the lowest degree of continuity", which is described as "compactness", is more complex than the Buddhist ideas. Russell writes : “Mathematicians have distinguished different degrees of continuity and have confined the word 'continuous' for technical purposes, to series having a certain high degree of continuity. But for philosophical purposes, all that is important in continuity is introduced by the lowest degree of continuity which is called 'compactness'". Ibid., p. 138.
This difference between the simple consecutiveness which is signified by the idea of succession and the more complex "compactness"-not to mention the kinds of "high degree of continuity"-becomes clear when we understand the definition of "compactness". "A series is called 'compact'," Russell writes, "when no two terms are consecutive, but between any two there are others.” (Ibid.) The number of such terms coming between them may be (according to him) "infinite”. He illustrates this point as follows: "Given any two fractions, however near together, there are other fractions greater than the one and smaller than the other, and therefore no two fractions are consecutive. There is no fraction, for example, which is next after 1/2; if we choose some fraction which is very little greater than 1/2, say 51/100, we can find others, such as 101/200, which are nearer to 1/2. Thus between any two fractions, however little they differ, there are infinite numbers of other fractions." (Ibid.) Critics (e. g. Stcherbatsky in Bud. Log., Vol.I, pp. 142-4 etc., S. Mookerjee in the Buddhist Philosophy of Universal Flux, p. 17f., f.n. 1) are more ready in noticing the "striking" coincidence of Russell's position with that of Buddhism, in this connection,-it is, indeed "striking” as a matter of broad comparison—than in delving into the subtle but important

Page #67

CHAPTER II They are sole' objects of perception and
kyavyāvarta).
differences between the two positions. But the existence of such differences does not affect the general tone of agreement between the two positions, on the solutions offered to the problem of continuity.
Finally, it should be said that in spite of the extraordinary ingenuity shown in his solution of continuity by his method of "logical construction" we cannot help feeling that Bertrand Russell has not succeeded in convincing us that "compactness" or even the highest degree of discrete "continuity" can offer a genuine substitute for identity or permanence. Buddhism fares no better in this respect. The strength of their polemics against identity or permanence indicates the strength of the persistence of identity or permanence as a complementary element in being as in knowing. Sa eva ca pratyakşavişayo yataḥ tasmāt tadeva svalakṣaṇam (Nyāyabindu with Nyāyabinduţikā, Bibliotheca Buddhica, VII, p. 13). Stcherbatsky translates this as: "Since it is just that thing which is the object (producing) direct perception, therefore the particular (i. e., the unique moment, the thing in itself) is the exclusive object of sense-perception.” Bud. Log., Vol. II, p. 36.
Although a unique particular is the object of perception its knowledge cannot be had at the perceptual level (see the following f.n.). It is only at the conceptual level that the mind can form a cognitive image or notion of the particular by imposing the conceptual forms, such as the universals, relations, etc., (Such forms are collectively designated, by the Buddhist, as sāmānyalaksaņas in contrast with the svalakṣaṇas) on it.
The curious thing about the notion of the object thus obtained is that it does not, according to the Buddhist, represent the object as such but represents, on the contrary, the negation, or “the rejection”, of what is other than-or the opposite of—the object (anyāpoha). For instance, a cow is said to be the negation of non-cow (agonivșttiḥ.) Similarly, "bitter" (tikta) is described as the negation of "non-bitter" and "sweet” (madhura) as the negation of "non-sweet”. (See S.V. Jha, p. 317, f. n. 121-122.) While discussing "Inference" Randle states on the authority of Uddyotakara, “the real meaning" of apoha, a term to be presently referred to, as

Page #68

48
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
follows: "If you say A is B, your real meaning may be that A is not not B-or, if you prefer, that A is not not-B,-or again, that not-not A is B, or even that not-not A is not-not not-not B.” (Indian Logic in the Early Schools, London etc., 1930, p. 182, f.n. 1; see also p. 261, f.n. 2 and 3.)
Apohavada is the name given to this theory according to which an object is conceived to be the negation of its opposite. Dinnāga is the earliest exponent of this theory. He expounded it in his Pramāņa-samuccaya (ch. V; see HIL, p. 287) in the extreme negative form which has just been illustrated. This form is specifically designated as anyāpohavāda in distinction from other two forms which will presently be mentioned
A powerful polemic has been directed against this negative theory by several Brahminical and the Jaina writers from the points of view of their respective schools. The most notable Brahminical writers are: Uddyotakara (Nyāyavārtika, Bib. Ind. II. 2.65; TBV, p. 200 f., and TSS, kārikās 982-1000), Vācaspatimiśra's Nyāyavārtikatātparyațīkā, Apohavāda, E. T. in Bud. Log., Vol. II, Appendix V), Bhāmaha (TSS, kārikās 912-914; kā. 13 has been quoted below in a context similar to this. See infra, ch. XI.), Kumārila (MSV, the extensive ch. on apoha), Jayanta (Nyāyamañjarī, ed. Gangadhara Sastri Tailanga, Benares, 1895, Pt. I, p. 316) and Bhartshari (Vākyapadīya, ed. Gangadhara Sastri Manavalli, Benares, 1887, ch. II, kärikās 118-154). The following are the notable Jaina critics of this theory: Abhayadeva (an extensive treatment of the topic in his TBV, pp. 173-270), Prabhācandra (PKM, 43-451 and NKC, Vol. II, pp. 551-566), Haribhadra (AJP, Ch. IV) śāntyācārya (NVVS, pp. 96-98) and Siddharşi (in Vivști on Nyāyāvatāra, P. L. Vaidya's edn., p. 4 f.).
Most of the above critics point out that the total lack of any reference to a positive content in Dinnāga's negative notion of apoha exposes the notion to a suicidal danger (e. g. MSV, kārikās 134, 142-145, 147, etc., NKC, Vol. II, p.563, the end of para. 1; and AJP, Vol. II, p. 403, kā. 6). Among others Kumārila, Prabhācandra, and śāntyācārya emphasise the fact that logically speaking, even the notion of apoha does, or at any rate should, refer to a positive content, or a real object. For according to them, negation does not refer to void, of which apoha is said to be a variant form (cf. apohaśabdavācyātha śünyatānyaprakārikā /MSV, p. 576, kā. 36), but to some different positive entity (cf. bhāvān

Page #69

CHAPTER II
49
taram abhāvo hi / MSV. p. 566, kā. 2: sarvathā asatah pratibhasa ayogāt / AJP, Vol. II, p. 351; NVVS, p. 97, lines 17-18; and NKC, Vol. II, p. 562, line 8). The significance of negation in the Jaina metaphysics will be treated at the appropriate place. (See infra, ch. V.)
As a result of the many-sided attack by the various critics, the most notable of whom have just been noticed, the Buddhist attitude towards apohavāda underwent what might be described after Hegel as a triadic course of development. The thesis of Dinnāga that apoha signifies nothing but negation fails to commend itself to śāntarakṣita and Kamalaśīla. These latter thinkers take a realistic view-which may be described as an antithesis to that of Dinnāga-in which apoha signifies a positive content (bāhyārthādhyavasāyī, arthapratibimbakam-see e.g., TSS, kā. 1011 and the PK thereon). They treat negation (in the sense that 'the nature of this thing is not the nature of the other thing') as only an implication which does not form an integral part of the positive 'felt content' but arises later when reflection plays upon the 'felt content' (see TSS, kārikās 1013-1015 and the PK thereon.)
Ratnakirti come upon this scene, where we find an unbridged gulf between the negative and the positive views on apoha, and attempts a synthesis. As a necessary step in this attempt he rules out the realistic argument that apoha denotes a positive content only (nāsmabhiḥ apohaśabdena vidhireva kevalo'bhipretaḥ / SBNT, p. 3) and that the negative import is just a later logical implication following the elusive perceptual presentation of the positive ('felt') content. (Ibid.)
He is equally firm in repudiating the converse view of the "Negationist' (anyāpohavādin) that apoha is purely negative (näpyanyavyāvsttimātram / Ibid.) and that its positive reference is a later logical deduction (ibid.). His own view is that apoha is both positive and negative in its meaning (or content), and that both these elements are presented at once (anyāpohaviśişto vidhiḥ śabdânām arthaḥ / Ibid. See also the Preface, p. 1, para 2, and Keith's Buddhist Philosophy, Oxford, 1923, p. 317).
Thus we find three decisive landmarks in development of apohavāda, viz., the purely negative view of the pioneer Dinnāga, the positive view of śāntarakṣita and his alter ego Kamalaśīla, and lastly, the reconciliatory view of Ratnakīrti.

Page #70

50
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
In the triangular fight over the interpretation of the natue of apoha, Ratnakirti emerges, as just noticed, as a victorious synthesist of the two opposing trends. This victory seems to point to the truth that the true nature of any aspect of reality, nay, of the entire reality, consists in a synthesis of the positive and the negative aspects. The realization of the need for such a comprehensive synthesis, within howsoever limited an aspect it may be, is the result of a bold departure from the purely negativistic beginnings of the theory. But even the bold genius of Ratnakirti stopped short of breaking through the narrow framework of the nominalistic metaphysics of momentariness, and of extending the limited truth of his discovery over the whole range of reality. The reverence for the master Dinnāga seems to be so overpowering that none of the dissenters from Dinnāga, the champion of negativism, has had the courage to declare openly the fact that he is dissenting. Even Ratnakirti is no exception in this matter. They have all tried to rationalize, or read their minds into the view of the master. (This aspect of whether apoha denotes a positive, or a negative, or both positive and negative, signification of objects, is one among the several aspects, such as the nature of the universal, the relation between the word and the object, and so on, with which apohavāda is concerned. As a matter of fact, even the present aspect of the theory seems to have been keenly debated, not merely between the Buddhist and the nonBuddhist thinkers—as indicated by the reference to the nonBuddhist critics and their works in this footnote-but also between many Buddhist thinkers themselves at various stages. For instance, Ratnakirti hints two groups of philosophers who held the positive or the negative view of the theory. They are referred to as vidhivādins and pratişedhavādins, respectively, in his Apohasiddhi, SBNT, p. 3. Jñānaśri belongs, as can be seen in PVD, 167 ff., to the latter one. The Tibetan literature on apohavāda is said to be "very vast" (see Bud. Log., Vol. II, p. 404). Dharmottara also is said to have written a special work' on the subject. Von E. Frauwallner's articles on 'Beitrage zur Apohalehre' in the Vienna Oriental Journal (Vol. XXXIX, pp. 247-285; Vol. XL, pp. 51-94; Vol. XLII, pp. 93-102; and Vol. XLIV, pp. 233-287, including a Tibetan text) deal with this subject at some length.

Page #71

51
CHAPTER II perception is the only source of their direct knowledge. There is nothing besides these ultimate constituents” (paramärthasat), which neither extend in space (deśānanugata) nor stretch in duration (kālānanugata) beyond the twinkling flashes of moments. Unlike the monads of Leibnitz which, though 'windowless' in relation to other monadsø communicate with God, these unique reals of Buddhism are entirely self-contained and therefore form a procession of full-stops as it were, in the process of reality. They are entirely disparate or unconnected". Connection or relation is, as has already been observed, imposed on them by our distorting imagination (kalpanā). Being exclusive or self-sufficient they do not change. Change is spontaneous and they are, therefore, selfproductive and self-destructive. Hence nothing can destroy a thing if the power of destruction is not inherent in its
1. But the so-called direct knowledge is speechless' or indescrib
able (anabhilāpya) because an attempt to describe the 'brute fact', or percept (i. e. perceived something) is necessarily accompanied by overlaying the percept with ideal or mental categories. Uddyotakara is, therefore, right in characterising that this percept is like a dumb man's dream' (mūkasvapnavat). Cf. Randle's Fragments from Dinnāga, p. 84 and f.n, 1 thereon. Dharmottara observes that 'ultimate reality is in its turn the ultimate particular' (see NBT, p. 17 and Bud. Log., Vol. I, p. 192). They differ also in respect of their being entities which reflect the entire universe which is pregnant with the past and the future—from their own points of view. The svalakşaņas
(unique reals) are efficient rather than reflecting forces. 4. Although they are similar' to each other the 'similarity' or
continuity does not, according to Buddhism, form part of their
inmost nature (see supra, p. 44 ff., f.n. 2). 5. The following celebrated' verse, previously uttered by the
Bodhisattva, is cited by Buddha on the eve of his (Buddha's) death. That change is two-fold ( growth' and 'decay ') as well as spontaneous or inherent in all things (“their nature', there

Page #72

52
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
nature even as nothing can bring it into existence if such power is not already within it. A jar, for instance, appears to be destroyed by the blow of a staff but this is not really so. The destruction must be entirely attributed to the natural potency of the fleeting forces which previously emerged into existence to become the phenomenon that is the jar'. This potency for momentary self-emergence and self-destruction is called arthakriyāsāmarthyam and it is the very essence of reality (arthakriyāsāmarthyalakṣaṇatvād vastunah”).
For the Buddhist, momentariness and efficiency are inseparable. Reality is momentary because it is efficient and it is efficient because it is momentary. Anything which is
fore, not something ab extra) is specifically uttered in the second and the third lines of the verse:
aniccā vata sankārā uppādavvaya dhammino / uppajjittvā nirujjhanti
tesam vūpasamo sukho // Mahā sudassana suttanta, The Digha Nikāya, Pali Text Society, Vol. II, p. 199. The following is the E. T. of the verse:
How transient are all compound things! Growth is their nature and decay, They are produced, they are dissolved again;
To bring them all into subjection—that is bliss. Sacred Books of the Buddhists, Vol. III, p. 232. See also Intro., pp.
194-195. 1. Cp. The Buddhist Philosophy of Universal Flux, pp. 1-5. 2. For reference to the Buddhist works wherein this idea, Biz. arthakriyāsāmarthyam, is dealt with, see infra, ch. V.
What follows, is a Buddhist polemic against the possibility of causal efficiency (arthakriyākāritvam) in the substance-view (dravyavāda) of any description.
The Jaina has no objection to join the Buddhist in this polemical attack but he does so on two conditions: one, that the substance-view attacked by the Buddhist is of the extreme or

Page #73

CHAPTER II
53
non-momentary and non-efficient is unreal. This attitude puts the Buddhist in opposition to the Naiyāyika and others who subscribe to the notion of a permanent substance. If the substance is permanent, the Buddhist would argue, there are only two ways of its being efficient in the production of its effects : the one simultaneous, the other successive. Both lead to absurdity : in the first case, the substance ought to produce all the effects it is capable of in the very first moment of its existence. Nothing should stand in the way of the spontaneous production of its effects. But if it produces all its effects, as it should, at once, then its potency is exhausted and its continued existence in the subsequent moments will be empty and meaningless. If, however, it continues to exist even though it is not potent or productive, then another difficulty sets in, viz., the incompatibility between productivity (sāmarthya) in the first moment and non-productivity (asāmarthya) in succeeding moments. This militates against the fundamental law of all existence, viz., nothing which has opposed characteristics can be one entity (viruddhadharmadhyāsavān nāsāvekah).
exclusive type (ekāntadravyavāda) and, two, that it is also of the static type (kūțasthanityavāda). These conditions will again be mentioned (see infra, ch. V) in the course of the section on arthakriyākāritvavāda (see infra, ch. V). A criticism against the Buddhist view of this vāda, in the light of the Jainas' own of the subject, will also be discussed in that section. As a matter of fact, momentariness, efficiency, causality and reality are treated as synonyms and, conversely, what is non-momentary or non-efficient, non-causal, is unreal (nissvabhavatvät) or non-existent (abhāvarüpa eva): akūraram asad eva/
PK on TSS, kā. 384; see also Bud. Log., Vol. I, p. 124 ff. 2. See supra, p. 23 and f.n. 3 thereon.

Page #74

54
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Again, the Buddhist feels that his opponent fares no better in the other case also, viz., that the permanent substance can produce its effects successively. The Buddhists here ask why the permanent should not produce all its effects at once, instead of in succession. For if it is in the nature of the substance to produce a certain number of effects, then it is absurd, he would argue, to maintain that it cannot produce B while it has been producing A inasmuch as both are, as it were, in its womb. The Buddhist would drive this matter to an issue and plead that if the substance cannot produce B together with all the effects inherent in it, then it can never produce any effect at all and remains barren forever like a piece of stone. If, on the other hand, his opponent approves of the contention, then he is reduced to the plight of accepting the simultaneous productivity of the whole range of effects by the substance. Both these alternatives are therefore uncongenial to the substantialist thesis.
Furthermore, the Buddhist tries to silence the opponent who might plead that the substance does not produce all its effects at once owing to the absence of its auxiliaries' (sahakari) and that it will bring out the effects gradually as the auxiliaries come to its aid. The Buddhist comes down upon his opponent here and asks the opponent whether or not the auxiliaries make a difference to the substance. If they make any difference then the efficiency of the permanent in produc
1. In the estimation of the Buddhist the opponents' (the target is the Nyaya-Vaiśeşika reality) notion of causality involves not merely the manifest absurdities, which are being so trenchantly criticised, but also the additional absurdity of being conceived on 'the anthropomorphic pattern' of Bud. Log., Vol. I, p. 128 f.

Page #75

CHAPTER II
55
ing the cause is compromised and becomes dependent upon other things in order to be efficient. If, on the contrary, they do not make any difference to its nature, then it is futile to plead for inoperative and ineffective (akiñcitkara) elements in a thing. Applying this logic to the instance of the seed and the plant, the Buddhist argues that the plant is not the result of the productivity of an identical seed helped by the auxiliaries of rain, etc., but is an entirely different thing. In other words, the seed in itself is different from the seed in combination with its auxiliaries and, therefore, difference is ultimate. Failure to comply with this conclusion would lead the Buddhist to say that the seed as modified by auxiliaries is opposed to its initial unmodified condition. Such opposition does violence to the law that no two opposed things are one entity. The Buddhist, therefore, would conclude that causal efficiency is the essence of the simple and unique moments each of which is totally different from the others' (trailokya-vyāvarta).
Thus we see that in Buddhism permanence (or continuity or being) is treated as a mere subjective imposition (vikalpa)
1.
The exceptions, of course, are the Vātsīputrīyas (also called the Ābhidhārmikas or Vaibhāşikas), whose partial divergence from the extreme antagonism to the substantialist view has already been touched upon (see supra, p. 19, f.n. 1) and the Mādhyamikas who treat any positive view-whether it be the substantialist view or, for that matter, the erroneous doctrine of momentariness, under their negative and destructive method of prasanga (a form of reductio ad absurdum by means of which the inherent weaknesses of the opponent's doctrine is claimed to be exposed; here one is reminded of a similar method used by Zeno and Śrīharşa).

Page #76

56
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
on the absolutely different discrete, simple, momentary and unique events which constitute the process of reality. The Buddhist has persistently rebelled against any trace of substantialist' influence.
This extreme attitude of denial regarding substantiality and the soul is a consistent development of the initial triple postulate of anicca, anatta and duḥkha. This denial is but the negative aspect of the positive creed of relentless "becoming' resembling a vast show in which the atomic entities or snapshots ceaselessly race to tell a story which does not proceed from within themselves but is fabricated by the onlooker. Each real is a monad from which there is no way out and into which there is no entrance. Such a position cannot help becoming solipsistic'.
1. In his comments on the following statement of Dharmakirti
śāntarakṣita suggestively touches upon the essential pointsboth critical and constructive-bearing on the whole argument of arthakriyūkäritva as stated here : yadi na sarvam kştakam vā/ pratikşaņavinasi syāt akşaņikasya/ kramayaugapadyabhyām arthakriyā ayogāt/ arthakriyasamarthyalakṣaṇamato nivșttam/ asadeva syāt/ etc. VND, pp. 7-8, and the Vipancitārtha thereon. See also HBT, pp. 118 ff., PVD, II. 3-4 (and the MV thereon), and SBNT,
p. 74. 2. Dharmakirti seems to have been aware of this 'danger and
therefore to have attempted to escape from it by trying to make out a case for his position in his special "Tract on the Repudiation of Solipsism" (or "Establishment of the Existence of Other Minds"). The case-judging from Stcherbatsky's 'short summary of the tract which is available in Tibetan-does not seem to be strong enough to rid the Buddhist position from the solipsistic consequences because Dharmakirti's argument seems to rest on the supposed weakness of his opponent's argument rather than on the inherent strength of his own. See Bud. Log. Vol. I, pp. 521-24.

Page #77

CHAPTER II
57
The wealth of human adventure and evolution becomes one vast fiction built on—but does not actually rest on—the mere fleeting moments.
The ethical and spiritual motive underlying this repudiation of substance or soul is clear. It is to do away with a'continuant' having a prior and posterior existence and offering an enduring basis for the mutations of life and matter. This is considered to be the basis of avarice and egoism which breed the ills of life. To relieve the world from suffering meant, on this theory, to rid the evil-stricken beings from their pre-occupation with that which endures and lures them away from the path of prajñā. But in achieving this Buddhism has overshot the mark. Or rather, the logical result of this view is that in the attempt to be cured of ailments man tends to be cured of life itself. Furthermore, speaking ethically, man has no basis for selflessness once he has lost the self. This prescription is as radical and extreme as its Vedāntic opposite which over-reaches its aim by offering a universal but static self or the absolute, and denying the ultimate validity to the values of this mighty frame of the mutating world which must form an integral part of reality. Reality flies on both wings—the right wing of the Vedānta with its allegiance to the Upanișadic being, and the left wing of the nairātmya metaphysics (becoming) descending from the deep intuition of Buddha.
1. Cf. "Having seen by wisdom all the passions and evils arising
from the view of Ātman (satkāyadşști), and having also known that the object of it is Ātman, a Yogin denies its existence." This is V. S. Bhattacharya's E. T. of a verse by Candrakirti in Madhyamakāvatāra, VI. 123. See The Basic Conception of Buddhism, p. 72 and f.n. 23 thereon.

Page #78

58
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
An adequate metaphysics does not annul but conserves and transfigures the obstinate elements of permanence and change. No doubt both the great systems display a rigorous internal consistency, but they lack comprehensiveness. Unless the claims of the two brothers are evenly accommodated philosophy becomes a haunted house constantly assailed by the ghost of the maltreated brother. An inclusive view of reality is a sure corrective to the one-sidedness. It should, therefore, be based on a concrete conception in which the co-ordinate ideas of being and becoming, identity and difference, universal and particular are harmoniously comprehended.
The failure of each of the two great systems so far considered is at once grand and fruitful-grand because of the depth of insight each has revealed in bringing out a massive system of thought into which some of the sublime elements of human thinking are wrought and fruitful because each has exhausted all the weapons it could possibly bring into its fight against the other and thereby shown how the inadequate postulates with which it started inevitably lead to a partial reading of the secrets of complex reality. Great as it is, this failure points to the need for a sturdy synthesis of the elements 'permanence' and change', 'identity' and difference', and 'universal' and 'particular' at all levels -ontological, epistemological and logical. A brief account of each of the schools which have attempted such a synthesis is offered in the following chapters.

Page #79

CHAPTER III
The Schools of Philosophy in which Identity Subordinates Difference :
A. The Sáňkhya System B. The Bhedābheda Systems of :
(i) Bhartsprapañca (ii) Bhāskara and Yadavaprakāśa (iii) Nimbārka
(iv) Rāmānuja C. Hegelianism

Page #80


Page #81

CHAPTER III
A. The Sānkhya System
Having viewed, in the course of the two previous chapters, Advaitism and Buddhism, and found that the one upholds 'identity' and the other difference', we may endeavour, in the course of the present chapter, to examine a few systems of philosophy in which difference (bheda) is subordinated to identity (abheda). The systems which figure here, in the order of their treatment are: (A) The Sānkhya; (B) the Bhedābheda schools of (i) Bhartạprapañca, (ii) Bhāskara and Yādavaprakāśa, (iii) Nimbārka, and (iv) Rāmānuja; (C) Hegelianism, an important school of Western philosophy, is added to the above notable systems of Indian philosophy for the reason of its striking resemblance to, as well as divergence from, the Jaina view, in respect of some important dialectical features.
Without going into highly controversial and not directly relevant questions like how early' (before
1. According to R. Garbe the Sānkhya and the Yoga are "the two
oldest systems (of philosophy) which India has produced" (see his Intro. to the Bhagavadgitā, E. T., Ind. Ant., 1918, p. 14). Incidentally, in his estimation', the Sankhya is also "the most significant system of philosophy that India has produced". (See his Preface to Vijñānabhikṣu's Sānkhyapravacanabhāşya, p. XIV.) H. Jacobi points out Kautilya's references in the Artha

Page #82

62
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
śästra (about 300 B. C., according to him) to this system (see The Early History of Indian Philosophy, E. T., Ind. Ant., 1918, p. 102 ff.).
In his Early Sankhya E. H. Johnston has made an attempt 'to trace the evolution (or 'the historical development') of the (Sankhya) doctrine up to its culmination in the Sankhyakärikās' by the method of sorting out, and assessing, 'four classes' of evidence. An earlier part of the same attempt is embodied in his paper on 'The Numerical Riddle in the Svetasvatara Upanisad', JRAS, 1930, pp. 855-878. Previously, S. N. Das Gupta also has endeavoured to trace the early developments of the Sankhya, particularly as they are found in the Carakasamhita of Caraka (see HIP, Vol. I, p. 213 ff.). Johnston credits Das Gupta with being 'the first to bring to notice the historical importance' of Caraka's account. B. N. Seal's Positive Sciences of the Ancient Hindus, and P. C. Ray's Hindu Chemistry, offer highly suggestive remarks on the naturalistic side of the Sankhya philosophy.
With regard to the relation between the Sankhya and the Upanisads opinions vary: some hold that the Sankhya sytem is 'almost as old as the Upanisads' and 'independent in origin'. (Bādarāyaṇa's rejection of the idea that the Sankhya represents Upanisadic teaching is significant in this connection; see OIP, p. 267 f.). Others maintain that it is 'based on the Upanisads', that the leading conceptions of its philosophy are already found in the 'varied teachings' of the Upanisads, or, to express the same somewhat specifically, that 'the realistic tendencies of Upanisads receive emphasis in the Sankhya 'conception of the universe', and that certain important divergences in the system from the Upanisads are the result of a natural process of criticism and development of one side of the Upanisadic teaching'. But the generality of writers (except those who suggest 'borrowings' by the Upanisads, of 'the doctrines already extant in the Sänkhya system'-a suggestion which is repudiated as 'methodologically unsound' in Keith's The Sänkhya System, p. 7) find an impact of the Upanisads, at any rate the earlier ones, on the Sankhya, although some attribute to this impact certain positive doctrines in the Sankhya, and others a keen 'opposition' or 'reaction' which led to the development of the doctrines in it. Keith, however, admits both results of the impact (ibid.). See, in this connection, OIP, p. 267; TP, Vol. I, p. 259 ff., Vol. II, p. 249 ff.; the article on "The Sankhya', ERE, especially p. 190; and Keith's work, already cited.

Page #83

CHAPTER III
63
Iśvarakļşna', the great exponent of the classical form of this school) did the Sankhya originate, and whether and to what extent, it is an original' system, we may safely affirm that this school represents one of the earliest attempts, among the orthodox systems, to effect a synthesis between 'identity' or
With regard to the question of the relation between the Sankhya system and Buddhism, Stcherbatsky, in his excellent and lengthy review of Vidushekhara Bhattacharya's The Basic Conception of Buddhism, observes that "the Sankhya system preceded Buddhism in time and constitutes its (the latter's) philosophical basis". He cites names of scholars such as H. Jacobi, Pischel, H. Oldenberg and even R. Garbe, in support of his thesis. E. J. Thomas, like Senart, however, finds that "the most certain parallelisms (between the two schools) are crossed by evident discordances" (see his History of Buddhist Thought, pp. 80 and 91, as well as f.n. 2 thereon). Stcherbatsky's comparison between the 'dharmas' of the Buddhists and the 'guņas' of the Sankhyas, and between the 'pratītyasamutpada' of the former and the 'pariņāmavada' of the latter, are, like several other ideas touched upon in course of the review, of highly suggestive significance. The review, referred to in this paragraph, is entitled 'The Dharmas of the Buddhists and the Guņas of the Sankhyas' in the Indian Historical Quarterly, 1934, pp. 737-760 (see especially p. 753 f.).
For a few observations bearing on the relation between the Sankhya and the Jaina systems, on matters such as puruşa and jīva, and prakrti and ajīva, respectively, see PrSKU, Intro., p.
LXII ff. 1. It is generally acknowledged that iśvarakrsna's Sankhyakarikā
is the earliest work available on the Sānkhya system. Max Müller, however, thinks that the Tattvasamāsa is the earliest. (See his The Six Systems of Indian Philosophy, London, 1928, p. 224 ff.) In this connection it is observed : "Thus it remains a moot question to this day whether the Sankhya represents an original doctrine or is only derived from some other”. OIP, p. 13. See also supra, p. 61, f. n. 1. For Hiriyanna's confusion of the Sānkhya notion of identityin-difference with that of the Jaina, as well as for a critical comment thereon, see infra, p. 68, f.n. 1.

Page #84

64 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE permanence and difference' or change. Of the two primordia realms the Sānkhya recognises as together constituting the entire reality, the first is the realm of a plurality of statically permanent (kūțasthanitya') selves (puruṣas”) and the second of dynamically constant (pariņāmanitya) nature (praksti). Puruşas being pure (svacchāh) and static entities, or undifferenced identities, the problem of synthesising identity and difference is confined, exclusively, to the realm of praksti.
Praksti is conceived to be a permanent framework within which is set the cosmic play of change. Change consists in the evolution of different configurations or patterns resulting from the different combinations of the three guņas, viz., sattva, rajas, and tamas, the ultimate or irreducible constituent elements of praksti. The configurations thus evolved, or the evolutes, eventually dissolve themselves in their matrix, prakrti, this dissolution or involution being the other aspect of change. An eternal cycle of these alternating evolutions and involutions is conceived to be the inherent nature of prakrti.
1. Cf. na prakstir na vikȚtih puruṣaḥ / Sankhyakārikā, kā. 3. 2. S.S. S. Sastry has noticed that the early Tamil work, Manime
khalalai, refers to one puruşa only in the Sankhya system. See his Sankhyakārikā, Madras, 1948, Intro., p. 18, f.n.4.
Logically plurality of puruşas (puruşabahutvam) necessitates postulating plurality of prakrtis since praksti is said to be meant for the enjoyment (bhoga) and salvation (apavarga) of a puruşa. If the same prakyti is imagined to play infinite roles to infinite puruşas then it is hard to explain how the intrinsically non-intelligent (aviveki) can accommodate itself to the infinitely different needs of the individually peculiar puruşas. The Sankhya does not seem to have any satisfactory explanations for these difficulties.

Page #85

CHAPTER III
Although change, in this system, is genuinely real', it is not radical or total as it is conceived to be under the ārambhavāda (the doctrine of new creation) of the NyāyaVaiseșika philosophy. According to the ārambhavāda an effect, the result of change, is considered to be a totally novel creation completely different from the cause although it inheres in the cause as a quality does in a substance. The effect jar (ghața), for instance, is described under ārambhavāda as the counterpart' of its antecedent non-existence (prāgabhāvapratiyogi). That is, when the jar comes into being its prior non-existence ceases to be, the prior non-existence and the posterior existence being totally different from each other. This view, also called asatkāryavāda, is in sharp contrast to the Sārkhya view of satkāryavāda' (the theory of identity of the cause and its effect) according to which the cause abides in the effect as, for instance, the yarns abide in the fabric, the difference between the two being that the latter manifests a particular arrangement (samsthānabheda) of the former'.
1. Cf. kāryam prakstisvarūpaṁ virūpam ca / Sānkhyakārikā, kā. 8. 2. Cf. infra, Ch. VII. 3. For a discussion of the two contrasting doctrines of satkārya
vāda and asatkāryavāda (or ārambhavāda), see Vācaspati Miśra's
Tattva-Kaumudi, comm. on kā. 9 (in G. Jha's edn., pp. 20-24) 4. Cf. prasārya iha yathāngāni kūrmaḥ samharate punaḥ / The
Mahābhārata, XII, ch. 253. This illustration of the tortoise (kūrma) is beautifully elucidated by Madhavācārya. See SDSC, pp. 225-226. evam abhede siddhe, tantava eva tena tena samsthānabhedena parinatah pato, na tantubhyo'rthāntaraṁ patah 1. See TattvaKaumudi (Jha's edn.), p. 22.
John Davies has noticed the following interesting statement in Sir William Hamilton's works: "What is the law of causality? Simply this....that all that we at present come to know as an

Page #86

66
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Thus lack of identity between the two terms (the cause and the effect) necessarily indicates the lack of any causal relation as, for instance, in the case of a horse and a cow. Accordingly, what is meant by the production and the destruction of an effect is simply the revelation (ävirbhāva) and the concealment (tirobhāva), respectively, of a particular form of prakệti depending, as already noticed, on the preponderance or the diminution in the relative proportions of its three ultimate constituents.
One of the two important conclusions emerging from the treatment of pariņāmavāda, as applied to prakrti, in the Sānkhya metaphysics, is that change or difference is a genuinely real feature of reality. But this conclusion is overshadowed by the other, and more important, conclusion arising from the supreme importance attached to satkāryavāda in the sphere of prakrti. The truth of this doctrine, viz., identity of the cause and the effect, leads the Sänkhya to elevate the importance of identity to such level that change or difference, however genuine it may be considered to be, becomes dwarfed in importance. Treating the effect as an
effect must have previously existed in its causes". Hindu Philosophy, 2nd edn., London, 1894, p. 33, f.n. 1. Therefore, Hiriyanna's comparison of the Jaina notion of identity-in-difference with that of the Sankhya, as indicated in the following statement of his, though true in a broad sense, is to be understood as subject to this important qualification. Contrasting the Sankhya notion of causality with that of the NyāyaVaišeşika he observes : "The material cause and the effect are not taken here to be quite distinct, as in the Nyāya-Vaišeşika.., they form, on the other hand, an identity in difference, as in Jainism." EIP, p. 109. (Italics mine.)

Page #87

CHAPTER III
67
entirely novel creation is of course an extreme view. But treating the cause as primary and the effect secondary amounts to disregarding the co-ordinate importance of change or difference. As a matter of fact a firm instance on the logic of satkāryavāda may even lead to a wholesale repudiation of difference. This is proved in the case of Advaitism'. As the philosophy of a realist the Sankhya tries to reconcile the doctrine of satkāryavāda with that of pariņāmavāda. Partiality for the former, however, so much dilutes the truth of the latter that difference' is subordinated to 'identity'. When the undivided supremacy of identity in the realm of puruşas is considered in conjunction with the primacy of identity over difference in the realm of praksti, the Sānkhya's adherence to permanence as a more primordial principle of reality becomes an undoubted proposition.
B. (i) The Bhedābheda Philosophy of Bhartsprapañca
Bhartạprapañca' is an early thinker who lived long anterior to Sankara and Sureśvara. He maintains a form of
1. As a result of treating difference as appearance, and not reality,
Advaitism has been more appropriately described as satkāranavāda. This doctrine differs from satkāryavāda in the greater degree of emphasis it lays on the cause. The distinction between the two doctrines is, therefore, one of degree rather than of kind. None of the works of the early thinker has come down to us. Reference to, and discussions of, the various aspects of his views are, however, found in some Vedāntic works which often quote expressions from his writings. A number of "Fragments of

Page #88

68
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
bhedābhedavāda', or dvaitādvaitavāda', a doctrine of 'identityin-difference'', or of 'unity-in-diversity”. According to this doctrine brahman, the ultimate reality, evolves itself into the manifold world of objects and the selves (jīvas) and the relation between brahman on the one hand and the world and the selves on the other is one of identity and difference. Owing to the evolutionary character of brahman this doctrine may also be called a type of brahmapariņāmavāda". As brahman, in the metaphysics of Bhartsprapañca, is "not robbed of its manifestations" or the evolutes, viz., the world and the selves, but possesses them, its nature is said to be saprapanca'.
Some of the examples by which the dual nature of 'identity in difference', in brahman on the one hand and in the jivas and the world on the other, is illustrated are the
Bhartsprapanca" have been brought together, by Hiriyanna, in a paper bearing this title (see Proceedings and Transactions of the Third Oriental Conference, Madras, 1924, pp. 439-450). In the article 'Bhartsprapanca: An Old Vedāntin' contributed to The Indian Antiquary, 1924, pp. 77-86, the same writer has attempted, "a tentative reconstruction of Bhartsprapañca's doctrine in its broad outline". There have been practically no further attempts, before or since the publication of the two contributions, just mentioned. The two contributions named will be referred to as FrBH and BOV, respectively. The sources from which the 'fragments' are taken, and on which the 'reconstruction' is based, are mentioned in the course of the body and
the footnotes of the two works. 1. See, for instance, BOV, p. 78 and FrBH, p. 439. 2. BOV, p. 82, and K. C. Bhattacharya's Studies in Vedāntism, Cal
cutta, 1909, p. 25. 3. FrBH, p. 439 and BOV, p. 78, etc. 4. BOV, p. 82. 5. FrBH, p. 439. 6. Cf. BOV, p. 7, f.n. 2.

Page #89

CHAPTER III
snake and its coils, hood, etc.', the 'sun and its rays', and 'unagitated and the agitated ocean". Bhartṛprapañca does not see anything incompatible' in the idea of the homogeneous (para) brahman envolving itself into a heterogeneous (apara) universe of selves and objects. On the contrary he sees in the latter the fulfilment of the evolving urge in the former.
69
His view, that there is no incompatibility or 'discrepancy' between bheda or diversity and abheda or unity in the integrated principle of bhedabheda, which is described as "the ultimate Truth", is further accentuated by his theory of knowledge designated as pramāṇasamuccayavāda. According to this vada perception explicitly gives diversity although unity also is implicit in perceptual truth. Similarly the scripture explicitly reveals unity, although diversity is also implicit in the scriptural 'truth'. Neither truth-perceptual (or empirical) or scriptural (or revealed)-is more true than the other; both are "equally valid". There is, therefore, no "conflict" between them. This view is in sharp contrast with the Sankara view that empirical knowledge is on a lower footing' than revealed knowledge, and, that, in the ultimate analysis, revealed knowledge (of unity) or parāvidyā
6
1. BOV, pp. 78-79, and IP, Vol. II, pp. 789-790.
2.
Cf. BOV, p. 82.
5.
3. FrBH, p. 440.
4. Cf. BOV, p. 82. Of this theoretical side jñānakarmasamuccyavāda is the practical counterpart, or 'corollary'. See FrBH, p. 440.
Cf. svānubhavāddvaitasya advaitasya śrutivaśāt (prāmāṇyam)/ BOV, p. 82, f.n. 44. Elsewhere we meet with a statement that 'dvaitam' (also) is 'paramarthasatyam'; evam sarvam idam dvaitam paramarthasatyam. See IP, Vol. II, pp. 789-790.
6. BOV, p. 82.

Page #90

70
is alone the absolute or sole truth (not the empirical knowledge, or apară vidya, which is ultimately false). Thus while the former view affirms that the two kinds of knowledge are valid "in exactly the same sense", the latter one assigns them to two different spheres', between one being ultimately true and the other false.
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
This difference between the two views is indeed of a basic and far-reaching philosophical significance. It is, therefore, no wonder that it evokes from Sankara a sharp criticism against the dvaitadvaita thesis of Bhartṛprapañca. The criticism is that "although rules of action may admit of exceptions or alternatives, a truth does not; truth does not depend on any one's choice. Two contradictory attributes, dvaita and advaita, dual and single, cannot both be true of the same thing. Yet the sea and its waves are said to be identical-indifference. In fact the union of contradictories is not denied of phenomenal objects, it is denied only of the noumenon, the 'simple' eternal object (nitya-niravayavavastu-viṣayam hi viruddhatvam avocama dvaitadvaitasya na karya-viṣaye savayave)."
The above criticism by Sankara has, if anything, some abstract logical force derived from the unitary basis of his philosophy, but not any concrete ontological conformity. The relationless unitary ultimate has no appeal either to Bhartṛprapañca or, as will be evident from the following sections,
1. Ibid.
2. Cf. BOV, p. 78.
3.
K. C. Bhattacharya, op. cit., p. 25.

Page #91

CHAPTER III
71
to any other bhedabhedavādins, within the metaphysical range of brahmapariņāmavāda.
This is but a brief account of the principal features of the bhedābheda view of Bhartạprapañca, based, mainly, on Hiriyanna's "tentative reconstruction of Bhartạprapañca's doctrine in its broad outline”. Even in course of this brief attempt one cannot help noticing the fact that Bhartsprapañca displays, behind his valiant effort to accord equal validity to the principle of difference (bheda), an indisputable predilection for unity (abheda, identity), in the form of upholding brahman as the evolving basis of the world and the jīvas. This position necessarily involves the logical fact that brahman, like the praksti of the Sānkhya', is the matrix, and, therefore, the primary real from which everything else is derived. Merely designating the derived universe of matter and life as of equal reality to that of brahman is not warranted by the logic of brahmapariņāmavāda. Therefore, in the battle for difference' Bhartsprapañca obtains a partial victory.
B. (ii) The Bhedābheda Metaphysics of Bhāskara and
Yādavaprakāśa
Bhāskara and Yādava are two of the most notable postSankara thinkers according to whom reality is an evolution from brahman (brahmapariņāma) exhibiting, simultaneously,
1. For a comparison between the doctrines of the Sānkhya and
Bhartsprapañca, see BOV, pp. 85-86.

Page #92

72
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
the dual character of difference and non-difference or identity (bhedābheda or bhinnābhinna). The evolution is a real transformation of the unitary brahman into the manifold world and the finite selves. This position, like that of Bhartsprapañca, is in sharp contrast with the vivartavāda according to which the world is a 'cosmic fiction' or a phenomenal appearance (māyā) occurring owing to ignorance (avidyā)' which is sublated when true knowledge (jñāna)? reveals itself. A further important divergence on the part of this position from that of the latter doctrine concerns causal relation: While the two thinkers under study treat the world as a finite, but real, manifestation, or effect, of the infinite ultimate (brahman)' the vivartavādin repudiates the intrinsic reality of any causal relation between the world and the ultimate principle. This is so because, in the bhedābheda view of the former, the effects, say, the jar, the pot and the platter etc., are
1. For the distinction, in meaning, between māyā as the principle
of cosmic illusion' (or cosmic fiction') and avidyā (ignorance) as the 'incidence', of māyā, on the individual, see OIP, p. 348, f.n. 1 and p. 365 f. Evidently this doctrine strikes Bhāskara as propounding the view that the world (which is infected with bheda) is 'epistemic' in its being (prätītikasattā), or that it exists for the individual (puruşāpekṣayā) in ignorance. Bhāskara sharply attacks this view and (cf. naraðhedān na hi jñeyā vastunah sadasatyatā/ na hi rūpam anandhānāṁ satyam andheşvasad bhavet/ Brahmasūtra with the Comm. of Bhāskarācārya, ed. Vindhyesvari Prasada Dvivedin, Benares, 1903, p. 18) and affirms that our experience of bheda is not phenomenal but real (tasman na
bhedadarśanam avidyā/ Ibid., p. 19). 3. See the somewhat lengthy but highly lucid comm. on II. 1.14.
Bhāskarācārya, op. cit., p. 9288. 4. See below f.n.

Page #93

CHAPTER III
the genuine states' (avasthās) of clay, whereas, in the abheda view of the latter, the clay alone—by which is meant the ultimate principle-is real: mịttikety eva satyam”, the states, or the effects, of clay being phenomenal or intrinsically unreal. A further consequence arising from this difference between the two views is that the bhedābhedavādins consider the world as not merely real, as just pointed out, but also describable (nirvacanīya), since words, it is pointed out, are eminently expressive of the truth: atha nāmadheyam satyasya satyam'. The abhedavādin, on the contrary, considers the world, which is māyā, as indescribable (anirvacanīya) or
2.
1. Cf. tasmāt bhedadarśanato'vidyā na mithyā paramātmano'vasthā,
višeşah prapañco'yam etc. Bhāskarācārya, op. cit., p. 96. sankara stresses 'eva' in this sūtra (of the Chandogya Upanişad, VI. 1.4) in order to accentuate his view that the cause is really and truly nothing but clay', and that the effect is 'a name merely' (nāmadheyam), having its origin in 'mere speech' (vācārambhanam), and is, therefore, 'untrue' (asatyam). See SBE, Vol. XXXIV, Pt.1, p.320. Bhāskara puts this case as follows: atra kecin māyavādam avatārayanti mȚttikety eva satyam ity avadhāraņāt kāraṇam eva satyań kāryam anstam asatyam anādikālapravṛttāvidyāvaśāt ayaṁ bhedaḥ pratibhāsate na paramārthato'sti etc. Bhāskarācārya, op. cit., p. 93. This vivarta view, that cause alone is real (kāraṇam eva satyam), is incongruous because one cannot speak of a cause without its correlative effect, sharing the reality of the cause. The vivartavādin is indeed aware of the fact that the illusory world needs a basis (aspada or adhişthāna) for its appearance, and maintains, consequently, that brahman or sat provides the sole basis. He also concedes that brahman cannot be called 'the cause' in strictness. It is, according to him, called so by courtesy so to speak (upalakşaņa). This way of playing fast and loose with the principle of causality which is admittedly unreal, intrinsically, offends the logical conscience of Bhāskara
as of many others. Cf. ibid., p. 92 ff. 3. Bhāskarācārya, op. cit., p. 93. See also P. N. Srinivasachari's
The Philosophy of Bhedābheda, 2nd edn., Madras, 1950, p. 59 ff.

Page #94

74
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
indefinable. This is the reason why the former group of thinkers feels that the tests like neti neti (not thus, not so), or neha nānāsti kiñcana (there is no plurality of existence), etc., deny plurality and finitude (bheda) in the absolute or brahman, but not, as the group interprets, plurality and finitude as such'.
Both Bhāskara and Yādava sternly maintain that identity and difference co-exist in all that is'. Every object of experience is, they say, a blend of the generic basis and the specific transformations of the generic basis. Brahman, the ultimate basis of the manifold universe of objects and selves, is conceived as retaining its infinity, purity and perfection even while it finitizes itself into the universe of objects and selves". It is, therefore, the infinite cause, or the unitary ground, of the finite diversities both of which form, in this view, not mutually incompatible", but correlative elements of the total reality.
Despite their agreement on the basic position of the bhedābheda or bhinnäbhinna approach to the nature of reality Bhāskara and Yādava differ on a few points, two of which deserve mention here. In the first place, brahman, according to Bhāskara, is the unconditioned absolute which, by virtue of upādhis, or "limiting adjuncts', conditions itself into the
1. Cf. kāryarūpena nānātvam abhedah kāranātmanā / hemātmana
yathābhedah kundalādyātmanā bhidā // Ibid., p. 18. 2. Cf. tasmāt sarvam ekānekātmakaṁ na atyantam abhinnań
bhinnam vā / Ibid., p. 101. 3. Cf. Srinivasachari, op.cit., p. 144, and IP., Vol. II, p. 670. 4. Çf. IP., Vol. II, p. 671.

Page #95

CHAPTER III
75
diverse world of objects and selves. Upādhis or limitations are conceived by him to be real' (satyopādhis), not fictitious (mithyopādhis). The conditioned state of the unconditioned is compared to an enclosed or limited space in a jar, and the enclosed space is, nevertheless, thought to be continuous with the universal space. This principle of upādhis, which is considered as the necessary condition of the evolution of the world from the unconditioned, or the unlimited, absolute, is brought in by Bhāskara to bridge the gulf between the infinite and unitary absolute and the finite and multitudinous world. Yādava, on the contrary, does not feel the need of postulating anything like upādhis to intervene between the evolving brahman and the evolved world. He is content with investing brahman with an inherent power, or śakti', by virtue of which brahman can finitize itself into the world of diversities just as an ocean can spontaneously break itself into waves, ripples, and foam.
Secondly, Bhāskara and his followers maintain that ‘Brahman has two parts, a spirit part (cidarśa) and a material part (acidarśa)', the latter being a medium through which brahman transforms itself into the finite world'. Yādava, on the contrary, gives his ontology a certain spiritualistic orientation by denying qualitative differences between God (īśvara or brahman) and consciousness (cit) on the one hand, and between consciousness and matter (acit)
1. Cf. Srinivasachari, op. cit., pp. 51, 69-72 and 144. For Rāmā.
nuja's objections against the notion of upādhis, see pp. 214-215.
Ibid., p. 144. 3. Cf. ibid., p. 6.

Page #96

76
on the other', "Acit", observes Srinivasachari, describing Yadava's philosophy, "is the object which can develop into the subject and consciousness sleeps in the matter and wakes up in the sentient being"." Yet, strangely enough Bhaskara emphasises the abheda texts and, consequently, emphasises the ultimacy of identity (ananyatva), in spite of his professed dualism of brahman and upadhis, while Yadava emphasises the eternality of difference, as well as of unity, despite his belief in a kind of pan-spiritualismR.
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Whatever may be the differences existing between Bhaskara and Yadava with respect to certain specific issues, two of which have been just noticed, these two thinkers primarily aim at setting forth a metaphysical scheme in which reality is "neither a bare unity nor a mere plurality-but a vital synthesis of both". But while they have succeeded in considerably weakening the vigour of the Advaitic claims for a pure being, or a 'bare unity', which is bereft of all determinations or diversities, they have not succeeded in escaping the consequences of incongruously endeavouring to rear an imposing structure of diversity (the world and the selves, bheda) on the foundation of unity (brahman or abheda). They credit unity with 'being' the source and the destiny
1. Ibid.
2.
Ibid., p. 145. Also cf. p. 6, f.n. 1, wherein a confirmatory observation, on this point, is cited from Tatparya-dipika of Sudarsanācārya.
3.
On the entire question of this difference between the views of the two thinkers, see ibid., p. 145, IP, Vol. II, pp. 671-672 and Brahmavadin, Vol. V, p. 470.
4. Cf. Hiriyanna's Foreword to Srinivasachari's op. cit., p. VII.

Page #97

CHAPTER III
77
of diversity. This necessarily leads to the ultimate elevation of unity to the status of the primal principle and to the corresponding degradation of diversity to the level of a secondary or derivative element, in reality'. The ingenuous devices like the concepts of upadhi and avasthās have not, therefore, prevented the satkāryavāda systems of Bhāskara and Yādava from assigning to bheda, the principle of difference', an intrinsically subordinate role to which it (bheda) is assigned in all forms of satkāryavāda.
B. (iii) Nimbārka's System of Svābhāvika Bhedābheda
Among the bhedābheda schools, derived from brahmapariņāmavāda', Nimbārka's svābhāvika' bhedābhedavāda goes farthest in recognising both identity and difference as
1.
Cf. Bhāskarācārya, op. cit., p. 141 where abheda is characterised as svābhāvika or natural' and bheda as aupādhika or 'adventitious'. Distinguishing the viewpoints of sankara, Bhāskara and Yadava L. Srinivasachar rightly observes : .... śrišankarasiddhānte bhedabhedavişaye bhedaḥ avidyakaḥ abhedaḥ paramarthika iti / śribhāskarasiddhante bheda aupadhikaḥ abhedah svābhāvika iti / śrīyādavasiddhānte bhedaḥ vyaktilaksanaḥ abhedaḥ śaktilaksaņa iti etan matatraye bheda aupādhikaḥ abhedo mukhya iti pratibhāti / Darśanodaya, Mysore, 1933, p. 194. Cf. VPSN, Pt. III, p. 194, the last two paragraphs. Cf. VPSN, Pt. I, pp. 292-297. See Nimbārka's Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha (called a Comm. on Brahmasūtras), ed. V. P. Dvivedin, Benares, 1910, III. 2. 27 and 28; and Anantarama Deva's Tattvasiddhānta-bindu, Benares 1913, ślokas 12 and 24; and the same writer's Vedāntaratnamālā, Brindavan, 1916, śloka 45. These three works will be referred to hereafter as Saurabha, Bindu and Ratnamālā respectively.

Page #98

78
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
equally real' (tulyabalatvāt)' elements in reality. Referring to this point Ghate observes that ". "....if at all we insist on seeing in the sutras one of the five systems' under discussion, it can be at the most the 'bhedabheda' system of Nimbārka, according to which both bheda and abheda are equally real, without the idea of any subordination of one to the other"".
1. Cf. Śrutyantasuradruma, by Purushottama Prasada, Benares, 1908, pp. 67 and 69, and Ratnamālā, slokas 47 and 48. Supporting the equal reality of bheda and abheda, Bindu (sloka 13) declares :
3.
abhedaḥ kevalo bhrāntiḥ tatha bhedo'pi kevalaḥ/ śrutismṛtiviruddhatvāt vivekinām asammataḥ//
For the erroneous consequences issuing from the two views of atyantabhedavāda and atyanta (kevala) bhedavāda, see slokas 3, 4, 7 and 8. Nearly every work, under the present system, contains at least a short account of criticisms, in general, against the two views just mentioned, as well as criticisms, in particular, against the views of Sankara's māyāvāda, Bhāskara's aupadhika bhedabhedavāda, Rāmānuja's cidacidvisiṣṭaparameśvaravāda. See, for instance, Devācārya's Siddhānta-jāhnavi (a gloss on the Brahmasutras; together with Sundarabhatta's sub-comm. Siddhāntasetukā, Benares, 1906, pp. 30-56), Purusottama's Vedantaratnamañjūṣā (concerned mainly with 'māyāvādanirākaraṇa'), and Śrutyantasuradruma (Benares, 1908), pp. 11 ff., and 61 ff. etc.; and Madhava-Mukunda's Para-pakṣa-giri-vajra (a review of whose controversies with the non-Nimbārka, particularly advaita, views is given in HIP, Vol. III, pp. 416-439).
2. The five systems referred to here, are those of Sankara, Rāmānuja, Nimbārka, Madhva and Vallabha.
V. S. Ghate's The Vedanta, Poona, 1926, p. 183 (Reference to the sutras follows this passage). See also Indian Antiquary, Vol. II, 1939, p. 324; and P. N. Srinivasachari's The Philosophy of Bhedabheda, 2nd edn., Madras, 1950, p. 155 (for a reference to S. Majumdar's view). That the claim that there is no 'subordination of one to the other' is, eventually, incompatible with any form of satkāryavāda or brahmapariņāmavāda, under which Nimbārka's school figures, has already been, and will again be, touched upon at the end of this section.

Page #99

CHAPTER III
79
This system is designated as svābhāvika or natural particularly in distinction from aupadhika' bhedabhedavāda of Bhaskara in so far as difference (bheda), here, is conceived, not as an 'adventitious' (aupadhika) element, but as one which is as natural as identity. We may now consider the essential features of this system and then see how far the claim of the equal reality of both identity and difference is tenable.
Three reals are admitted by Nimbārka in his philosophy: bhoktṛ (the enjoyer, or the jiva), bhogya (the enjoyable, or the world) and niyantṛ (the controller, or Isvara, or brahman'). The relation between Iśvara (God) and the jivas on the one hand, and between Iśvara and the world on the other, is conceived to be one of non-difference-in-difference or unity-indiversity (dvaitadvaita"). The relation is, as just noticed, not' adventitious' (aupadhika) as in the Bhāskarīya system, nor is it unreal (asatya) as in the Sankara system'. It is both natural (svābhāvika) and real (satya).
1. See Vedāntaratnamañjūṣā, pp. 6-7; VPSN, Pt. III, pp. 85-86 and 182 ff., especially, p. 197, para. 3 and Siddhanta-jähnavi (and Setuka thereon), p. 30 ff.
3.
2. bhoktā bhogyam niyanteti trairupyam ca yatharthakam // Ratnamālā, p. 25. See also Vedāntaratnamañjūṣā (on sloka 7), p. 84.
Cf. tasmāt svābhāviko bhedaḥ trayāṇām eva niścitaḥ / atha abhedo'pi vijñeyaḥ svābhāvikaḥ tathocyate // Ratnamālā, śloka 37. See also the verses following this, Siddhanta-jähnavi, p. 44, and Setukā, pp. 46-47.
4. See Siddhanta-jāhnavi (and Setukā thereon), pp. 30-33. Another important possible view is that of Rāmānuja's visiṣṭādvaita or complex whole in which brahman represents the element of identity (advaita) or substance (prakarin), and the world (acit) and the individual selves (cit) represent the element of differ

Page #100

80
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
ence, or diversity (viśeşa), or attributes (prakāras). This view, like the other two, comes in for sharp criticism in Nimbārka's svābhāvika dvaitādvaita philosophy. Deferring a somewhat lengthy treatment of visişțădvaita metaphysics until the next section, we may mention here two important points of difference between the two schools in order to get a clearer view of their respective viewpoints : In the first place Rāmānuja's conception of visiştādvaita is, as will be noticed elsewhere, one in which identity subordinates difference in a more emphatic way than it does in Nimbārka's conception of svābhāvika dvaitadvaita. It is more emphatic in the sense that, in the former case, less attempt is made to conceal the bias for identity than in the latter one. Being based on satkāryavāda both schools lead, inevitably, to a view in which identity has a superior role. Nevertheless the latter has to surrender itself to the final conclusion much against its intended aim (see the end of the next para here), while the former, when logically pressed, will, perhaps, accept its final position. This difference is implicit in the spirit as well as in the procedure of either system.
Before proceeding to the next point it is necessary to point out, here, a misconception, entertained by at least one modern critic, regarding whether identity or difference is more primary in the conception of viśiştädvaita. This critic feels that identity is secondary for him (Rāmānuja) and not primary like difference (P. T. Raju in the New Indian Antiquary, Vol. II, 1939, p. 323). That this is his confirmed opinion is indicated by its reiteration on the next page of the same journal. This is definitely contrary to the spirit as well as the letter of Rāmānuja's brahmapariņāmavāda in which brahman, ex hypothesi, holds undisputed supremacy over its 'attributes' of cit and acit. The whole trend of Rāmānuja's theory, with its emphasis on iśvara as the only independent substance, and the source and sustenance of the modes, points to identity, not difference, as more primary (cf. IP, Vol. II, p. 755). Nimbārka, on the contrary, accords, in his metaphysics, an equal measure of reality, at any rate theoretically, to both identity and difference.
The second point of difference between the two schools arises from the difference in the treatment accorded to cit and acit in the two schools. In visiştädvaita school cit and acit are, as already noticed, attributes of brahman. Although, as attributes, they are, according to this school, at one with (abhinna) brahman, they do not, owing to their distinction from (bhinnatvāt)

Page #101

CHAPTER III
81
Nimbārka impresses upon the truth of this non-differentin-the-different relation between brahman and the 'jīva-jagat' by means of the stock Vedāntic examples like a serpent and its coils and the sun and its rays'. The serpent (ahi) in its coiling state (kuņdalāvasthāyām) is conceived to be different from the serpent as it is in its normal elongated posture (svābhāvika lambāyamānāvasthāyām); and yet the two serpents are also regarded as non-different (or identical) in so far as the coiled one is an effect of the (elongated or) normal one which is the cause. Being a satkāryavādin Nimbārka considers the effect as being pre-existent—or, more precisely, an undifferentiated (avyakta) existent-in its
brahman, corrupt brahman with even a trace of their defects (evam cetanācetanayor brahmavišeşanatve'pi tadbhinnatvān na tadguṇasānkaryagandho'pīti / Siddhānta-jähnavī, p. 42). This view does not commend itself to the exponents of svābhāvika bhedābhedavāda. They maintain that the function of an attribute (više. şana) is to differentiate (vyāvartakatvam) the particular object to which the attribute belongs from other object or objects to which it does not belong. Cit and acit, being attributes of brahman, should, they insist, differentiate brahman from other objects. But, they continue, there is no other object than brahınan from which brahman could be distinguished. To say that the attributes, viz., cit and acit, distinguish brahman from themselves would therefore be, according to them, absurd owing to the fact that the attributes belong to brahman and, therefore, their task is not to distinguish the object, to which they belong, from themselves but from other objects which do not possess them. There being no such other objects the entire Visiştādvaitic thesis, concerning cit and acit as attributes, is, they conclude, erroneous. For a lucid exposition of this argument
see Siddhānta-jähnavī, p. 43 f., and Bindu, ślokas 17-22. 1. See Saurabha, III. 2. 27 and 28; VPSN, Pt. II (pp. 552-556); and
HIP, Vol. III, p. 416, f.n. 1, and p. 434, f.n. 1 (for a lucid passage
from Para-paksa-giri-vajra). 2. See Ratnamālā, sloka 103.

Page #102

82
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
cause, and, therefore, identical (ananya), at any rate to that extent, with the cause'. The example of the sun and its rays also is understood in the same way the sun and its rays are, it is believed, two distinctive manifestations, and yet are, at once, identical as light. The truth conveyed by such analogies is that brahman or Isvara is identical with the world and the selves as their causal basis and, at the same time, is different from the latter in that the latter are genuinely different or visible manifestations of the former, which is the invisible or transcendental support of all that is. This view is believed to obviate the incongruous dichotomy between nirgunabrahman and sagunabrahman since it is believed to affirm the dual nature of brahman, viz., the co-presence of transcendence and immanence.
Without going into a minute analysis of the various aspects of Nimbārka's philosophy we can, even from the brief sketch attempted here, deduce that Nimbarka's svābhävikabhedabheda view fares no better than the other bhedabheda views of the satkārya, or the brahmaparināma, type, with respect to the principle of difference. The realm of difference, which consists of the world and the selves, has its source of being in brahman and is, therefore, considered by Nimbārka as dependent (paratantra) in relation to the supremely independent (svatantra) brahman'. It is, therefore, not logical to invest
1. Cf. tadananyatvaṁ kāraṇasadbhave karyopalabdheḥ / Saurabha, II. 1.15; see also this comm. on the preceding and the next sutras. 2. Cf. Srinivasachari, op. cit., p. 157.
3. Cf. upādānam nimittam ca brahmaiva jagataḥ param / karyaṁ cāpi sadevedam jāyate brahmanaḥ sataḥ / Ratnamālā, śl. 102.
4. Ibid., slokas 48-65.

Page #103

CHAPTER III
83
it with a status which is co-ordinate with that of identity (or brahman). In order to be mutually co-ordinate elements both identity and difference must be equally primary which, though claimed to be so, is not the case in Nimbārka's philosophy. That Nimbārka favours asserting that both the elements are "equally real” is due to the awareness of the equal importance of the element of difference' also in reality. There is, however, no logical warrant for the status or the degree of reality associated with difference in his system. This is inevitable in the case of any bhedābheda system which, like the present one, is a form of satkāryavāda or brahmapariņāmavāda. As a matter of fact the persistent claim, made by this system, for the equal reality between the two unequally real spheres-unequally real because the one (viz. of brahman) is supremely independent, or primordial, and the other (viz. of the world and the selves) solely dependent, or derived-makes the system open to the objection of not mere incongruity but of contradiction. This is somewhat surprising in a system which accuses the Jaina view of self-contradiction.
B. (iv) Rāmānuja's Visiştādvaitism
Rāmānuja's philosophy of Višiştādvaita' (the doctrine
1. See The Brahmavādin (Madras, 1900), Vol. V, p. 425 for the E. T.
of a brief but lucid passage, from Rāmānuja's Vedāntadipa, giving a summary sketch of this doctrine. See also Vedāntadīpa (ed. Bhattanathaswamy, Benares, 1902), Avatārikā, pp. 1-8, and the comments on sūtra 2, p. 11 f., and Vedāntasāra (also by Rāmānuja, ed. Bhagavatacharya, Brindavan, 1905) on the same sū., p. 2 ff.

Page #104

84
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
of unity with difference') is as opposed to nirviseșasattvavāda' (the doctrine of differenceless identity) of Sankara, as it is to bhinnābhinnavāda (the doctrine of identity in difference) of Bhāskara, Yādava, Nimbārka, and other bhedābhedavādins'. It is based on the notion of visistaikyam or the complex whole, in contrast with that of svarūpaikyam or absolute identity (of Sankara). A complex whole includes both unity and difference (or diversity) as integral elements
1. This doctrine is also variously described as qualified nondual
ism, pan-organismal monism, qualified monism and so on. Cf., for instance, Rangacharya's Rāmānuja and Vaişnavism, Madras, 1909, p. 34; P. N. Srinivasachari's The Philosophy of Višiştādvaita (to be referred to as Višiştādvaita, hereafter), Madras, 1943, p. 614, IP, Vol. II, p. 661, and EIP, p. 178.
The doctrine is called višiştādvaitam because of its insistence on "The non-duality of two different objects, višiştayor advaitam" (IP, Vol. II, p. 686, f.n.1). Describing the meaning (artha) of the term V. Krishnamacharya writes: "tad evam višiştādvaitam iti padasya eşo'rthaḥ paryavasannah viśiştasya aśeşa-cid-acidviśiştasya brahmaṇaḥ advaitam aikyam viśiştādvaitam iti / aśeșacid-acid-vićişta brahmaikam eva tattvam iti 'ekam eva advitīyam' ityādiśruter arthaḥ / Vedāntakāvali (of Bucci Venkatacarya, ed. V. Krishnamacharya, Madras, 1950), upodghātah, p. X. For the interpretation and elucidation of Rāmānuja's own statement of the meaning: visiştāntarbhāva eva aikyam, see OIP, p. 399, and
f. n.1, and EIP, p. 178. 2. For a polemical exposition of sankara's nirviseşavāda and
Rāmānuja's savićeşavāda, as well as for the refutation of the former and the demonstration of the latter-all based on Rāmānuja's Śrībhāşya-see V. K. Ramanujachari's The Three Tattvas, Kumbhakonam, 1932, Sections III and IV; and the corresponding portions (under "The Great Purvapakşa') in the Vedānta-Sūtras, with Comm. of Rāmānuja, Tr. G. Thibaut, Oxford,
1904, pp. 20 ff. 3. See The Three Tattvas, Sections VIII and IX and The Vedānta
Sūtras, 1. 1.1, pp. 189-197 and 459 f. Contrasting Visiştādvaita with Buddhism (which recognises the concept of viseșaņa, but not of viśeşya) on the one hand, and

Page #105

CHAPTER III
85
whereas an absolute or bare identity (sanmātrabrahmavādam) excludes difference as a delusive appearance'. In terms of modern philosophy while Rāmānuja upholds both the 'that' and the 'what', sankara adheres to the 'that' only.
The 'what' in Rāmānuja's philosophy is described as the attribute, or the mode (prakāra) which is related to the 'that’or the substance (prakārin). Acit, or the principle of material objects, and cit, or the principle of individual spirits constitute the modes of the substance which is God (īśvara) in this philosophy. The three together, viz., acit, cit, and iśvara, form the ultimate triad of Viśistādvaitism.
The individual or the finite selves and the world of matter etc., are also said to form the body (śarīra) of īśvara, who is their indwelling (antaryāmin)“, supporting (ādhāra) and
with Advaitic monism (which recognises the concept of viseşya but not of višeşaņa) on the other, P.N. Srinivasachari writes : “The Buddhistic view of quality without substance is countered by the monistic view of substance without qualities and these extremes find their reconciliation in the Višiştādvaitic theory of the world as the višeşana of Brahman". Višiştādvaita, p. 230 f. Cf. The Vedānta-Sūtras, pp. 38-39 and the comments beginning with : brahma ca sanmätrarūpam / astītyeva kevalar vaktum sakyate na tu idrśam tādssam iti etc., in śrīmadbhagavadgita (with Rāmānuja's bhāşya and Venkatanātha's Gloss thereon, ed.
V. G. Apte, Poona, 1923), p. 20. 2. Tattvatrayam cidacidīśvaraś ca / Lokācārya's Tattvatrayam with
Varāvaramuni's Bhāşya, ed. Swami Bhagavatacharya, Benares,
1899, p. 3. See also SDSC, p. 66. 3. See the opening verse of Vedāntasāra. Sakalācārya observes :
sarvāvasthacidacidvastunaḥ paramātmaśarīratvam/ Sakalācāryamatasangraha, ed. Ratna Gopala Bhatta, Benares, 1907, p. 6. See Rāmānuja's Vedārthasangrahaḥ, with Sudarśanasūri's Tātparuadīpikä (ed. Sridharanidhara Sastry, Brindavan, Sam. 1978) p. 11 f., and Tattvatrayam and the Bhāşya, p. 89.

Page #106

86
controlling (niyantṛ) cause (kāraṇa)'. The body is, therefore, defined by Rāmānuja as "Any substance which a sentient soul is capable of completely controlling and supporting for its own purposes, and which stands to the soul in an entirely subordinate relation". Thus Rāmānuja maintains that the absolute is a supreme organism consisting of a cosmic soul and its dependent (seṣa) bodily parts (the world and the selves) which serve its purpose. The bodily parts, or the modes, are conceived to be identical with (ananya) God as they are at one with him in their substance. But they are also said to be different from (svabhavabhinnaś ca) God, just as a body is different from its soul.
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
1. Isvara in this philosophy is not merely the upādāna cause but also the nimitta and the sahakari cause. This follows of course from the Satkarya basis of this philosophy. Tattvatrayam and the Bhāṣya, pp. 102 ff., especially p. 109. The views of the Vaiśeşikas, the Sankhyas and also of others are criticised here. See also Srinivasa's Yatindramatadipikä, ed. Ratna Gopal Bhatta, Benares, 1907, p. 37.
2. The Vedanta-Sutras, p. 424. As a matter of fact Rāmānuja believes that it is only iśvara or the 'Supreme Soul' that can possess a body unconditionally: cf. "Everything in this world, whether individual souls or material things, form the body of the Supreme Soul, and therefore He alone can be said to possess a body unconditionally (nirupadhikaḥ śārīra ātmā).” V.A. Sukhtankar's 'Teachings of Vedanta according to Rāmānuja', Vienna Oriental Journal, Vol. XXII, pp. 128-129. See also f.n. 1 on p. 128 for an explanation of the word 'unconditionally'. For "The evolution of the concept of Seşa", see B. C. Law Volume Pt. II, pp. 123-127.
cetanācetanam vis vam ananyam brahmato bhavet Srinivāsācārya's Sri-bhāṣya-vārtika, ed. Ratna Gopal Bhatta, Benares, 1907, p. 53, stanza 80; see also what follows.
5. Cf. Sakalācārya's description of paramātmā (God) as atyantavilakşana in relation to the modes on the authority of Srşți in his Sakalācārya-mata-sangraha, p. 5. Cf. also Rāmānuja's own
3.
4.

Page #107

CHAPTER III
87
Here a natural doubt arises as to why modes which are really different from God should not be claimed to be substànces like God. Rāmānuja's reply to this doubt is that what makes a mode is its complete dependence' on a substance, and that cit and acit-irrespective of their being different from or identical with, or both different from and identical with, God-can, therefore, be only modes but -ot substances. This dependent relation of a mode to its substance is compared to the relation of an adjective (vićeşaņa) to a substantive (viśesya). Although an adjective has, it is believed, some distinctive existence of its own, it cannot be understood without reference to, or rather without dependence upon, the subject (the substantive) it qualifies.'
The relation between the substance (īśvara) and the modes is said to be one of “inseparability” (ap?thaksiddhisambandha)”. This relation is said to hold between a sub
observation: "In general, wherever we cognise the relation of distinguishing attribute and thing distinguished thereby, the two clearly present themselves to our mind as absolutely different". Vedāntasūtras, pp. 42-43 (the italics are mine). Here it is hard to resist the feeling that Rāmānuja himself has fallen into the error of contradiction with which he charges bhedābhedavādins and others. For one wonders if Rāmānuja can fully succeed in reconciling the notion of an anyatvam with that of atyantavilakṣaṇatvam within the limits of the same logic as he
employs against others. 1. Cf. "Matter and self are the adjectives of the absolute only in
the sense that the attribute cannot be known apart from its substance or subject.” Visiştādvaita, p. 233. That the 'modal dependence' suggested by this statement, does not rule out the idea of the monadic uniqueness on the part of an adjective or attribute, is further pointed out by the same critic from whom
the statement is quoted here. Ibid., p. 234. 2. Describing the nature of this sambandha, Hiriyanna observes :

Page #108

88
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
stance and its attributes, or between one substance and another when one of them is spiritual. It is considered to be "the pivot on which his (Rāmānuja's) whole philosophy turns”l. By virtue of its internal character it often tends to be distinguished from the Nyāya-Vaišeșika idea of samavāya to which it is otherwise similar in regard to its recognition of the reality, the mutual necessity, and the distinctiveness of the relata in it.
The complex unity which the above relation is designed to establish is pointed out to be clearly demonstrated in the great statement (mahāvākya) 'tat tvam asi' (that thou art). In Rāmānuja's interpretation, tat (that), in the statement, signifies brahman, which is the source (ādhāra) as well as the indwelling (antaryāmin) force of the living and the non-living creation : tvam (thou) signifies the individual soul which is held to be "connected with non-intelligent matter". Together, the two, viz., the living and the non-living creation, form, as already noticed, the body of iśvara. The central meaning of the text, in this philosophy, is the affirmation
1. 2.
"It connotes that one of the two entities related is dependent upon the other in the sense that it cannot exist without the other also existing and that it cannot be rightly known without the other also being known at the same time." EIP, p. 177. OIP, p. 399. The fact that aprthaksiddhi or 'inseparability' is, except for its internal character, parallel to samavāya' does not come in the way of Rāmānuja's explicit rejection of samavāya. See Vedāntasūtras, p. 498. For an account of samavāya, see infra, Ch. VII.
Further, apệthaksiddhi seems to be regarded by Visiştādvaitism more as the nature of, than as a relation between, the relata or the entities, although it is also sometimes spoken of as a relation. Cf. OIP, p. 398, f.n. 5.

Page #109

CHAPTER III
89
of the complex, or the organic unity of the whole, viz., Isvara and the souls in association with matter. In other words, the text signifies, according to Visiṣṭādvaitism, the idea of a concrete unity-not the abstract Advaitic identity-which is constituted by brahman and the attributes of cit and acit qualifying brahman'. Rāmānuja invokes support for his interpretation of the above text from the notion of sāmānādhikaranya or the "grammatical principle of the co-ordination of words in a sentence" 2 According to grammarians sāmānādhikaraṇya, or co-ordination, conveys the abiding of several attributes in a common substrate; or "the application to one thing of several words for the application of each of which there is a different motive " The aim of co-ordination is, therefore, "just to convey the idea of one thing being qualified by several attributes". Here 'one thing' evidently refers to the unchanging unitary principle of Isvara and the 'several attributes' to the realms of cit and acit which are marked by difference, muta
1. For a fuller discussion of the nature and implications of tat tvam asi in the present school, see Śribhāṣya (text, Abhyankar's edn.), p. 110 ff., Vedantasūtras, pp. 129-138, and Śrībhāṣya, Vol. I, E. T. by Mr. Rangacharya and M. B. Varadaraja Aiyangar, Madras, 1899, pp. 211-224, Vedarthasangraha, p. 37, etc., and Sukhtankar, op. cit., pp. 288-289. For the various interpretations of this mahāvākya by the different Vedantic schools see Visiṣṭādvaita, p. 594 ff.
2.
Visiṣṭadvaita, p. 38.
3. Vedāntasūtras, pp. 79-80. Cf. bhinnapravṛttinimittānāṁ śabdānām ekasmin arthe vṛttiḥ sāmānādhikaranyam iti sabdikāḥ / Śrībhāṣya (text, Abhyankar's edn.), p. 59. See also what precedes this statement and Vedarthasangraha, p. 51.
4. Vedāntasūtras, p. 79.

Page #110

90
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
tion and plurality. The unchanging unity of brahman is thus understood, in this view, to be co-ordinate with the changing diversities of its attributes. Brahman (īśvara), the substance, and cit and acit, the modes which are believed to be coordinately bound up with the substance, what is described as prakāraprakāribhāva, or the substance-attribute relation. It is questionable whether Rāmānuja does not overstrain the slender grammatical co-ordination in seeking from it a sanction for his theory of reality as a complex whole.?
Two important points to be noticed in Rāmānuja's view of reality are : (a) that he emphasises, as against Advaitism the reality, in the attributes, of difference, and concomitantly with difference, of change and plurality; and (b) that he affirms, as against the bhedābheda view of reality, the unchanging character of brahman which, nevertheless, is the source of all change in the modes, by virtue of its inherent powers. The distinction from Advaitism has already been pointed out by means of the contrasting notions of viếistaikyam and svarūpaikyam. The distinction from the bhedābheda view will be noted presently when the notable features of Rāmānuja's criticism against this view, as represented by Bhāskara and Yādava, are considered. Meanwhile it may
1. For a discussion of the principle of co-ordination in relation
to Visiştādvaitism see śrībhāşya (text, Abhyankar's edn.), p.59 ff. and ibid. (intro., and notes, pt. 2), p. 24; Vedārthasangraha (as well as Tātparyadīpika) p. 51 ff., Śrībhāşya (M. Rangachari's edn.), p. 112 and f. n. 75 (wherein Kaiyyata's definition of this principle is cited and reference to Panini and Patañjali is made in this connection). For two critical observations on this question, see infra, p. 96 f. and f. n. 3 and 1 thereon.

Page #111

CHAPTER III
91
be observed that Rāmānuja's criticism against the bhedabheda philosophy is primarily directed against the common bhedabheda thesis of a self-contradictory reality of identityin-difference. It is because they hold this thesis that bhedabhedavādins are described as 'jainagandhi' (Jaina-like) Vedāntins, and, therefore, as indulging, like the Jainas, in expounding an 'untruthful' (self-contradictory) view of reality (ayathābhāṣaṇacaturāḥ)'. The curious irony of this situation is that Rāmānuja himself, like the bhedabhedavādins thus criticised, is a brahmapariņāmavādin, and is even described, quite rightly, as attempting a "re-interpretation of bhedabheda". Consequently, Rāmānuja is nearer to, if not one among, bhedabhedavādins like Bhaskara and Yādava, than to any other type of Vedāntins, like Sankara. Never
1. Cf. yadi bhaskarayādavaprakāśau nigamāntasthitinirṇayapravīņau/ aparaiḥ kimivāparāddham āryā ayathābhāṣaṇacāturīdhurīnaiḥ // ata eva nirguṇabrahmavādinām pracchannabauddhaprasiddhavadanayor api jainagandhivedāntinau iti nāmadheyam anuśośrūyamahe / Vedāntadeśika's Sankalpasuryodaya, ed. V. Krishnamacharya, Adyar, 1948, p. 322 f., p. 86. Commenting on the phrase ayathābhāṣaṇacaturaiḥ, the commentator of Prabhāvilasa (on the above work) observes syādasti syännästi ityayathābhāṣaṇacāturyadhurinaiḥ / Writing under the phrase jainagandhivedantinau iti the same commentator observes : ekasya vastunaḥ aikarupyakathanat tathātvam / In Prabhavali, a further comm. on the above work, K we see the following comment on this phrase : evam jainaiḥ samanayogakṣematvāt jainagandhivedantinau iti nama jagati prasiddham/ See also what follows. Ibid. Some modern critics also confirm this view. See Brahmavādin, Vol. V, pp. 467468, and Vol. VI, p. 233. A further amplification of the objection of virodha in Jainism is found in Śrībhāṣyavārtika, verses 125-129.
2. "Rāmānuja explicitly rejects the theory of bhedabheda in many places in his Śrībhasyam. But his Visişṭādvaita is really a

Page #112

92
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
theless Rāmānuja is as much against Bhaskara and Yadava as he is against Sankara. The following are the notable points of Rāmānuja's criticism against Bhaskara and Yadava :
In the first place, the Bhaskarīya and Yadaviya thesis of reality as simultaneous distinction and non-distinction (bhedabheda or bhinnābhinna) is, as just noticed, self-contradictory. This is believed to be so on the ground that distinction and non-distinction cannot co-exist as they do in the bhedabheda philosophy, after the manner of Jainism. In brief, the bhedabheda thesis represents an effort to reconcile the irreconcilable.
Secondly, if in order to escape from the above difficulty, Bhaskara and Yadava seek to affirm that non-distinction, or identity, is genus and distinction, or difference, is species, and that both genus and species constitute the two aspects of everything, then it is held that they tend to divide the indivisible into two compartments. Further, this attitude on the part of bhedabhedavadins will, it is contended, not with any convincing reason on the side of Ramanuja, lead to a situation in which difference will tend to be more primary. If true, as Rāmānuja believes it to be, this primacy of difference over identity will, of course, militate against the accepted thesis of a co-ordinate scheme of identity-in-difference.
Thirdly, if, on the contrary, bhedabhedavādins declare that the two elements of distinction (bhinna) and non
reinterpretation of bhedabheda". Identity-in-difference, P. T. Raju, The New Ind. Ant., Vol. XII, Nos. 1-6, 1939, pp. 321-322. See also p. 323 of the same article and his Idealistic Thought in India (London, 1953), p. 154.

Page #113

CHAPTER III
93
distinction (abhinna) should, despite their difference, form a single entity, on the ground that their essence is brahman, then the critic will point out that they become liable to the opposite error of holding non-distinction, or identity, as the fundamental reality.
Thus none of the three possibilities, which correspondingly centre round the notions bhinnābhinna (simultaneous distinction and non-distinction), bhinna (distinction), and abhinna (non-distinction), is, according to Rāmānuja, tenable; and consequently bhedābhedavāda, it is concluded, falls to the ground.
Bhedābhedavādins, however, defend themselves against this, as against Advaitic attacks, on the firm ground that the co-existence of bheda and abheda in reality is an indisputable, and, therefore, uncontradictable, verdict of pramāņa or valid knowledge. If this co-existence is a valid truth, then the several objections of Rāmānuja will lose their force. The fact that bhedābhedavādins have not fully succeeded in defending this truth does not detract from the value of their recognition of the truth. It is needless to go minutely into the polemical subleties of bhedābhedavādins in defence of their position. Some of the arguments from the bhedābheda viewpoint have been outlined in the course of our account of the several schools of bhedābheda philosophy.
1. Cf. Vedānta sūtras, pp. 134-135, 189-193 and 195 f.
Cf. the following observation which represents the general bhedābheda attitude to the problem: pramānataś cet pratīyate ko virodho'yam ucyate / virodhe cāvirodhe ca pramānam karanam matam //

Page #114

94
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Rāmānuja's objections against the bhedābheda philosophy, however, serve, in a somewhat indirect manner, as an indication of his attitude towards the Jaina view of reality. A direct statement of this attitude, touching in particular the point of self-contradiction in Jainism, is made in the course of his comments on the well-known sūtra of Bādarāyaṇa : “Not so, on account of the impossibility in one". Commenting, Rāmānuja observes : “Difference (bhinnatvam)... consists in things being the abodes of contradictory attributes; non-difference, not any more than the generic character of a horse and that of a buffalo, can belong to one animal.”? Concluding his comments, Rāmānuja reiterates, “Things which stand to each other in the relation of mutual non-existence cannot after all be identical." 3
Deferring a treatment of the Jaina solution' to the above objection of self-contradictoriness urged not merely by Viśiştādvaitism but also by the other Vedantic, as well as the Buddhistic, schools, a few critical observations may be made here on the implications of Rāmānuja's own theory of reality.
All the efforts of Rāmānuja to weave difference as an independent entity into the texture of a brahman-ridden reality have proved unsuccessful and resulted in what is, after all, a "temperate monism", as Max Müller calls it. No system which is dominated by an infinite absolute-an absolute which is the source and explanation of all that is finite, o
1. Vedāntasūtras, p. 516. 2. Ibid., p. 518. 3. Ibid., p. 518. 4. See infra, Ch. V.

Page #115

CHAPTER III
95
diverse-can, as it has been repeatedly pointed out, result in a justly comprehensive scheme of reality in which the principle of difference, and all that it implies, can enjoy an intrinsically real and co-ordinate status. Despite its professions to the contrary, Rāmānuja's Viśistādvaitism must be counted among such systems, for it holds that brahman is the supreme reality and cit and acit are, despite their supposedly distinctive status of existence, real only in so far as they derive their reality from brahman. Under this scheme the course of reality becomes a one-way traffic—that is, one in which reality flows only from the infinite absolute to the so-called real and finite world and the selves—but not a genuinely comprehensive synthesis resulting from an interaction of the independent, but complimentary, elements of identity and difference.
Thus there can be little doubt that in Rāmānuja's philosophy, identity, represented by brahman, is, as shown in the present account, the primary principle; and difference, represented by the modal elements of cit and acit, is the secondary principle having brahman for its source and
1. That brahman is, strictly speaking (vastutastu), the only real
principle (ekameva), in višiştādvaita as in the other schools of Vedānta (vedāntānām) in the opinion of Śrīnivāsa : vastutastu vedāntānāṁ cidacidviśiştam advaitam ekameva brahmeti tātparyam/ ata eva cidacidviśiştaṁ brahmaikam iti upakramya tameva prakāram nirūpitavān/ataḥ cidacidviśişto.... nārāyaṇa evaikam tattvam iti vićişțădvaitavādināṁ darśanam iti siddham // śrīnivāsa's Yatindramatadīpikā, p. 47; see also p. 39, and cf. evam sarvāvasthāvasthitacidacidvastusariratayā tatprakāraḥ paramapuruşa eva kāryāvasthakāraṇāvasthajagadrūpena avasthita iti..../ Śrībhāşya (S. Abhyankar's edn., text, p. 119). See also Vedāntasāra, pp. 8-9.

Page #116

96
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
explanation. This stands out clearly in spite of the fact that Rāmānuja has not evolved a clear and well-grounded conception of difference in all respects. The ambiguous treatment of difference is evident when we see, for instance, that it (difference) is considered, on the one hand, as a component and therefore a genuinely real and distinct element in the complex whole (visiştaikyam) of reality, and, on the other, as something which does not touch' --for contact would mean introducing the taint of imperfection—brahman which is believed to be unchanging in nature.
It has just been noticed that, however ambiguous may be its nature, difference is definitely believed to occupy a subordinate or secondary place in relation to identity, in Rāmānuja's metaphysics. Nevertheless, we find two criticsRāju and Śrīnivāsācārya—who are inclined to take the view that for Rāmānuja difference is primary (mukhya) and identity secondary (gauņa)'. That this view (somewhat casually hinted at, and not accompanied by any serious supporting arguments), is not tenable is clear from the main drift of Rāmānuja's viewpoint. Whatever plausibility there is for an equal or co-ordinate-certainly not any superior (primary) - status of difference, derives eventually from the grammatical principle of co-ordination, or sāmānādhikaranya. There are
1. Cf. supra, p. 79, f.n. 4. 2. The New Ind. Ant., Vol. II, Nos. 1-6, 1939, p. 321, f.n. 4. See also
the same author's (Rāju's) Idealistic Thought in India, p. 154
f.n.2. sriniväsācārya's Darśanodaya, p. 194. 3. That sāmānādhikaranya signifies not merely unity but also
and co-ordinately with unity-difference is clearly pointed out

Page #117

CHAPTER III
97
at least two considerations which weaken this principle of coordination as a basis of the argument for a co-ordinate status of difference. First sāmānādhikaranya conflicts with the most fundamental basis of satkāryavāda' which governs the entire philosophy of Visiştādvaita. It is an established fact that in any form of satkāryavāda difference is subordinate, not equal, to identity. Secondly, deriving an ontological fact from the notion of sāmānādhikaranya amounts to, as it has been rightly pointed out, taking "the grammar of language for the grammar of reality".
These various considerations point to the fact that the principle of difference is in essence subordinated to that of identity in Rāmānuja's metaphysics.
2.
by Rāmānuja. Cf. “But if there be no difference of 'modes'
there can be no sāmānādhikaranya.” Sukhtankar, op. cit., p. 290. 1. For a full statement of satkāryavāda, or the doctrine that "the
effect is non-different from the cause" (kāraņād ananyam kāryam) in Višiştādvaitism, and a comparison with the attitude of the Vedānta and other schools to the problem, see ibid., pp. 142-149. EPI, p. 179. In the twenty-fourth series (1953) of the Riddell Memorial Lectures, at the University of Durham, on Languages, Standpoints and Attitudes, (O. U. P.), H. A. Hodges observes how "insoluble problems were....created for metaphysics, merely because linguistic forms were misinterpreted into ontological theories", and how, "so much of metaphysics has consisted of errors like these, that many have come to think that metaphysics is nothing else but misuse and misinterpretation of language" (p. 20). Supporting these remarks Hodges again maintains: "Grammatical forms have been taken as evidence of ontological relations; because facts can be described in sentences, it has been thought, that the structure of a sentence reflects the structure of the existing world.” etc., p. 19; see also what follows.

Page #118

98
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
C. Hegelianism
Among modern philosophers in the West Hegel most nearly approximates to Jainism in that he evolves a systematic dialectical synthesis which comprehends both identity (substantivity) and difference (relativity) in the structure of reality. "Substantiality and Relativity are" says Caird, describing Hegel's philosophy, "thus seen to be not two ideas, but one, and the truth is to be found not in either separately but in their union; which means that nothing can be said to be substantial in the sense of having existence independent of relation, but only in the sense of including its relativity in
25 1
its own being." Neither 'Being' (Substantiality) alone, nor 'Non-Being' ('Relativity', 'Nothing' or 'Other') alone, but 'Determinate Being" ('Becoming'), the union of the
1. Continuing, Caird writes, "In other words, nothing is substantial except in so far as it is a subject or self which maintains itself in change, because its change is determined by its own. nature, and is indeed only the necessary manifestation of nature...... The real substance has to be sought for, not in the two things taken separately, but in the principle which divides and at the same time unites them........ Thus that alone can truly be called a reality which maintains and realises itself in the process of differentiation and reintegration of differences." Edward Caird's Hegel, Edinburgh and London, 1883, pp. 174-175.
2. "Of course Being is sometimes imagined, for instance, as pure light, as the clearness of unclouded vision, and Nothing as pure night; and their distinction is thus connected with this well known sensuous difference. But in fact, if this pure seeing be imagined more exactly, it is easy to perceive that in absolute clearness as much or as little is seen as in absolute darkness, and that one kind of seeing, as much as the other, is pure seeing,

Page #119

CHAPTER III
99
two', constitutes reality. As a matter of fact “Being" and “Nothing” are said to be contradictory ‘moments' (or
that is, a seeing of Nothing. Pure light and pure darkness are two voids which are the same. We can distinguish only in determinate light, that is, since light is determined by darkness in clouded light-and, equally in determinate darkness, that is, since darkness; and this is just because clouded light and illumined darkness contain distinction in themselves and therefore are Determinate Being". Hegel's Science of Logic (tr. by W. H. Johnson and L. G. Struthers, 1929, London), Vol. I, p. 105. "The simple idea of pure Being was first enunciated by the Eleatics, as the Absolute and as sole truth; especially by Parmenides, whose surviving fragments, with pure enthusiasm of thought first comprehending itself in its absolute abstraction, proclaim that “Being alone is, and Nothing is not at all".--It is well known that in orientalsystems, and essentially in Buddhism, Nothing, or the Void, is the absolute principle.--Heraclitus was profound enough to emphasise in opposition to this simple and one-sided abstraction the higher total concept of Becoming, saying: "Being is no more than Nothing is", or "All things flow", which means, everything is Becoming - Popular sayings, chiefly oriental, to the effect that everything which is has in its birth the germs of its decay, while death conversely is entrance to a new life, express at bottom the same union of Being and Nothing. Ibid., pp. 95-96. Although Hegel is concerned, in the course of the present passage, with deriving confirmation, and, in some measure, authority or sanction, for his dialectic of synthesis (of being and non-being) from the illustrious ancient Greek, it is a well-known fact that the Greek thinker, viz., Heraclitus, is more correctly associated with propounding, in keen contrast with Parmenides, almost an uncomprising philosophy of change ('becoming used in a somewhat more onesided sense than by Hegel') than with reconciling the two opposed trends referred to, by Hegel, here. This is indicated by the very fragment just cited by Hegel, viz., "All things flow” as well as by analogies of fire etc. This consideration does not, however, affect the truth of Hegel's argument for the reconciliation or synthesis of being and non-being. Cf. "Being, first, is determined as opposed to Other in general." Ibid. 91.
2.

Page #120

100
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Croce is inclined to treat the two 'moments' or elements as 'distincts' rather than as opposites' or contradictories in Hegel's philosophy. Distinguishing and defending this procedure Croce writes: "The logical category of distinction is one thing, and the category of opposition is another. As has been said (at many places in course of the chapter from which this passage is taken), two distinct concepts unite with one another, although they are distinct; but two opposite concepts seem to exclude one another. Where one enters the other totally disappears. A distinct concept is presupposed by and lives in its other which follows it in the sequence of ideas. An opposite concept is slain by its opposite." Elucidating this contrast further he adds that opposites "do not constitute peaceable and friendly couples" (e. g., true and false, good and evil, being and non-being, life and death etc.)...."Opposition gives rise to deep fissures in the bosom of the philosophical universal and of each of its particular forms, and to irreconcilable dualisms." B. Croce's What is Living and What is Dead of the Philosophy of Hegel, E. T. by Douglas Ainslie, London, 1915, pp. 10-11. (Words within the first pair of brackets are mine, and the examples cited within the second pair are selected from among Croce's own given in a passage on p. 11.) Croce draws the further implications of imposing the "deep fissures" of opposition on philosophical thinking. One of them, for instance, is the tendency to affirm one of the opposites and deny the other or vice versa. That which is affirmed tends to become the whole truth and that which is denied to become a "necessary illusion". Hence the two should, according to Croce, be regarded as 'one-sided truths' or 'fragments' awaiting 'integration'. (Cf. ibid., p. 14 ff.)
Replacing Hegel's dialectic of contradictories by that of 'distincts' is indeed a significant contribution of Croce to Hegelianism and philosophy in general. But even Croce is finally ensnared by the magic of the Hegelian doctrine of the "Concrete Universal". (Cf. ibid., pp. 20, 22, 32, etc. Reference to the 'integration' of the 'fragments', just noticed, also suggests the fact of this ensnarement.) Reserving our criticisms against this specific doctrine for a later occasion it may be observed here that Croce's modified form of the dialectic of 'distinct' is in greater harmony with the Jaina view of real as constituted by identity (dhrauvya) and difference (paryaya) which are mutually complementary elements. This complementary character of the element is particularly accentuated

Page #121

OVV
abstractions clamouțing for, agganciliktidh po synthesis. They represent the thesis and the antithesis leading to the synthetic whole, or corerete universal, whichi dortis'the basis of a news start in the wêrking of the triadic law, Unękę tak ve dartin and the Buddhist, and very much like the Jaina, Hegel does' not frame the picture of reality through the annulment? or obliteration new of the opposing elements of identity and difference but by a sturdy constructive synthesis of identityin-difference which alone, according to him, is the truth' of reality. The two elements are not believed to be connected by a tour de force; they hang together by 'inner necessity'.
LALA
Up to this point Hegel and the Jaina agree in most important respects. But when Hegel tries to derive synthesis from the Absolute, that ‘far-off divine event' towards which everything proceeds, they part company. For Hegel the Absolute (the Idea, the Ideal, the Reason) is the supreme allcomprehending whole which operates as a presupposition of each of its finite aspects. It is the bottom of the inverted pyramid of Hegel's philosophy supporting and sustaining the massive structure of finite and relative 'moments'. "All else”, he tells us, “is error, confusion, opinion, strife, caprice and impermanence". It is the Absolute that is the supreme synthesis of all finite syntheses which are but 'transitions' or mile-stones in our 'ceaseless progression'
in the process of the repudiation of the fallacy of contradiction or virodhābhāsa by the Jaina thinker, in the sequel. "This comprehensive development of the notion of the Absolute is the entire system of the philosophy of the Absolute.” J. B. Baillie, ERE, 573. See also what follows.

Page #122

102
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
toward it. Moreover whatever objectivity there is in Hegel is due to the 'self-externalization of the Asolute.
By his predominant emphasis on the Absolute Hegel ends as the philosopher of 'identity' although he begins well by treating identity and difference as co-ordinate elements and is second to none in his attack upon the theory of pure Being as well as of its opposite abstraction. For the Jaina also identity and difference are co-ordinate, or equally vital, elements in reality. The real, for him, however, is not the rational ultimate (the Absolute), as it is for Hegel, although it is cognisable (jñeya) to the mind. In other words, rationality or thought, (which, in the final analysis is equated by Hegel to the Absolute), cognises, rather than constitutes, reality or the universe. Nor does reality or the universe derive its being or truth from the Absolute. It is, on the contrary, a selfmoving concern. Further, the Jaina seems pre-eminently to base his findings on experience, whereas Hegel seems to do so on a logical analysis although both recognise the objectivity, at any rate the objective reference, of thought or judgment.
A further significant feature arising from the differing background of metaphysical assumptions concerns the nature of the dialectical analysis itself in the two schools. There is an inherent urge in the moments' or alternatives, under the Hegelian dialectic, for conjunction, synthesis or integration. The moments, which are least inclusive wholes, mutually integrate themselves into a wider synthetic whole. Thus they have the character of self-transcendence or self-dissolution stamped on them. We may, therefore, characterise this Hegelian synthesis as a conjunctive dialectic, or conjunctive synthesis.

Page #123

CHAPTER III
103
Under the Jaina dialectic, on the contrary, each ‘moment' or alternative, of experience, is conserved alongside other ‘moments' in its distinctive individuality. In the total fabric of experience the 'moments' are, therefore, neither transcended nor annihilated but preserved, in all their distinctness, displaying a complex network of relation to other‘moments' of experience. We may, therefore, describe the Jaina dialectic as the disjunctive synthesis or the disjunctive dialectic. In virtue of these differences Hegelianism swings, despite its resemblance to Jainism in important respects as already noticed, to the side of the Sānkhya system and the other schools of philosophy in which difference of bheda is subordinated to identity or abheda.

Page #124


Page #125

CHAPTER IV
The Schools of Philosophy in which Difference Subordinates Identity :
A. The Vaiseșika System B. The Dvaita System (of Madhva)

Page #126


Page #127

CHAPTER IV
The Systems of Philosophy in which Identity is subordinated to Difference
Having observed, in the course of the previous chapter, how difference' is subordinated to 'identity' in the several systems including Hegelianism, we may now briefly turn to two noteworthy examples in Indian thought, in which the converse thesis is upheld, viz., subordination of identity to difference. The two examples to be now considered in so far as they have a bearing on the problem of 'identity-indifference', are (a) the Vaiseșika system and (b) the Mädhva system of Dvaitism.
A. The Vaiseșika System
This system is an atomistic pluralism. It adopts a sixfold classification of categories or padārthas,viz., substance (dravya), quality (guņa), activity (karma), generality (sāmānya), difference or particularity (vićeșa) and intimate relation
1. 'Intimate or necessary relation' is a better translation of
samavāya than 'internal relation'. This is so because the term 'internal' indicates that the inner character of the relata will, as will be noticed below, in ch. VII, be affected and, consequently, the relata will tend to become an identity which abolishes otherness or distinction which is the very essence

Page #128

108
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
(samavāya). Non-existence (abhāva) was later' on added as a seventh category.
This system attaches a predominant importance to the category of viseșa”. It maintains this category as a fundamental ontological and functional principle. Even the name Vaišeșika is derived from the term viśeşa.' This term visesa is used to denote every individual element of particularity or difference as well as the whole group of such elements the
of the Yaiseșika philosophy. For a further treatment of the contrast between necessary relation and internal relation as describing the inseparable (ayutasiddha) nature of the relata in samavāya see the opening portion of the chapter just referred to. See ILA, p. 204 f., SP, p. 7 (notes), H. Ui's The Vaiseșika Philosophy, ed. F. W. Thomas, 1917, London, pp. 123-124, footnotes 1 and 2 on p. 124, and p. 183, and IP, Vol. II, pp. 219-221, A. M. Bhattacharya and N. C. B. Bhattacharya clearly affirm that śivāditya was the first to add abhāva as the seventh category to the traditional list of six categories (see their edn. of Sapta
padārthi, 1934, Calcutta, Intro. p. X). 2. Owing to such predominant importance attached to višeşa the
Vaišeşika becomes 'essentially a philosophy of distinctions' See IP, Vol. II, p. 176 and Garbe's observations quoted in the following footnote. Garbe observes : "Difference (višeşa), the fifth category...... holds an important place in the Vaiseşika system, inasmuch as, by virtue of it the difference of the atoms renders possible the formation of the universe. The name, therefore, of the entire system, Vaišeşika, is derived from the word for difference (viśeşa)”. (See his article on Vaiśeşika', ERE.) It should, however, be noted here that difference is attached not merely to atoms but also, as noticed below, to all the ultimate entities forming the basis of the distinctions among such entities. Also cf. višeşapadārthas tu darśanāntarakāraih na manyate, ata eva asya darśanasya višeşadarśana iti samjña, etanmatānuyāyinām api vaiseșika iti samjñā....../V on VD in VD, p. 458. See also ILA, p. 179, f. n. 1; PDS, p. 32; OIP, p. 225; and SP, p. 3 (notes).

Page #129

CHAPTER IV
109
number of which is said to be infinite (te anantāḥ'). Every simple or ultimate entity (nityadravya) is believed to have a viśeşa rooted in it. It is by virtue of the visesa thus rooted in it that an entity can be differentiated from all other entities. This is so not merely in the case of ultimate entities which are otherwise indistinguishable from one another, e.g., one atom (aņu) from another, one liberated soul (muktātma) from another or one manas from another", but also among all other entities in the universe.
If viseșas are granted to be the differentiating elements
1. See Jinavardhanasūri's Comm. quoted in SP, p. 5 (notes). 2. vināśārambharahiteșu nityadravyeşu anvākāśakāladigātmamanassu
pratidravyam ekaikaśo vartamānaḥ....../ PB, P. 691. See also
SP, p. 5 (for the Comm. quoted) and TRD, p. 277. 3. Hence višeşas are characterised as vyāvșttibuddhihetevah. PB,
p. 691.
anyanimittasambhavāt / Ibid. 5. nityeşu tulyakstiguņakriyeșu paramāņuşu muktātmamanassu etc.
Ibid. 6. The direct means of differentiation among the ultimate entities
are of course višeşas themselves. The proximate means of differentiation among the non-ultimate or composite bodies are, however, the distinctions among the component parts constituting the bodies (avayavabhedādavayavibhedah). But, in the ultimate analysis, even these distinctions among the component parts are based on the indivisible atoms from which the parts are formed. Hence all differentiations are based, directly or indirectly, on the višeşas. Cf. "Thus a jar is distinguished from a piece of cloth ; because the component parts of the first are distinct from those of the latter; and so on we may argue, until at last we arrive at the ultimate constituents of matter viz., atoms, which are indivisible. The same reasoning cannot be applied to distinguish one atom from another, since an atom has no further component parts.” SP, p. 5 (notes). See also Saptapadārthi (A. M. Bhattacharya and N.C. B. Bhattacharya's edn.) p. XXXVIII f., f.n. 63.

Page #130

110
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
severally abiding in all entities, simple (ultimate) and composite, living and non-living, then the question arises how one viseșa is to be differentiated from another. It would, indeed, be a paradox if the distinguishing element itself remains indistinguishable (aviseșasvarūpaḥ)from the other such elements. If, in order to avoid this anomaly, a further distinguishing (vyāvartaka) element for each višeşa is admitted there comes in the situation of regressus ad infinitum' (anavasthā). For, every additional visesa (viśeşāntara) postulated to account for the distinctness of a visesa, gives rise to the need of a further viseșa, and the latter, again, to a still further visesa and so on in an endless succession. Anticipating this insuperable difficulty Prasastapāda, and more particularly, his commentator Vyomaśiva, lay down that a viseșa is also selfdifferentiating (svatovyāvartaka). That is, a viseșa is not merely other-differentiating but also self-differentiating in its nature, just as a lamp (pradīpa) is both other-revealing and self-revealing. ?
The unique place accorded to the principle of viseșa, or difference, in the Vaišeșika system has earned for the Vaišeșika the title of being semi-nihilistic (ardha-vaināśika), or, at any rate, semi-Buddhistic. This is so because the
1. See PB, p. 691 f., and the Vyomavatī thereon (p. 694 f.). Jina
vardhanasūri refers to another fallacy, viz., ātmāśraya, arising from the theory of viseșas, see SP, p. 6 (Notes). For how the "modern school of Nyāya" treats the question of višeşa, see ILA, p. 196 and S. Bhaduri's Studies in Nyāya-Vaiśeșika Metaphysics (Poona, 1947), p. 146 and f.n. 1 thereon, where reference is made to Raghunātha siromani's work. Ibid. See also The Vaiseșika System (B. Faddegon, 1918, Amsterdam), p. 125.

Page #131

CHAPTER IV
111 unique atomistic entities, viz., the viśesas conceived by the Vaišeșika philosopher, have, despite their divergent traits in other respects, a close resemblance to the unique and discrete particulars conceived under the Buddhistic doctrine of svalakṣaṇavāda. The Vaiseșika is, however, saved from propounding, like the Buddhist, a philosophy of total difference by introducing into the Vaišeșika theory of reality the principle of samavāya, or the necessary relation, which may be loosely described as the element of identity in the system.
Samavāya represents the relational bond between such two inseparable (ayutasiddha) relata as dravya (substance) and guna (property). It would, therefore, be better to describe it as a unifying or synthesising principle than as identity, although it is the nearest equivalent to identity in the Vaiśesika system. A somewhat closer treatment of it may be reserved for a later occasion.' It has, however, already been suggested that samavāya, despite its being a so-called intimate or necessary relation, is after all external in nature and therefore does not make any difference to the inward being of the entities it connects. This external character, therefore, weakens its claim for being treated as genuine identity. In maintaining the external character of samavāya, the Vaiseșika is no doubt in keeping with the temper of his "philosophy of distinctions”. It is difference rather than unity or identity which is the basic rule of the system. If samavāya were invested with a rich internal character it would cut at the root of his atomistic, pluralistic
1. See Chapter VII. 2. See Chapter VII.

Page #132

112
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
and realistic philosophy of difference and incline it towards some kind of idealism. As it stands this system is, as already pointed out, one in which "diversity (or difference) and not unity (or identity) is at the root of the universe". In other words this system subordinates identity to difference.
B. Madhva's Dvaitism
An even greater' stress than in the Vaiseṣika system is laid on viseșa, the principle of difference, in Dvaitism which is built up on the two ultimate postulates", the Independent (svatantra) and the Dependent (paratantra or asvatantra), the former postulate representing the supreme God and the latter comprising the selves, the material world and nonexistence."
1. OIP, p. 225. (The words within brackets are mine.)
2. In the first place, although distinctions in the Vaiśeşika system, even among the composite bodies, are ultimately derived from visesas, viseṣas are restricted to the simple or ultimate substances only (see above under the Vaiśeşika system, p. 109, f.n. 6). In Dvaitism, however, visesas are postulated not only in the case of (ultimate or eternal) substances but in that of all categories even non-existence. Secondly, "...... while in the Nyaya-Vaiśeşika (or the Vaiśeşika) viśeşa accounts for the difference which is assumed to exist between two things, here (in Dvaitism) it accounts for making difference where there is none". See EIP, p. 194 f. Considerations like how viseșa is of comprehensive and great importance and how it lends significance to identity will become clear in the course of the present section.
3. See SDAC, p. 87 and RRS, p. 168.
4. The selves, and the material world, called cetana principle and the acetana principle, respectively, are together treated as

Page #133

CHAPTER IV
113
Fundamental as it is in the Vaišeșika system, višeșa is even more so in Dvaitism, on account of the Dvaitic belief that the entire course of reality is directly within the relentless grip' of this ‘power' or 'potency'.' Being at the heart of everything real, this 'power' is said, by no means figuratively, to be the very ‘nature' (svarūpa or svabhāva) of everything. "Bheda”, it is said, “is dharmisvarūpa.” “It exists, guides, and controls matters here and hereafter. Earth and Heaven, secular and spiritual, all concerns of daily routine life, and all concepts of the intellectual life, and conditions of scientific disciplines-all come under the relentless grip of difference. The fundamental form of objects is difference." 8 "Difference is thus the very stuff of the cosmos.". "By a mere stroke of the pen, by a mere fiat, a speculative, gesture, or an adroit assertion, or a craze for unity-mongering it would be impossible to deny or annihilate the difference that is constitutive and foundational of all reality-of sentient and non-sentient creation.". Madhva, on whose writings the statements quoted above are based, himself declares: “Diverse and of diverse attributes are all things of the universe" (thinnāś ca bhinna
2.
Thid
existence or bhāva, non-existence or abhāva being treated as a
distinctive category. See RRS, p. 168 ff. 1. See RRS, p. 511, para 1.
Ibid., p. 296. The following observations, also made by Madhva, are to the same effect : (i) padārthasvarūpatvāt bhedasya / bhedastu svarūpadarśana eva siddhaḥ / asya bheda iti tu padārthasya svarūpam itivat / Ibid., p. 583. (ii) bhedastu sarvavastūnām
svarūpaṁ naijam avyayam/ See HIP, Vol. IV, p. 155, f.n. 1. 3. RRS, p. 287. 4. Ibid., p. 292. 5. Ibid., p. 299.
16.00

Page #134

114
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
dharmāś ca padārtha nikhila amī'); or that "It (difference) lurks in everything" (so’sti vastușvašeşataḥ”). Such statements are stated to express the "general metaphysical position" of Dvaitism. This is a position in which "The Cartesian Cogito should be considerably amended, if not completely altered. What does Descartes say? 'I thinktherefore, I am.' Madhva would alter it to 'I differtherefore, I am.' It is thus a position in which "Existence means difference, and difference means existence—though not literally."
If the statement that "Existence means difference and difference means existence..." and perhaps similar other statements (e. g., that “Difference is....the very stuff of the cosmos" etc.), which declare the identity of existence and 'stuff', are not to be taken 'literally', it is difficult to see how Madhva and his followers treat viseșa as an ontological principle at all. As a matter of fact Dvaitins, like the Vaiseșikas, speak of an infinity of viseșas, corresponding to the infinite diversity of the nature of an entity within itself, as well as to the infinite range of entities in the universe, from which a particular entity is differentiated. It is doubtful whether what is considered as the 'nature' or the 'power' of an entity can be treated as the entity itself. It sounds somewhat illogical that a 'power' is considered to
1. EIP, p. 187, and p. 210, note 9. 2. RRS, p. 298. 3. Cf. EIP, p. 187. 4. RRS, p. 298 f.
See IP, Vol. II, p. 746, and Jayatirtha's Vadāvali (Adyar, 1943), Notes, p. 203.

Page #135

CHAPTER IV
be an entity. If it were not so considered it would not be possible to speak of an 'infinity' of viseṣas which are further asserted to be downright perceivable facts.
115
By treating viseșa as a 'power' or 'potency' the Dvaitin seems to think that he has avoided the charge of infinite regress' to which Prasastapāda's view of viseṣa as a distinctive entity is believed to be liable. It is affirmed that "visesa (peculiar power and potency etc.) is sui generis, self-sufficient and self-explanatory".?
1. Cf. RRS, p. 512.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Ibid.
6. HIP, Vol. IV, p. 179.
The main defensive argument advanced on behalf of the 'self-explanatory' character of viseșa is that it, like any 'ultimate category', cannot be explained, and that it, on the contrary, explains itself and 'others'. This sounds more like a dogmatic assertion than a logical argument. Further the Dvaitin seems to make capital out of the position assumed by the Advaitin, his principal opponent, on the question of avidya'. The latter is stated to consider 'avidya' as being somehow there projecting the cosmic illusion. If this could be regarded by the Advaitin to be sufficiently self-explanatory, then why not, the Dvaitin argues, treat viseṣa as such, that is, as an 'ultimate category' which is 'self-explanatory". All this seems to be rather defence of a notion which is invested with a fundamental significance in Dvaitism. Even Dasgupta, a favourable critic of Dvaitism,
poor

Page #136

116
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
passes the verdict of a weak' defence on a great Madhva dialectician who does not seem materially to add to the argument for difference just noticed.
The exponents of Dvaitism credit the notion of difference, as seen above, with such fundamental and comprehensive significance that we are apt to understand the system as one of uncompromising difference. It is indeed not uncommon that this system is described as śuddhabhedavāda. In his crusading zeal for bheda Madhva interprets the celebrated texts' in such a manner that they are made to yield a bheda view of reality. Ātma tat tvam asi (soul! 'that art thou'), for instance, is construed as ātma atat tvam asi* (soul! thou are not that) and thereby difference, not identity, is elicited
1. For (a) the five-fold distinction (pañcabheda) of višeşa, as
well as for (b) how višeşa is svābhāvika or real, not aupādhika or conditional or fictitious, see (a) SDSC, p. 94; Helmuth von Glasenapp's Madhva's Philosophie des Vişņu-Glaubens, pp. 14-15, especially p. 15, f.n. 1 (where the relevant lines from Anuvyākhyāna and reference to other works are cited) and
RRS, pp.598, and 139, f.n. 4; and (b) RRS, pp. 135, 228 and 427. 2. See The Brahmavādin (Madras, 1900), Vol. VI, p. 233. 3. Adverting to Madhva's attitude in interpreting the Brahma
sūtras, Ghate observes that "the very fantastic and forced manner in which he (Madhva) interprets many of the sūtras leaves no doubt about the fact that he would have set aside the sūtras altogether, but that their uncontested authoritativeness prevented him from doing so". V. S. Ghate's The Vedānta, Poona, 1926, p. 33. See SDSC, p. 97, and RRS, p. 601 ff., especially p. 601, f.n. 22, and p. 604. See also pp. 212-215, 263 f., 278, 321 and 680. Gauda-pūrņānanda-chakravartin, however, suggests a somewhat different interpretation of this text. He interprets it as "thou art not Its" (tasya tvam asi). See The TattvaMuktāvali, JRAS, New Series, Vol. XV, p. 139 (text), verse 6, and p. 155, E.T. by E. B. Cowell and f.n.4.

Page #137

CHAPTER IV
117
from it. Nevertheless Dvaitism does recognise identity also under a more comprehensive designation of its philosophy, viz., savićeşābhedavāda.
Saviseșābhedavāda' is described as a doctrine of “identityin-difference”, or, more correctly, identity associated with difference, or, identity "amidst' difference. The relation of a substance (guni) is believed to be identical with its attribute (guna) or attributes". "... Attributes of the supreme Nārāyaṇa (God) are”, for instance, “identical with Him”6. Yet this identity of the substance and its attributes is believed to depend upon “the operation of viseșa, which functions in all cases of identity”.? It is on account of the operation' or 'function of viseșa that we are said to understand that although the substance and its attributes are identical they are also different or rather, they are identical
RRS, pp. 293, 510 and 628. See also EIP, p. 189 and the article 'The Saviśeşābheda Theory' in A Volume of Eastern and Indian Studies (presented to Prof. F. W. Thomas), 1939, Bombay,
pp. 230-235. 2. RRS, p. 293. 3. EIP, p. 189. 4. RRS, p. 293. 5. Cf. EIP, p. 191.
RRS, pp. 509, 510 etc. It sounds rather strange that not merely the attributes and similar determinations' are identical with God but also are identical with one another': cf. "Guna (attribute), Karma (action and activity) and similar determinations of Brahman are of the essential, foundational and fundamental (sic) nature of Brahman. They are inseparable from the nature of Brahman. They are identical with Brahman. In virtue of this identity the attributes are identical with one another or devoid
of all difference..." etc. Ibid., p. 504 f. See also what follows. 7. Ibid., p. 509.

Page #138

118
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
because they are different-as indicated by the very expression : substance and its attributes, which implies a distinction between the two.
There is an important trend in Dvaitism which deserves notice in our discussion of the role of identity "amidst' difference. In spite of the claim that Dvaitism is a "radical pluralism” and that "everything is unique" etc., the only "independent entity” in this system is God and everything else is "absolutely dependent upon his will". As a matter of fact, it is pointed out that “Madhva goes so far as to ascribe even the being of everything also to God”.! It is not, therefore, surprising that Dvaitism maintains that all words are said ultimately to refer to God. Even a moderate twist of his 'God-intoxicated' monotheism will yield first-rate material for a monistic idealism which can install identity as the sole reality and, thereby, banish difference by which Dvaitism, rather incongruously, sets such a high store.
1. Cf. “There is 'Višeşa' which will step in and account for the
fundamental identity between the essential nature of anything and the thing itself...” RRS, p. 506. Also, "The object and so many differences are identical with one another and yet separate from one another. There is no mystery in that sort of relationship. There is no miracle either. There is what Madhva calls Višesa in every object". Ibid., pp. 297-8. See also p. 511. This would mean that viseșa is not merely the basis of difference, as it ordinarily means, but also of identity although identity is secondary in relation to difference. The entire
position, however, does not seem to hang together consistently. 2. EIP.
Ibid., p. 5.9. 4. Cf. ibid., p. 192, and RRS. 5. RRS, p. 500. 6. Cf. EIP, p. 190, para 2.

Page #139

CHAPTER IV
119
Dvaitism, as it stands, however, declares : "An individual or an object is what it is in virtue of its difference from other objects belonging to the same class or genus and difference ipso facto from members of another class or genus. Whether the linguistic medium is used or not, whether there is outward expression or not, difference is the essential constituent of an object or individual. An object is what it is only on account of its difference from other objects. Difference is emphasised. In accordance with the pragmatic purpose of the subject, and in accordance with the fundamental and essential constitution of the objects themselves, difference is stressed. It is difference that lends significance to identity".' This admission of fact that "It is difference that lends significance to identity" brings Dvaitism under the category of the Vaiseṣika system in which identity is subordinated to difference. It is, therefore, not surprising that Madhva, like many of the other earlier commentators on Vedāntasūtras, finds in the Jaina view of reality, viz., a co-ordinate conception of identity-in-difference, 'an admission' which, it is stated, is not merely 'against all reason and proof' but even 'contradictory'.
1. RRS, p. 239 (italics are mine). See also p. 509 where identity is referred to as a 'doctrinal fact'.
2. See The Vedantasūtras, with Madhva's Comm., E. T. S. Subba Rau, Madras, 1904, p. 119. Cf. also: Śrī Brahmasütrārtha Sargraha (The Brahmasutras of Bādarāyaṇa, expounded in Kanarese, in accordance with the Commentary of Madhvācārya) P. Ramchandra Row, Madras, 1903, p. 97.

Page #140


Page #141

CHAPTER V
The Jaina Philosophy of Identity-in-Difference in which Identity is Co-ordinate with Difference

Page #142


Page #143

CHAPTER V
The Jaina Philosophy of Identity-in-Difference in which Identity is Co-ordinate with Difference
Our preceding inquiry has been based on the central thesis of our entire present contention, viz., that neither 'identity' or permanence alone, nor difference' or change alone, nor even the preponderance of either over the other, but a synthetic co-ordination of both the basic elements, will lead to a balanced and adequate metaphysical view of reality. In the process of the enquiry, we have been led to formulate an exhaustive classification of all the philosophical views into five major types the fifth one being represented by the Jaina as conforming to the requirements of a balanced and adequate metaphysical approach to the problem of reality. The critics have found fault with this co-ordinate approach of the Jaina thinkers and feel that it inherently involves the fatal error of contradiction which in turn gives rise to a series of other errors.
The Jaina has to vindicate his position against such charges. Such a vindicative effort necessarily presupposes a positive metaphysical position of his own. This position is broadly designated as anekāntavāda or the theory of manifoldness and indeterminateness. This comprehensive theory of manifoldness is an ontology or a theory of reality, as well as an epistemology or a theory of knowlege. The anekānta

Page #144

124
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
ontology postulates a reality which is immensely complex or manifold. Correspondingly, the anekanta epistemology postulates a theory of manifold methods of analysis (nayavada) and synthesis (syädvāda) by means of which the complex reality can be apprehended by the mind. Besides these methods the anekanta epistemology postulates what is generally described as a theory of the ways of knowing (pramāņas). The ways of knowing are broadly classified by the Jaina thinkers into two categories, viz., pratyakṣapramāna and parokṣapramāņa. The former is the direct or immediate way of knowing and the latter is the indirect or mediate way of knowing. Each category is subdivided into further stages or divisions.
It is impossible to deal with all the problems connected with the anekanta ontology and epistemology within the moderate compass of this work. In the case of the epistemological discussions, for instance, our attention is largely confined to a critical exposition of the two major methods of knowledge, viz., nayavāda and syādvāda, omitting, almost entirely, any elaborate references to the two ways of knowing, viz., pratyakṣapramāna and parokṣapramāṇa, as well as to the several problems therewith connected. Even in the case of the treatment of the anekanta ontology, our attention is mainly focused on the examination, the elucidation and the illustration of the most fundamental ontological presupposition, viz., the co-ordinate concept of identity-in-difference. The entire anekanta ontology is only an elaborate structure built up on this basic presupposition. The several topics dealt with in the various chapters like those on the Relations,

Page #145

CHAPTER V
125
Jatyantaravāda, or Arthakriyāvāda, are intended to reveal the manifestations of this presupposition in the different departments of reality.
It is also necessary to point out here that no rigid separation between the ontological and epistemological discussions can be made in the course of our treatment of the various topics in this work. Nevertheless the three chapters beginning with anekāntavāda, especially those on māyāvāda and syādvāda, may be described as largely epistemological as against the others which are largely ontological. The only topic which could be treated in relative isolation from ontological considerations is the one which is concerned with the ways of knowing (pramaņas). But it has been excluded from the scope of the present work for the reason already stated.
The main purpose of the present undertaking is to show, in the course of its progress, that the notion of identity-indifference is the pivot on which the entire ontological and the epistemological development in the Jaina philosophy turn. Anekantaväda is but an elaboration of the implications of this pivotal idea worked out in the various spheres of reality and knowledge. An exposition of this central idea of identity-in-difference, through a dialectical examination of its various implications as revealed in the various aspects of reality, is a necessary task. This is so especially for the reason that even competent scholars of Indian philosophy have often been inclined to consider the Jaina metaphysics as an "unsystematical system" in which "a mass of philosophical tenets" is not "upheld by one central idea". The phrases quoted here were uttered by Hermann Jacobi in the opening

Page #146

126
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
part of his address to the Third International Congress for the History of Religions in 1908. To quote him in full : “All those who approach Jaina philosophy will be under the impression that it is a mass of philosophical tenets not upheld by one central idea, and they will wonder what could have given currency to what appears to us an unsystematical system. I myself have held, and given expression to this opinion', but I have now learned to look at Jaina philosophy in a different light. It has, I think, a metaphysical basis of its own, which secured it a position apart from the rival systems both of the Brahmanas and of the Buddhists”.' It is a pity that Jacobi did not give a fuller expression to his ideas after he "learned to look at Jaina philosophy in a different light”. Nevertheless he has suggested, in the address just referred to as well as in a few other brief writings, the lines on which he thought about the subject. Nor do any other writers seem to have approached the subject at any considerable length, on the dialectical lines of investigating the pervasiveness of one central idea in the different ramifications of the Jaina metaphysics. After making these general observations concerning the present study we may now proceed to consider the ontological position of anekāntavāda.
The most celebrated text the implications of which form almost the entire theoretical foundation of the Jaina philosophy
1.
In 1878, he wrote in his Introduction to the Kalpasūtra of Bhadrabahu (Leipzig, 1879), p. 3, that the philosophy of Mahāvīra "scarcely forms a system, but is merely a sum of opinions (pannattis) on various subjects, no fundamental ideas being there to uphold the mass of philosophical matter." SJJ, p. 48.
2.

Page #147

CHAPTER V
127
of being is : "The real is characterised by birth or origination, death or destruction, and sameness or continuity (utpäda-vyaya-dhrauvya-yuktam sat).”! Everything real must have, according to the postulate embodied in this text of Umāsvāti, the triple character of productivity (utpäda), destructibility (vyaya), and, at the same time, permanence or persistence (dhrauvya) underlying it. Conversely whatever lacks the one or the other of this triple nature is a mental abstraction having no title to reality. Productivity and destructibility constitute the two aspects of change and may, therefore, be together characterised as the dynamic aspect of reality, the static aspect being represented by permanence or dhruvatva'. That is, utpäda and vyaya, being the two facets of the process of change, will be treated together, throughout this work, under the comprehensive single principle of change;
1. TSUJ, V. 30. 2. On being asked by Indrabhūti, his foremost apostle
(ganadhara): "What is the nature of reality ?" (kim tattam) Mahāvīra is reported to have first answered : "origination" (uppannež vă) and then, after the same question was successively repeated, "destruction" (vigameï vă), and "persistence" (dhuveï vă). Cf. A. R. Kapadia's The Canonical Literature of the Jainas, 1941, Bombay, p. 3, and the extract from Haribhadra Sūri's Comm. on Avassaya and its Nijjutti in f.n. 4 thereon.
Modification; becoming; difference; discreetness; plurality; manyness; manifoldness; the occurrent; and dynamism-are some of the epithets generally used in varying contexts, as synonyms for change (bheda or paryāya) which have, in Jaina metaphysics, the constituents of productivity (utpäda or utpatti) and destructibility (vināśa or vyava). Similarly, substantiality; substratum; being; identity; non-difference; continuity; continuance; unity; oneness; the continuant; statism, as well as endurance and persistence, are used for permanence (dhruvatva, dhrauvya or anvaya). Besides being a correlative to "becoming" the term "being” could also be

Page #148

128
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
taken in its wider acceptation as a “substance" or dravya which includes both "being” in its narrow sense and becomming. That is, it could signify either one, or the totality of the two aspects of a dravya, viz., permanence and change, but in which sense it is taken at a particular place will be evident from the context.
Often "non-being" (asat or abhava) also is used as a correlative of "being" (sat or bhāva) when, of course, the latter is treated in its narrow sense. Here a doubt naturally arises whether "non-being" could be taken as equivalent to or at least as constitutive of "becoming” which is the obvious correlative of "being”. The answer would be in the affirmative as will be evident, in the sequel. Meanwhile, it may be stated, in passing, that "non-being" as applied to a particular case, say, a jar, does not mean merely the affirmation of what the jar is in itself, but also the negation of the nature of a cloth, or a fruit, in the jar. In other words, the "non-being” of the jar consists in what the
jar is not from the point of view (kathañcit) of the cloth or the fruit. This negation of the nature of the cloth or the fruit in the jar is, according to Jainism, an absolutely necessary part of the nature of the jar. For a full comprehension of the jar consists, on this view, not only in knowing what the jar is in itself, but also what it is not with reference to the cloth and the fruit etc. Thus in so far as "not-being" is a necessary complement to "being" in the make-up of an object, it touches the dynamic aspect of reality. In other words while being or affirmation in its narrow acceptation is constitutive of identity, non-being or negation is constitutive of difference.
The most widely used pairs of correlatives in course of this work are: identity and difference, the continuant and the occurrent, and permanence and change. In the case of the first pair the combined form, viz., identity-in-difference or identities of difference, is better adapted to express the coordinate subsistence of the two basic elements in reality, and the fact that identity precedes difference in the formula does not indicate any primacy of the former over the latter element as in the case of philosophies which subordinate difference to identity, since both elements have a co-ordinate status in reality. The second pair of "the continuant" and

Page #149

CHAPTER V
129
and dhrauvya, being the enduring principle in the nature of things, will be represented as the principle of permanence underlying the ceaseless changes in things. Thus the most fundamental truth laid down by Umāsvāti in the above sūtra is that permanence and change are entwined in everything real.
The fact that both the Vedāntin who adheres to a totally static view, and the Buddhist who adheres to a totally dynamic view, join issue with the Jaina who endeavours to blend both the static and the dynamic postulates into an integrated metaphysical view, is but inevitable. This is the case also with the other schools' of philosophy which follow suit with
"the occurrent" is taken from W. E. Johnson's Logic (Cambridge, 1924), Pt. III, Intro. pp. XVIII f., 80, 84-85, where it bears a more or less similar import to the correlation of dhrauvya
and paryāya. 1. Akalanka explains utpäda, vyaya and dhrauvya as follows :
svajātyaparityāgena bhāvāntarāvāptiḥ utpadaḥ / tathā pūrvabhāvavigamo vyayaḥ/
dhruve sthairyakarmaṇordhruvatiti dhruvaḥ/ (Under 'dhruvaḥ' he adds : dhruvasya bhāvaḥ karma vā dhrauvyam/) TRAG, p. 238, kārikās 1, 2 and 3. See also TSV, p. 434.
For the three derivative meanings of the term 'dravya' in respect of its permanent aspect (dhrauvyam), as well as for a comparison of the Jaina notion of dravya with similar notions in other systems of Indian philosophy see PMHS, Bhāşātippani, pp. 54-55. See also SHM on gā. 28 in VBJ and Siddhasena Gani's Tikā on Tattvārthadhigamasutra (H. R. Kapadia's edn.) V. 29. The meanings and the divisions of paryāya are extensively discussed in STP, III. 32-37, in Siddhasena Gani's Tikā (reference just given). The significance of these two ideas, viz., dravya and paryāya will, however, become increasingly clear in the process of our treatment of the
various topics in the following chapters. 2. Vide the third and the fourth groups of systems in the fivefold
classification (supra).

Page #150

130
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
the Vedāntin and the Buddhist in claiming to detect, from their respective viewpoints, a radical self-contradiction in the Jaina synthesis of permanence and change.
The success of the Jaina synthesist in framing a durable ontological foundation for the entire edifice of the anekānta metaphysics is to be measured by the strength with which he would be able to vindicate his integrated viewpoint, not merely by pointing out that his viewpoint has an intrinsic validity, but also by bringing to bear upon it a dialectical power equal to the task. Matching an unerring vision with a robust rational defence is the work of a supreme philosophical genius. It is idle to dogmatise about whether the Jaina has stood the test successfully and triumphed over the obstacles in the way of his establishing his thesis. It is doubtful if any major philosophical problem can ever be solved by anybody or by any school once and for all. This much, however, may be said to his credit, viz., that he has at least perceived the problem and has gone some way at least towards achieving its solution.
Before proceeding to a dialectical examination of the most important implications of his metaphysical position, it would be worth while to see if his fundamental claim that permanence and change constitute the basic elements of reality is borne out by any major philosophical thinkers of the past and the present. That it is so, and, therefore, that the Jaina view in respect of its ultimate postulate of identity-in difference is not a lonely cry in a philosophical wilderness, may be confirmed by appealing to the impressive testimony of three great thinkers who, in spite of wide divergencies in

Page #151

CHAPTER V
131
respect of their tenets, countries and age, profoundly concur with the Jaina. These thinkers are A. N. Whitehead, Kumārila Bhatta and Immanuel Kant. Their confirmatory views may now be stated briefly in order of their mention here :
Whitehead A. N. Whitehead finds the formulation of "the complete problem of metaphysics”, viz., “the metaphysics of 'substance", and "the metaphysics of 'flux"", in the two lines of the hymn:
Abide with me;
Fast falls the eventide. Elucidating how these lines embody “a full expression of the union of the two notions”, viz., permanence and flux, he observes: “Here the first line expresses the permanences, ‘abide', 'me' and the ‘Being' addressed; and the second line sets these permanences amid the inescapable flux. Here at length we find formulated the complete problem of metaphysics. Those philosophers who start with the first line have given us the metaphysics of 'substance '; and those who start with the second line have developed the metaphysics of flux'. But, in truth, the two lines cannot be torn apart in this way; and we find that a wavering balance between the two is a characteristic of the greater number of philosophers". This
1. PrR, p. 318. A little earlier also he speaks in the same
strain : "The elucidation of the meaning involved in the phrase 'all things grow', is one chief task of metaphysics. But there is a rival notion, antithetical to the former. I cannot, at the moment, recall one immortal phrase which expresses it with the same completeness as that with which the alternative notion has been rendered by Heraclitus.

Page #152

132
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
passage expresses, succinctly and beautifully, the need for an 'integral' viewpoint in which the ultimate postulates of 'permanence and flux' are harmoniously blended.
Kumārila
Kumārila maintains, almost in identical terms as the Jaina, the nature of reality to be of threefold character : Production (utpāda), Continuance (sthiti) and Destruction (bhanga). In the Vanavāda of his great Vārtika, Kumārila observes : “When the Vardhamānaka being broken up, a Rucaka is made out of the same gold), then the person who desires to have the former, becomes sorry, while one desiring the latter ornament likes the process, while a third person who only desires gold remains indifferent, unaffected. Therefore, the object (gold) must be admitted to have a threefold character. Because, unless the object partook of Production, Continuance and Destruction, there could not be (with regard to it) the three notions (of like, dislike and indifference). There can be no sorrow (or dislike) without destruction of the object desired; and there can be no pleasure without production (or appearance of the object desired); and lastly, there can be no indifference without continuance or permanence (of the desired object).”!
This other notion dwells on the permanences of things—the solid earth, the mountains, the stones, the Egyptian Pyramids,
the spirit of man, God". Ibid., pp. 317-318. 1. SVJha, pp. 332-333. The kās, run as follows:
vardhamanakabhange ca rucakaḥ kriyate yadā / tadā pūrvārthinaḥ śokaḥ prītiś cāpyuttarārthinaḥ 1/ 21 // hemārthinas tu madhyasthyam tasmād vastu trayātmakam / notpädasthitibhangānām abhāve syān matitrayam // 22 11

Page #153

CHAPTER V
133
Touching upon the absence of any contradiction in the co-existence of unity and diversity in the same object, Kumārila observes elsewhere : “As in the case of the variegated colour, we can optionally fix upon any one of the various colours (without any contradiction), simply because the object (colour) is of a variegated character-so, in the same manner we could fix upon the diversity or unity...”
Finally, it is significant to note that Kumārila recommends a'middle position' (madhyasthatā) between the two extremes
na nāśena vină soko notpädena vina sukham /
sthityā vina na madhyasthyam..........// Cf. the following kā. of Samantabhadra :
ghatamaulisuvarņārthi nāśotpadasthitişvayam /
śokapramodamadhyasthyam jano yāti sahetukam 11 AMS, kā. 59. See also VVas and ASA thereon.
In another kā., following the above one, the same idea is illustrated by a different analogy. Ibid., pp. 30-31.
Elucidating the word "trayātmakam" in kā. 22 cited above Parthasarathimiśra writes: trayātmakam utpattisthitivināśadharmātmakam-ityarthah / NR on kā. 22, p. 619, and Bhattaputra Jayamiśra also adds, in the same context : tasmād bhangotpadasthityātmakarūpatrayayuktañ vastu pratiyate / SVTJ, p. 84.
Mallişeņa draws our attention, in this connection, to Patañjali's theory of nityānitya (the abiding and the changing) nature of substance (dharmi), and its (dharminah) threefold modification (trividhaḥ khalvayam dharmiņaḥ pariņāmo dharmalaksaņāvasthārūpaḥ), and, points out how the latter (parināma) is accepted to be "at once distinct from and identical with the former" (dharma). Vide SM (text), p. 16, and ibid. (notes), p. 46, where Dhruva gives an extract from Vyāsa-Bhasya on
Patañjali-Sūtra, III. 13. 1. SVJha, p. 292. The kā. is as follows:
citratvād vastuno'pyevam bhedābhedāvadhāraṇam /
sāmānyāṁse tu niskrsya bhedo yena prasādhyate //
Pārthasarathimiśra, commenting on this kā., observes : nānāvarne hi vastuni ya eva varno niskȚşya darśayitum işyate sa eva sakyo darśayitum, evañ nānārūpe vastunisarvasya bhedābhedādeh sambhava iti / MSV, p. 561, NR on ka. 58.

Page #154

134 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE of the bheda (anya) view and the abheda (ananya) view each of which (aikāntikam) is characterised as fallacious (mịşā).'
Kant
"The actual objects of our experience," observes Watson, interpreting Kant's 'Analogies of Experiences', are necessarily conceived of as substances, i. e., as things which in all their changes, yet maintain their identity ... If we suppose that substances could come into being or cease to be, we destroy the condition under which alone there is any unity in our experience ... There is no experience, then, except of objects which are determined as permanent in the process of change." Showing how 'both elements’, viz., 'the succession' (change) and the permanent' ('the abiding') are ‘indeed, inseparably involved in all existence Norman Kemp Smith clearly states: "Substance, Kant insists, is not a bare static existence in which changes take place, but a dynamic energy which by its very nature is in perpetual necessitated change. Change is not change in, but change of, substance.""
1.
duśitā sādhitā vāpi na ca tatra balabalam / kadăcin niścitaṁ kaiścit tasmān madhyasthatā varam // tato'nyanānyate tasya sto naştaś ceti kirtyate /
tasmāccitravadevāsya mrşā syādekarūpatā // MSV, p. 633. 2. PKEW, p. 199.
In the words of Kant himself : "I find that in all ages not only the philosopher, but even the common understanding, has preposited this permanence as a substratum of all change in phenomena; indeed, I am compelled to believe that they will always accept this as an indubitable fact. Only the philosopher expresses himself in a more precise and definite manner, when he says: "In all changes in the world the
substance remains, and the accidents alone are changeable." 3. CPRM, p. 138, CPRMax, pp. 161-166. 4. CKCPR, p. 362,

Page #155

CHAPTER V
135 Paton confirms this, emphasising at the same time the subtlety of the matter : "The concept of change,” he observes, "has to be interpreted in the light of the doctrine that succession can be determined only in relation to the permanent. Coming into being and passing away are not to be taken as changes of what comes into being and passes away. A change is a way of existing which follows upon another way of the same thing's existing. That is to say there is an exchange, or substitution, of one state of a thing for another state of that thing, but the thing itself must remain the same thing. We cannot say that a thing has changed, unless it remains the same thing; and we can put this paradoxically by saying that it is only the permanent, or substance, which changes, while the transitory, or the accidents', do not change, but rather are exchanged, for one ceases to be and another takes its place."
1. Just as the gunas and paryāyas are not inessential, but vital
and positive traits in Jainism, so also the so-called 'accidents' in Kantian metaphysics are not really accidental or superficial and negative traits, but are "positive determinations of the essential character of the object". Emphasising this point Watson observes: "The determinations of substances are not
accidents' in the sense of something without which the object would still be what it is : they are just the manner in which the substance exists, or they are positive determinations of the essential character of the object, not determinations related to the object negatively. It is true we sometimes speak as if the modes in which a thing exists were accidents that merely adhere in it and are not essential to its existence. But this mode of speech, though it is natural in certain cases, is not strictly accurate, and is apt to lead to the false notion that the substance can exist, and be what it is, independently of its accidents.” PKEW, p. 197; KMEP, Vol. II, p. 217. Cf.: “A mere succession which is not a succession of states of something which remains identical in an unconnected series of endings and beginnings, and with respect to it, duration',

Page #156

136
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
There are, indeed, vital differences between the Jaina and the Kantian metaphysics, e. g., the latter's transcendentalism with its concomitant notion of the thing-in-itself (Dingan-sich), the treatment of space and time as the forms of sensibility, the phenomenality of the world, and several other doctrines with which the Jaina does not concur'. However, Kant's insistence on the need of the co-existence of permanence and change in the realm of the experienced world marks a significant confirmation of the cardinal Jaina doctrine of identity-in-difference with a Western system which is considered to be the watershed of modern Western metaphysics.
Having observed how the three great thinkers, Whitehead, Kumārila and Kant, agree with Jainism on the truth of the fundamental Jaina axiom of the co-existence of permanence and change, or identity-in-difference, a further critical analysis of the essential implications of Umāsvāti's sūtra, viz., utpädavyayadhrauvyayuktam sat, may now be attempted.
The strength of the proof that identity and difference
which has meaning with regard to changes, i, e., succession proper, has no meaning at all." KTKP, p. 272.
Caird and others also make frequent references to this "two-fold aspect" of reality so that "all existence is summed up in permanent substances and their states". CPKE Vol. I, p. 488. See also, pp. 490 ff., SCKCE, pp. 152-153 and Critic of Pure Reason, p. 151, ff., Francis Raywood, pub. by William Pickering, 1948, London. To the Jaina the thing-in-itself is inacceptable since he maintains the knowability of all reality. Nor does he consider space and time to be forms of sensibility since the two are intrinsically real and form a necessary part of the physical universe. As a realist he also repudiates the phenomenality of the world and considers it to be unreservedly real.

Page #157

CHAPTER V
137
are in a co-ordinate synthesis marks also the measure of success and reasonableness of the Jaina metaphysical position. In order, therefore, to demonstrate that identity and difference are harmonious co-existents, and not irreconcilable or contradictory elements, a critical examination of the Jaina view may be attempted in answer to the following four questions :
(a) Does not identity infect difference with its own character, i. e., identity, and convert the latter, i. e., difference, into something of its own nature, in a substance?
(b) Or, alternatively, does not difference infect identity with its own character, i. e., difference, and convert the latter, i. e., identity, into something of its own nature, in a substance ?
In other words, (a) and (b) mean, respectively, that identity should eschew difference, or difference should eschew identity; and that either the one, or the other, but not the two together, can be the ultimate ontological postulate. Consequently, the truth of (a) indicates a triumph of the identityview, and the truth of (b) of the difference-view.
If the truth of neither (a) nor (b) is conceded, and the ultimacy of the postulate of identity-and-difference is adhered to, then the following question would be raised :
(c) Does not the hypothesis of identity-and-difference in a substance invoke upon itself the combined evils of both (a) and (b)?
If the opponent still finds the Jaina, even under the threat of (c), not pleading guilty to the charge of the irreconcil

Page #158

138
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
ability or self-contradictoriness with regard to his hypothesis of the ultimacy of the dual postulate, then an unequivocal answer would be demanded to the following question :
(d) Could the Jaina formulate a satisfactory theory which would avoid the objections under (a), (b) and (c) as well as suggest a constructive view of reality?
Of these four questions, the first and the second are evidently advanced from the points of view of the theorists of identity (abhedavādin) and of difference (bhedavādin) respectively. Prima facie, the third question is directed against the Jaina because the target of the criticism under question is some kind of identity and difference or ubhayavāda. The Jaina, however, does not identify himself with the kind of theory implied by (c) since it is, according to him, suggestive of a mechanical combination of the theories implied by (a) and (b). His own theory-which is undoubtedly a type of the philosophy of identity-in-difference, but sharply distinguished from the schools bearing the same description by its unmistakably unique approach to the nature of reality—is described as “Jātyantaravāda' which may be rendered as the theory of uniqueness or theory of unique synthesis. Besides avoiding the pitfalls under the abovementioned first three questions, this theory is claimed to put forth a distinctive view of the nature of reality.
A consideration of the four questions may now be undertaken. In carrying out this procedure it will be both convenient and necessary to treat the first two questions, viz., (a) and (b), jointly, and the other two separately. A

Page #159

CHAPTER V
139
further treatment of the nature and content of identity in relation to an important problem in modern metaphysics and of an important distinction concerning the nature of difference, will also be found necessary to enable us to obtain a somewhat closer grasp of the Jaina solution to the problem of reality. This will also be found in the sequel'.
Now the questions (a) and (b)—which lay down that either identity should obliterate difference or vice versa, owing to their inherent mutual opposition-may be jointly stated, together with all the further erroneous consequences imputed to be entailed in their subsistence. The Jaina hypothesis that identity and difference can somehow (kathañcit): exist together in the same medium is untenable (na yuktam) owing to Virodha (contradiction) and the other erroneous consequences (dosas) implied (upalakṣita) by Virodha." If, it is argued, the paryāyas are, in any sense, of the same nature' as the dravya, their continuant locus (āśraya), then
1. Vide infra, Chap. VIII. "Is dravya a concrete universal?" and
“What is Paryāya?”--these two controversial problems will be discussed immediately after the Jaina attitude to the present
questions is studied. 2. See infra, p. 141 ff.
The Jaina view is characterised as kathañcit bhedābhedavāda in contrast with the theories of absolute identity (ekāntika abhedavāda) and of absolute difference (ekāntika bhedavāda)
which are rejected by the Jaina. 4. Hemacandra succinctly puts the argument as follows:
dravyaparyāyayor aikāntikabhedābhedaparihāreņa kathañcid bhedābhedavādaḥ syādvādibhir upeyate, na casau yukto virodhā
didoşāt / PMHS, p. 28. 5. Because the Jaina admits that the relation between dravya
and its paryāyas is bhedābheda.

Page #160

140
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
they also acquire (prāpnuvanti) identity (dravyatva), since they are ex hypothesi at one with the dravya (dravyäd avyatiriktatvāt). In other words, identity cannot accommodate (dussādhya) difference, owing to the law that “dual character can never subsist in any single thing?. Conversely, the same circumstance, viz., the sameness' (abhedatva), or the oneness (ekatva) of the dravya and the paryāyas, renders dravyam which is said to be of unchanging nature (avik?tam or abhinnasvabhāvatvam)-into something indistinguishable from (avyatiriktam) the mutable paryāyas“. That is, difference (paryāya) does not allow identity to reside with itself in a real owing to its nature of “exclusiveness" (vyāvịttimad rūpam). An attempt to weave identity into the texture of difference within the being of a real results, it is said, in the inevitable transformation of the former into the latter.
If the Jaina is not in fact he is not) prepared to accept either of the alternatives of undifferenced identity or unqualified difference resulting from the two conflicting parts of the
2.
1. yad anugatātmarūpavyatiriktam tad anugatâtmakam eva, yatha
dravyarūpam.../ PK, p. 120. Also,
yadiva te’pi paryāyāḥ sarve'py anugatătmakāḥ /
dravyavat prapnuvanty eşām dravyeņaikātmatā sthiteh // TSS, kā. 318. See also kā. 320. samāveso na caikatra tayor (i, e., sadasator) yukto virodhataḥ // TSS, kā. 1675...... dvirūpatvam naivaikātrāsti vastuni (ibid., kā. 1676). Again, yatrābhedas tatra tadviparīto na bhedo'vakaśam
labhate, etc., PK, p. 119. 3. vyāvsttimadrūpavyatiriktam ca dravyam iti / PK, p. 120.
agaune caivam ekatve dravyaparyāyayoḥ sthite / vyāvsttimad bhaved dravyam paryāyāņām svarūpavat //
TSS, kā. 317.

Page #161

CHAPTER V
141
joint question just stated, then he is confronted with the following dosas' or fallacies, to which his bhedābhedavāda or dravyaparyāyātmakavāda is said to be liable :
1. Virodha (contradiction); 2. Vaiyadhikaranya or Vyadhikaraṇatā (“transfusion', or 'absence of a common abode '); 3. Anavasthā (regressus ad infinitum); 4. Sankara (confusion); 5. Vyatikara (“Exchange of Natures '); 6. Samsaya (doubt); 7. Apratipatti (non-apprehension); 8. Visayavyavasthāhāni (indeterminability of the true nature).
Excluding the one kārikā attributed to the Naiyāyikas (yaugaiḥ) by Vādideva, viz., samsayavirodhavaiyadhikaraṇyasankaram athobhayadosah / anavasthā vyatikaram api jainamate sapta dosah syuḥ // SRK, p. 738. We do not come across anywhere among the works of the non-Jaina critics, where doşas are fully mentioned. The non-Jaina critics mainly concern themselves with Virodha, although śankara (BBSB, II. 2.33) and Kumārila add Samśaya or Sandigdha (Kumārila has done so in the course of two kās., in defence of "anekatvavada" or "anekāntavāda". See MSV, Vanavāda, kās. 79 and 80. For a reference to this, see infra.) and śāntarakṣita and his commentator Kamalaśila Sankarya (Sankara) to Virodha (TSS, kā. 1722, and PK thereon.) Whether or not the doşas other than Virodha are explicitly mentioned by the opponents of the Jainas, they are presumed to be implied (upalakṣita) by Virodha which is considered to be their main basis (mūlādhara). Hence their individual enumeration and refutation is, however brief, necessary in any polemical examination of the Jaina view. The number and the order of the doşas in this classification are as adopted by Hemacandra and Mallisena (See PMHS, I. 1.30, p. 28, and SM, p. 150 (text)). Some writers like Prabhācandra cite ubhaya (or ubhayadosa) and omit No. 8 (PKM, p. 526) and others like Akalanka, the earliest Jaina logician to defend the Jaina position against such dosas, and Vasunandi, cite ubhaya and abhāva omitting Nos. 7 and 8. (See AGAV, p. 103, and VVAS, on AMS, kā. 20). All these writers retain, in spite of the difference of one or two doşas, a classification of eight doşas. Abhayadeva and Vädideva, however,

Page #162

142
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
1. Virodha'. Most of the schools of Indian thought, which are based on the Brahmasūtras, consider, as it has been observed under their treatment of the sūtra : naikasmin na sambhavát, that Virodha is the most insurmountable difficulty vitiating the Jaina view of reality. Virodha is a state of
represent a trend of opinion which refers only to seven instead of eight dosas. Between these two thinkers the former rejects Nos. 5, 7 and 8, just adding ubhayadosa to the remainder of the classification (See TBV, pp. 451-452, and SRK, p. 738).
Gunaratna, however, enumerates as many as nine doşas adding Vyavahāralopa, Pratyakşādiprāmaņabādha and Asambhava in place of Nos. 7 and 8 (TRD, p. 232). For an explanatory note on these three additional dosas as well as on Ubhaya and Abhāva, see infra, p. 146, f.n. 3. Ordinarily Virodha signifies the particular doşa of contrary or contradictory opposition. But it has also the collective significance of indicating all the other doşas, enumerated here, by way of upalaksaņā (cf. SM (notes), p. 264).
Another noteworthy feature with regard to opposition is that Indian thinkers, particularly the realistic schools like Jainism, do not seem to make any sharp distinction between contrareity and contradiction as in Aristotelian logic. Contradiction, according to Aristotle, signifies bare and total negation whereas contrareity is a partial negation of a specific attribute, with an implicit affirmation of an opposite attribute. For instance, when I assert "this is not yellow" under contradiction the entire universe of discourse is divided into two spheres, "yellow" and "non-yellow”, and the "nonyellow" sphere is sharply ranged over against the "yellow" sphere in the relation of a bare and total negation, the two spheres, between them, exhausting the entire universe of discourse. In contrareity, on the other hand, the same assertion, viz., "this is not yellow”, signifies the negation of "yellow” with the implicit assertion of “this is red" or "this is blue” according to the suitability of the context. There are, no doubt, in Indian literature and philosophy the conceptions of prasajyapratişedha and paryudāsa, which are compared to be the Naiyāyika's atyantábhāva ('absolute or

Page #163

CHAPTER V
143
mutual opposition', e. g., between 'blue' and 'non-blue » (nīlānīlavat), 'hot' and 'cold' (sītosņavat) or 'light' and
total negation') and anyonyābhāva (mutual negation) respectively. Describing the distinction between the two, Cowell observes: Where the negation is prominent it is called prasajyapratişedha; but where it is not prominent, we have the paryudāsa negation (SDSC, p. 250, f.n. 1). But these seem to be more in the nature of literary conventions, than of ontological principles of contradiction and contrareity, which have a more adequate and precise philosophical significance. The editor of AJP quotes two verses from the Sāhityadarpana describing the two conceptions. See Vol. II, (notes), p. 276.
The Jaina conception of opposition seems to be largely akin to the latter kind, at any rate insofar as it asserts that identity, or being, necessarily implies its corresponding correlative of difference or non-being. This approach is countenanced by the fact that the Jaina does not subscribe to the hyperlogical or more conceptualistic approach of a śriharsa or Nāgārjuna, whose hyperlogicism lands them in an absolute of the bare sat (absolute affirmation), or an equally brave void (absolute negation). The extremes of a śriharşa or a Nāgārjuna, the results of a logically subtie sophistication, seem to indicate the fact that truth lies between such extremes. The modest approach of the Jaina conforms to the rule that the laws of logic should closely follow the course of nature. In other words, experience should, according to him, determine logic but not the other way about. This partiality for the factual side of things makes the Jaina suspicious of all transcendental dialectics which drive a wedge between the parāvidyā and aparāvidyā or samvştisatya and paramarthasatya. In fact his dogged adherence to the facts of nature has earned for him, in his approach to the problem of reality, the reputation of being too empirical, like the Pragmatists in the West. Although the note of cynicism attaching to this reputation dubs the Jaina a slow-crawling earthworm rather than a high-soaring transcendent bird, the story of the scientific temper of all ages seems to confirm the fact that excessive preoccupation with the clouds seems to yield more poetry and grander mysticism, which are more often than not less true to the crude facts in
the life of nature. 1. parasparaparihārasthitilaksano'yam virodha iti / AJP, com., p. 11.

Page #164

144
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
'darkness' (chāyātapavat) at the same place and the same time. A simultaneous affirmation of the two contradictory elements with reference to an identical situation is, therefore, a logical difference absurdity. Similarly identity (abheda) and (bheda) are, it is argued, mutually opposed, and therefore positing (vidhi) the one means denying (niṣedha) the other'. Since the two can never co-exist in the same substratum2, any attempt to weld the two, viz., identity and difference, being and non-being, or affirmation and negation, into the structure of a real is too fanciful (kalpita) to be resorted to by any sane-minded person (svasthacetasă").
2. Vyadhikaraṇatā is an error which arises when two entirely opposed natures or characters tend to subsist in a single abode (adhikarana) while they ought to subsist in two different abodes. Identity and difference, being entirely opposed to each other, as has just been observed under fault
1. sattvasattvayoḥ parasparaparikāreņa sthitatvät sitoṣṇasparśavat/ TRD, p. 231. See also SBT, p. 81f.
2. Arcata observes: 'utpadavyayadhrauvyayuktam sat' ity etad apy ayuktam, dhrau vyeṇotpadavyayayor virodhad ekasmin dharminyayogat/ HBT, p. 146.
tadbhavas catadbhavaḥ parasparavirodhataḥ/ ekavastuni naivayam kathañcid avakalpyate // vidhānapratisedhau hi parasparavirodhinau /
sakyam ekatra no kartum kenacit svasthacetasă // TSS, kās. 1729 and 1830. See also PK thereon. Haribhadra trenchantly puts the argument for the opponent: katham ekam eva ghatadirupam vastu saccasacca bhavati tatha hi sattvam asattvaparihāreņa vyavasthitam, asattvam sattvaparihāreņa; anyatha tayor aviseṣaḥ syat / tataś ca yadi sat katham asat? athāsat katham sad? iti ekatra sattvasattvayor virodhat; tatha coktamyasmat sattvam asattvam ca viruddham hi mitho dvayam / vastvekam sadasadrupaṁ tasmāt khalu na yujyate //
AJP, p. 11.
3.

Page #165

CHAPTER V
145
No. 1, cannot be found together without bringing about a "split in the integrity of the locus”. An endeavour to locate the two in two different abodes will, it is said, violate the Jaina answer to the objection that the two characters refer to two aspects of the same thing, and not to two different things, and would in turn become the target of a new difficulty, viz.,
3. Anavasthā or regressus ad infinitum, for the following reason : each of the two 'aspects of a thing-identity and difference--will have to be at once both identical with, and different from, the other, if at least for the reason of avoiding absolutism or extremism (ekāntatva), to which the Jaina objects. This bifurcation, once started, will go on ad infinitum.
4. Sankara or confusion is another difficulty which is assumed to overtake the Jaina in the pursuit of his theory. It arises when there is an incidence of two mutually opposed natures in either of the two elements, viz., 'identity' or
difference'. That is, identity will be an abode both of itself and of its opposite'. Difference also will behave in a similar way. Such behaviour on the part of either is thought to introduce a state of confusion into the abode concerned.
5. Vyatikara or “Mutual Exchange of natures is yet another of the erroneous consequences attributed to the Jaina view. The incidence of the two opposed natures of identity and difference in a common abode leads, it is stated, to a 'mutual exchange”', of their natures. This would result in the
1.
yugapadubhayaprāptis sankaraḥ / PMHS, f.n. 3. Vimaladāsa, however, describes it as: sarveşāṁ yugapat prāptis sankaraḥ /
SBT, p. 82. 2. Cf. parasparavişayagamanam vyatikaraḥ / SBT, p. 82.
10

Page #166

146
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
absurd state of identity behaving like difference and vice versa.
6. Saṁsaya or Doubt: The simultaneous prediction of both identity and difference of a real is said to bring about a lack of definiteness (idam ittham eveti niścetum aśaktih) or doubt, in our minds. For a mind which is confronted with two natures in a real would be unable to know definitely whether the one or the other of the two is the nature of the real. In other words, doubt hinders the grasp of the unique nature of a thing (asādhāraṇākāra'). Such a 'forked road situation' of mind is said to lead further to:
7. Apratipatti, or a failure to achieve a proper apprehension of anything. Then, finally, we are said to face
8. Visayavyavasthāhāni' or the impossibility of determining any coherence or order in the realm of objective reality. These myriad discrepancies led by, or rather attri
1.
vastuno'sādhāraṇākårena niścetum aśakteḥ samsayaḥ / SM, P. 151
(text). 2. Mallişeņa characterises it as pramāņavişayavyavasthāhāni. 3. For a statement of these dosas, vide PMHS, p. 28; SBT, pp. 81-82;
PKM, p. 526; AGAV, p. 103; TBV, pp. 451-452; TRD, pp. 231232 (Ref. in BM); SVS and SKL thereon, p. 266 f.; SRK, pp. 737-738; and SM (text), pp. 150-151. In the last two works these doşas are mentioned in the context of the relation between the universal (sāmānya) and the particular (vişeşa) which is, after all, an aspect of the wider problem of the relation between identity and difference.
A brief reference may be made here to the five other doşas noticed by Gunaratna and others (vide supra, p. 141, f.n.2): 9. Pratiniyatavyavahāralopa, or simply vyavahāralopa, 10. Pratyakşādipramāṇabadhā, 11. Asambhava, 12. Ubhaya and 13. Abhāva. These are the five other doșas not mentioned by Hemacandra and Mallişeņa.
9. Pratiniyatavyavahāralopa is a dosa which introduces chacs in the uniform, or orderly, nature of things. This is said to

Page #167

CHAPTER V
147
arise from the Jaina belief in the manifold nature of all things (sarvasyānekāntātmakatvergīkriyamāņe). If reality is of multiple nature, that is, if all natures or characters subsist in all things, then a person proceeding to get water (jala) may find himself getting fire (anala) and another person proceeding to get fire may find himself getting water.
10. Pratyakşādipramāṇabadhā is what is contrary to all experience of reality by perception and other means of valid knowledge. That is, the bhedābheda nature of reality, as conceived by the Jaina, is not borne out perceptually or inferentially or in any other manner.
11. Asambhava may be described as impossibility, resulting from the supposedly absurd view of reality held by the Jaina. Cf. TRD., p. 232.
12. Ubhayadosa : In the bhedabheda structure of reality the abhedatva signifies unitariness or oneness (ekāntenaikātmatva) and the bhedatva signifies manyness or plurality such that there arises the twofold doşa of unity (ekasvabhāvatvam) subsisiing in plurality (anekāntatve) and vice versa (anekasvabhāvatvam ekāntatve). (PKM, p. 52, and SRK, p. 739.)
13. Abhāva: The nature of this doşa is not clearly indicated. Abhayadeva, however, seems to understand it as a dosa which is presumed to rest on the non-cognisability (apratibhāsatve) of the incongruous reality as supposed to be contemplated by the Jaina theory: An incongruous real is, as stated under doşat No. 10 in this f.n., what is contrary to experience and consequently what is contrary to experience is as good as being non-existent (abhāva, cf. TBV, p. 452).
It is not possible to demarcate clearly and severally the specific features of these dosas since they are highly overlapping among themselves in their character. For instance ubhayadoşa which refers to ekatva or anekatva of the bheda - bhedātmakavastutva may, with a slight turn in the expression be easily included in, or identified with, vyadhikaraṇatādoşa which also refers to the need for more than one, instead of one abode or nature. Similarly there is very little or practically no significant difference between the dosas Nos. 7 and 8 on the one hand and those of Nos. 10, 11 and 13 on the other. Even tually all other dosas are derived from, and therefore traceable to, virodha, the supposedly root evil, against which the Jaina has to marshal out all his dialectical resources.

Page #168

148
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
buted to the protean evil (dosa) of virodha are said to befall the Jaina theory of reality which is variously described as identity-in-difference (bhedābheda), or being (sat or bhāva) and non-being (asat or abhāva), or affirmation (vidhi) and negation (pratiședha). Broadly speaking, virodhadoșa is at the back of even the four questions under which we have been endeavouring to examine, critically and comprehensively, the ontological implications of the Jaina theory, although it (virodhadosa) has been enumerated as one of the several doșas in this connection, Obviating this principal evil should, therefore, form the most important part of the Jaina defence against the dialectical charges of the opponent schools whether the charges be the four questions—the first two of which come under the present review-or the seven or more dosas centering round, or deriving from, virodha.
There is, in this connection, an important idea which forms the nucleus of almost the entire defensive or refutational as well as of the constructive metaphysical endeavour of the Jainas. It concerns the operative method of combining identity and difference, or being and non-being, or affirmation and negation, into the discriminative synthesis of a real, in which they are necessary, complementary and equal elements. Realization of the vital significance of this idea will reveal it, not merely as a direct answer to the imputation of virodha to the Jaina view, but also as a key to a fuller understanding and appreciation of the comprehensive metaphysical edifice represented by the twofold superstructure of nayavāda (the theory of standpoints) and syādvāda (the dialectic of relativism) or saptabhangi (the theory of sevenfold predication) which in turn are

Page #169

CHAPTER V
149
reared on the foundation of anekāntavāda (the doctrine of manifoldness). Deferring an allusion to syādvāda or saptabhangi, nayavāda and anekāntavāda to a later stage, we may now address ourselves to an analysis of the central idea which offers the modus operandi of synthesising identity and difference, being and non-being, or affirmation and negation, as a necessary preliminary to the refutations of the charges made against the Jaina view :
Every entity comprises, within the fullness of its being, two constituent elements, both equally important, viz., what is itself (svatattva) and what is other-than-itself (paratattva). A jar (ghața), for instance, is constituted not merely by all the traits entering into its making, but also by the numerous other traits which constitute entities like a cloth (pața), a fruit (phala) or a book (pustaka), which are not, or are other than, the jar. The former group of traits forms the positive element (sat or vidhi), that is, what the jar is per se, and the latter group the negative element (asat or nişedha), or whatis-not (or what-is-other-than) the jar'. Both the positive and the negative elements constitute the two moments or the two poles of the entity, viz., the jar in the present instance.
If reality is considered on the one hand to be all positive, or merely existent (ekāntabhāvātmake), then everything would be everything else (vaišvarūpań syāt or sarvātmakam syāt). On this hypothesis neither the distinctions among the entities, nor the diverseness of character within the same entity, could be explained: "If a thing had only positive
1. Cf. sarvapadārthānāṁ svarūpeṇa sattvam pararūpeṇa cāsattvam /
TRD, p. 234.

Page #170

150
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
nature, the nature would not be its own; it is because of its negative nature, its differentiation from other things, that a thing possesses its specific nature."
Advaitism, owing to its consistent adherence to the principle: ekam evādvitiyaṁ brahma, therefore, explains away the principle of difference. If reality is considered, on the other hand, to be all negation or non-being (ekāntābhāvātmakatve) then everything would become devoid of any intrinsic nature (nissvabhāvatā syat) and then the world would be, as has been conceded by the Voidist (Sūnyavādin) "a tissue of false things, falsely related' and would vanish like mist...when subjected to philosophic investigation"".
1. SM (notes), p. 165.
2.
Cf. anubhava eşa mṛṣā. Nāgārjuna's Madhyamika kā. (St. Petersburg Edn.), p. 58. Quoted in OIP, p. 220, f.n. 1. 3. Regarding the controversy whether the Sunyavādin is a nihilist, scholars like Hiriyanna, Dhruva and others maintain, against critics like Sogen and Stcherbatsky, that śünyavādin is a nihilist advocating 'void'or 'essencelessness'-also rendered as 'Emptiness' or 'Universal Void'-of all reality as the outcome of philosophic investigation. Hiriyanna observes: "Not the Hindus alone, but the Jainas also, hold the Madhyamika to be a nihilist." OIP, p. 222. He also points out Candrakirti's distinction between the genuine nihilism and the 'common or vulgar nihilism' as consisting in that the former is the result of 'a logical scrutiny', whereas the latter of merely 'a dogmatic or whimsical denial'. The 'result' or conclusion is, of course, the same, viz., all is negative (sarvaśunyataiva param tattvam). Ibid., especially f.ns. 1 and 3, in the latter of which two important Jaina authorities (from one of which the Sanskrit quotation just given within the brackets is taken) are cited. See also SM, Intro. p. CXVII. S. Mookerjee also writes to the same effect: "If non-existence were to be the sole and exclusive character of things, nothing would be existent and, consequently, neither affirmation nor negation of anything would be possible. Paradoxical as it may appear, this is,

Page #171

CHAPTER V
151
The Nyāya-Vaiśeșika no doubt accepts the reality of bhāva and abhāva, but as "things which are in themselves separate”. This method of treating the two as being mutually exclusive (paraspara-vivikta) does direct violence to the integral character of reality (hence the Jaina maxim : sarvabhāvānāṁ hi bhāvābhāvātmakaṁ svarūpām"). "The Naiyāyika errs” a discerning critic observes in this connection,
by emphasising the one or the other as the exclusive characteristic. But the nature of reals, as has been sufficiently proved by the Jaina, is not exclusive or extremistic. It is existent-cum-non-existent."*
This conception of reality as bipolar is the cornerstone of the anekānta ontology. Its wide operative force will become evident in course of the account, in the sequel, of syādvāda-saptabhangi and nayavāda, the two main methods originating from the fundamental conception of anekāntavāda, whose ontological aspect is suggested or hinted by the formula of Umāsvāti."
however, the position seriously maintained by the Voidist (šūnyavādin), if we are to believe the interpretation of Candrakīrti, the commentator of Nāgārjuna, and the criticism of the rival philosophers constitute a faithful representation of the position of Nāgārjuna". JPN, p. 82. Whether or not the śünyavādin believes in a transcendental realm of truth (vivștisatya) is immaterial in so far as he repudiates 'essencelessness' (nissvabhāvatā) in the so-called empirical world which, for the Jaina at any rate, is a genuine reality. Gunaratna, therefore, describes this school as : Kānādayaugabhyupagataparaspara-vivikta-dravya-paryāyaikānta / TKD, p. 231
SM (text), p. 91. 3. JPN, p. 68. 4. Regarding the identification of anekāntavāda or anantadharma
tmakavāda with the truth of Umāsvāti's formula, viz., utpada
i ci si

Page #172

152
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
The positive and the negative elements of a real are not conceived to be related ab extra. They are, as already observed, mutually integral or organic and, therefore, the method for the obtainment of their integral connectedness is not by forging an external linking of them-for that there is no such external linking will be alluded to under the topic of relations—but by making a proper analysis of the internal structure of things, which exhibit, as the monads of Leibnitz do, a complex or manifold network of forces. The moment the fact that the positive and the negative elements form the two sides of the shield of reality is lost sight of, one goes the way of the Advaitin or Śūnyavādin. For the Advaitin created the positive aspect of the real, or identity, into the sole principle of reality, just as the Śūnyavādin allowed an unrestricted sway of the negative principle on his theorisings, which resulted in the negativistic absolute of the Void. Nor did the Naiyāyika fare better by treating each element as being in a severe isolation from the other. Whatever his other faults, the Jaina has maintained, steadily and firmly, the delicate balance of these two elements in the equilibrium of reality. There is due to his conviction that position and negation, or identity and difference, are not mutually opposed with any "aggressive repugnancy of two things that cannot co-exist without collision” but are compelling complements. Each shows ‘ragged edges' without
vyayadhrauvyayuktam sat, Gunaratna observes: anantadharmatmakasyaivotpādavyayadharmātmakatvam yuktiyuktam ... etc., TRD p. 229. He also gives here an inferential demonstration as well as an explanation of this idea.

Page #173

CHAPTER V
153
the other. Or, more correctly, the one without the other is not so much half real as unreal.
Reserving a further reference to the several finer points of, and the supplementation to, this integral truth of the bhāvābhāvasvarūpatva, or sadasatsvarūpatva, of reality, we must take a somewhat closer view of the concept of negation. This is necessary for at least one important reason, viz., that it (negation) is frequently equated to the idea of difference (bheda) which seems to have, unlike pure negation, a positive implication : we have just observed that a concrete jar is the product of the dual principle of the position of jarness and the negation of what-is-other-than-jarness, which is inclusive of clothness (pațatva), fruitness (phalatva) and so on. Negation, or 'what-is-other-than-jarness' in the present context, seems to have (in point of fact, it actually has), like its positive counterpart, a positive trait in so far as it signifies 'what-is-other-than-jarness'. This is so because although we negate clothness', 'fruitness' and 'bookness', etc., under 'what-is-other-than-jarness', in the jar the traits so negated are after all certain determinate traits having a peculiar existence of their own and being connected with'
1. Cf. MSV, p. 476, kā. 12. The significance of this kā, is
rendered as follows: "Every object has a double character: with regard to its own form, it exists (i.e., as jar a jar exists); while with regard to the form of another object, it does not exist (i.e., as cloth the jar does not exist). Both forms are equally entities; sometimes people cognise the one, sometimes the other". Continuing further to explain the sense' of Kumārila, it is clearly remarked "that the fact of the nonexistence of the cloth in the jar simply means that the cloth in its non-existent form inheres in another object, the jar, and

Page #174

154 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE without, of course, being confused with their positive counterpart (svatattva) in an intimate union. If these negative traits were mere non-existents-non-existents' (tuccha) in an unreal sense of the word--then they could not be described as clothness' or 'fruitness' etc. Total negation is one thing and negation of determinate, or even determinable, traits with reference to an existent is quite another. The latter type of negation is negative in a particular ontological setting, although in a different ontological setting these traits may assume a definitely positive character like the jarness in the present context. In other words, position and negation are relative terms and what is the one under one set of circumstances may become the other under a different set of circumstances.'
The factors determining whether an aspect of a particular factual situation is positive or negative depend upon the material (dravya), the place (kşetra), the time (kāla) and the state (bhāva) attaching to the situation. The first and the last among these four factors specify the internal and the remaining two factors specify the external condition of the fact or the object in question. In other words, the material
as such, produces the cognition of its non-existent form in the jar". SVJha, p. 244. The italics and what is included within the brackets are as in the original.
Another kā., also of Kumārila, bears out the same truth :
nästītyapi ca samvittir na vastvanugamädste /
jñānam na jāyate kiñcidupastambanavarjitam // MSV, p. 478, ka. 16 and SVJha, p. 245. 1. Cf. svadharmyapekṣayā yo dharmaḥ sattvādih / sa eva svadhar
māntarāpekṣayā dharmi / evam evānekāntātmakavyavasthopapatteḥ / TRD, p. 235.

Page #175

CHAPTER V
155
(svadravya), from which the object in question is made, the spatial and the temporal setting (svakşetra and svakāla), in which it is located, and the state (sva-bhāva) it manifests in the specific context concerned, are the fourfold (svadravyādicatustaya) factors, which differentiate the positive aspect of the object concerned from the corresponding negative fourfold factors (paradravyādicatusţaya : paradravya, parakşetra, parakāla and parabhāva), associated with the other or the concomitant negative aspect of the object.
A doubt is raised, at this stage, whether the positive aspect, comprising its fourfold determining characteristics, would not be after all the same as the negative aspect, comprising the corresponding fourfold negative characteristics. This doubt is of course based on the assumption that the positive aspect, like its negative counterpart, belongs to an identical entity; therefore it (the positive aspect) ought to be the same as the other one. This amounts to the identification of position and negation, or being and non-being. The Jaina dialectician promptly objects to this treatment of the situation and reaffirms his position that the two are distinctive elements, although they refer to an identical entity and can, therefore, reside in the same entity since the entity is of a manifold nature.
Here he lays stress on the fact that identification of a part (amśa), viz., the positive aspect (bhāva), with the other part, viz., the negative aspect (abhāva), results in the dual fallacy of dissolving the bhāva in the abhāva (which means all that is
1. svadravyādisattvam eva paradravyādyasattvam/ AJP, Vol. I, p. 38 ff.

Page #176

156
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
positive in the entity), and, consequently, of treating abhāva as the entire content of the entity. When abhāva or negation becomes the sole content of the entity, the entity disappears without a trace. Like his opponents the anekāntavādin is well aware of the fact that predicating two opposing characters of the same aspect of an entity is of course a contradiction : tenaiva svabhāvena sac căsacceti viruddham etat. This contradiction is, as will be shown in the sequel, as objectionable to the Jaina as it is to his opponents. But what the opponents have persistently missed observing here is that the so-called 'opposing characters' refer to the two different aspects of an entity and, consequently, become necessary and complementary components of it.
This negation, as observed in the concrete setting of the anekānta ontology, is an essential or organic element in the constitution of an entity, which is an intrinsic-extrinsic complex. It is not a vacuum subsisting alongside an unconnected positive existent in a compartmental entity. It is an almost axiomatic belief, on the part of the anekānta vādin, that nature, or reality, abhors vacuum. He maintains, therefore, that negation comprises manifold traits collectively
1. AJP, Vol. I, p. 44. 2. This repudiation of the attempt falsely to identify bhava with
abhāva contains within itself also the implicit condemnation of the converse attempt to identify abhāva with bhāva. There is, however, an interesting point which supplements the general trend of the repudiation: abhāva, if identified with bhāva becomes indistinguishable from the latter and, consequently the entity in question-or, for that matter the entire reality in general-becomes an indifferenced or negationless existence which is evidently fictitious.

Page #177

CHAPTER V
157
designated as otherness (paratva) in every real. This otherness is nothing other than the principle of difference in the constitution of reality which is identity-in-difference.
Thus negation with the Jaina is a significant negation which embodies a rich content within itself and not a species of total vacuity.
The proportion of the content comprised in the notion of negation or otherness depends, according to the Jaina thinkers, upon the range of reality engulfed within the context or situation concerned. A customer who wishes to buy a jar from a shop will be satisfied with bringing, under the aspect of otherness, the several kinds of wares which are not jars, whereas a kevalin (a realised soul) will have, in his vision which is sub specie aeternitatis, an illimitable plenitude of objects in their infinite network of complex relations present to him against a contemplated situation.
This relativistic trend of thought finds its consummate expression in the idea that the full knowledge of anything is inextricably bound up with the full knowledge of everything and vice versa. This truth is lucidly expressed by a stanza which states that "he who knows one thing completely knows all things", and that "he alone who knows all things knows anything completely”.
1. Cf. evaṁ caikasminnarthe jñāte sarveşām arthānām jñānam /
sarvapadārthaparicchedam antarena tannişedhātmana ekasya
vastuno viviktatayā paricchedāsambhavāt / SM (text), p. 92. 2. eko bhāvah sarvatha yena drstah sarve bhāvāḥ sarvathā tena
drstāḥ / sarve bhāvāḥ sarvathā yena drstā eko bhāvah sarvathā tena drstah // SM (text), p. 92 and OIP, p. 171.

Page #178

158
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
A canonical gāthā, quoted by Mallisena, also runs to the same effect:
je egam janai se savvar jaņai / je savvam janai se egam janai //
SM (text), p. 92. The notion of relativity has had a long and varied history of development in Indian as well as in Western philosophy. Its influence, under several forms akin to the Jaina view of anekānta (manifold or indeterminate) reality, will be alluded to elsewhere. (See ch. IX.) Its application in Western philosophy ranges from Protagoras, the author of the well-known dictum: "Man is the Measure of all things", in ancient Greece, to Albert Einstein, the originator of the celebrated theory of Relativity, in physics today. The reverberations of the Einsteinian theory, of physics, on the numerous branches of human knowledge, including philosophy, have been heard in increasing measure, for about a quarter of a century.
The notion of relativity is associated with theories such as are not merely divergent but are, often, mutually opposed. For instance, Berkeleyan idealism and Humean scepticism are, despite their opposition in important respects, both described as relativistic on the common grounds that they maintain that the "inmost nature" of "things" is "unknowable, inscrutable, and inconceivable, not to us merely, but to every other creature” (see J. S. Mill's An Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, 2nd ed., London, 1865, p. 10). This meaning of relativity is reminiscent also of Kant's "unknowableness of things in themselves” as well as of Herbert Spencer's "ever unknown" or "unknowable reality existing behind all appearances" (H. Spencer's First Principles, 6th ed, The Thinkers Library, London, 1937, p. 55). There are many thinkers, ancient and modern, who subscribe to this view (vide Spencer, op. cit., p. 55, and Mill, op. cit., p. 11). Sir William Hamilton's impressive “Testimonies", classical and other, substantiating the "relativity of knowledge”, in the sense in which relativity is referred to in the present paragraph, are of considerable interest. H. Spencer's and J. S. Mill's chapters on "The Relativity of All Knowledge" and "The Relativity of Human Knowledge" in the First Principles (ch. IV) and An Examination (chapters II and III), just cited, are of no less interest.

Page #179

CHAPTER V
159
W. Wundt, a great psychologist of the period prior to that of Einstein's theory of relativity, enunciates 'the law of relativity' which coincides, at any rate in one of the essential implications, with the Jaina conception of the manifold (anekānta) nature of conciseness (cf. ch. IX). His 'law', supported also by Thomas Hobbes and Alexander Bain, maintains "that every phase of experience is influenced by every other phase of experience of the moment, and also by the whole past history of consciousness" (see Dictionary of Philosophy and Psychology, Vol. II, ed. J. M. Baldwin, 1911, New York, p. 450; see also the editor's Handbook of Psychology, 2nd edn., London, 1890, pp. 58-63; James Ward's article on "Psychology" in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th ed., 1891, London, p. 558 ; H. Hoffding's Outlines of Psychology, E. T. hy M. E. Lowndes, 1891, London; and Mill's op. cit., p. 6 and f. n. thereon). This law' has also been affiliated, by its authors, to the Berkeleyan and Humean tenet of the “unknowableness' of the 'inmost' nature of reality. The implication of interrelatedness of each phase of experience to all phases of experience, according to this 'law' is therefore a superimposition upon the theory of "unknowable' reality. The point of comparison between this law' and the Jaina conception of manifold reality does not, therefore, extend beyond the common point of interrelatedness between the two schools in question. Further, the law' is bound by two limitations with respect to the comparison: (1) that it is purely psychological and, on the side of Jainism, applies only to the sphere of consciousness and not to total reality of which consciousness is a part and (2) that it superadds to itself the philosophical theory of an unknowable' reality in sharp contrast to Jainism which subscribes to an attitude of direct access to, or cognition of, reality. A. N. Whitehead however, complements the truth of Wundt's psychological relativity, touching, by means of his principle of 'the signi ficance of events', the objective side of reality: "Returning to the significance of events", he observes in The Principle of Relativity (Cambridge, 1922, p. 26), "we see there is no such thing as an isolated event. Each event essentially signifies the whole structure. But, furthermore, there is no such thing as a bare event.” (See also The Concept of Nature, Cambridge, 1920, p. 29, para 2, etc.) These two sides of the truth of relativity, viz., the subjective side as advanced by Wundt and the

Page #180

160
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
objective side as advanced by Whitehead, give, between them, of course in a rough and ready manner, the total scope of the meaning attached by the Jaina philosophers to the notion under consideration.
The Einstein theory of relativity has given rise to a new development of the notion of relativity in the framework of a four-dimensional reality (for the meaning of the 'fourth dimension' see the lucid passage in S. A. Eddington's The Romanes Lecture on the Theory of Relativity and its Influence on Scientific Thought, Oxford, 1922, pp. 15-16). Making allowance for the differences in the cosmological structure between the highly complex physical theory of Relativity of Einstein and philosophical theory of relativity in Jainism we observe that the two theories are governed by one or two important features which suggest a considerable mutual affinity between them. A brief indication of these features may be made here:
Stating the position of relativity in Einstein's theory Viscount Haldane observes (The Reign of Relativity, London, 1921, p. 85; see also p. 88, para 2): "Two systems at a distance from each other, moving in different directions and with different velocities, may, for observers in them of a common object, be productive of results signifying different truths, in the form of shapes and measurements of space and time as actually and correctly observed". In other words, an object is not just what it appears to be from one viewpoint, and the other viewpoints are not deviations from, or distortions of, that one absolute or isolated presentation. An object is, in the words Sir A. Eddington, perhaps the greatest exponent of the Theory of Relativity so far in England, "a symposium of worlds presented to different viewpoints" (The Nature of the Physical World Everyman's Library, London, 1935, p. 275). "The more standpoints, the better" (The Romanes Lecture, p. 24). Bertrand Russell calls individual viewpoints 'aspects' or 'private worlds' and defines an object ('thing') as 'system of aspects', or a 'system of perspectives', or simply 'perspectives'. (Cf. 'The system consisting of all views of the universe, perceived and unperceived, I shall call the system of 'perspectives'. I shail confine the expression 'private worlds' to such views of the universe as we actually perceive.... Thus an aspect if a 'thing' is a member of the system of aspects which is the thing." OKEW, pp. 95-6). Both Eddington and Russel admit the possibility of

Page #181

CHAPTER V
161
"correlation" among the "worlds" or "private worlds" which have their basis in the object or “the referent” (cf. The Nature of the Physical World, p. 275, and OKEW, p. 96). Otherwise such a lack of intercommunication among such "worlds" leads to a solipsistic world-view, an interpretation which H. Dingle makes of the theory of Relativity. The snag in any mentalistic hypothesis, such as that of Dingle and, in the ultimate analysis, of Eddington himself (as will presently be shown) is that it does eventually, lead to a solipsistic universe despite any professions to the contrary (see Part II, chap. IX for criticisms against idealism, in general, and for a controversy in this specific issue, between Dingle & others. Dingle is logical (but not necessarily truthful) in so far as he is aware of the solipsistic implications of his interpretation.
The elements of 'standpoints' and 'aspects', so far considered have an unmistakable resemblance to anekāntavāda, in general, and nayavāda and, to some extent, syādvāda, the two primary modes of anekāntavāda, in particular, although this resemblance does not admit of a close point-for-point correspondence. A naya, or a standpoint, offers, according to Jainism, a partial truth of a real (vastvamśagrāhī naya), whose full truth could be comprehended in a totality or 'symposium' of such partial truths or presentations, actual and possible. Similarly, the word 'syāt' in 'syadvada' is indicative of the other inseparable but distinguishable 'aspects' or presentations in any complex entity. Further, the immense complexity of a real, under the theory of Relativity, answers, in general, to the manifold or indeterminate (anekatva) structure of reality under the Jaina theory of relativity.
Lastly, the question whether relativity is rooted in a subjective or an objective universe, according to the theory of Einstein, is closely bound up with the treatment of the notion of relativity in relation to Jainism. As Haldane points out (The Reign of Relativity, p. 53) there are two schools of thought which interpret Einstein's relativity. One of them tends towards "mentalism" and the other towards objectivism or realism. The great Eddington himself is a notable adherent to the former view, also called structuralism. In his exposition of the theory of Relativity he observes: "All through the physical world runs that unknown content, which must surely be the stuff of consciousness...... And, moreover, we have

Page #182

162
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Having gone, in considerable detail, into the way in which being and non-being, or identity and difference, have been integrated in concrete reality, we may now resume the treatment of the doṣas which have been already formulated, elsewhere. The leading dosa is, as already observed, virodha or contradiction, and the other dosas are only the expression of its various aspects. The refutation of virodha implies,
found that where science has progressed the farthest the mind has but regained from nature that which the mind has put into nature". Concluding this thesis he further remarks, "We have found a strange foot-print on the shores of the unknown. We have devised profound theories, one after another, to account for its origin. At last, we have succeeded in reconstructing the creature that made the foot-print. And Lo! it is our own." (Space, Time and Gravitation, Cambridge, 1920, pp. 200-201. See also the Reign of Relativity, p. 105, and Broad's elucidation and criticism of Eddington's thesis presented at the Symposium on "The Philosophical Aspect of the Theory of Relativity", Mind, N. S., 1920, pp. 414-49). Giving us a "glimpse of Reality" "reached" by "the modern scientific theories" which evidently include the theory under consideration, the same thinker speaks: "To put the matter crudely, the stuff of the world is mind-stuff.... The mind stuff is the aggregation of relations and relates which form the building material for the physical world". (The Nature of the Physical World, pp. 266 ff.) A counterblast to this mentalism of some "experimental philosophers" like Eddington, and, at the moment, of H. Dingle, comes from an even larger number of equally competent "experimental philosophers" and others, the most notable among them being Max Born, A. N. Whitehead, Bertrand Russell, H. P. Ushenko and Henry Margenau. Reference is made elsewhere (see Part II, chap. IX), to the views, realistic or objectivistic, of the latter group of thinkers, excepting that of A. N. Whitehead since it has been referred to in this footnote. H. Dingle's view, as well as the criticisms thereon, may also be noticed thereunder. The relevance of some of the ideas considered in course of this footnote to the Jaina conception of reality will become even more evident at the later stages of this work.

Page #183

CHAPTER V
163
therefore, a substantial part of the refutation—though a somewhat implicit one—of the others also. A brief reference to the criticism of each of the other doșas is also made with a view to give completion to the dialectical examination of the ontological stand taken by the Jaina :
There are, according to the Jaina, three' possible forms (rūpas) in which virodha can occur: 1. Vadhyaghātakabhāva (the destructive opposition); 2. Sahānavasthānabhāva (the non-congruent opposition) and 3. Pratibadhyapratibandhakabhāva" (the obstructive opposition). The first one holds between two 'hostile' participants or factors one of which is stronger than and, therefore, destructive (ghātaka) of the other (vadhya) if the two are brought together (samyoge). The illustration cited under this form of opposition is that of the mongoose (nakula) and the serpent (ahi) between which the the mongoose is stronger and, therefore, the preying agent in relation to its prey, the serpent. The condition that the agent and the patient (the serpent) should be brought together in a single situation is important in view of the fact
1. On a closer examination the three forms, an account of
which follows immediately, seem to make a cross division although each of the three has more or less a specific feature of its own. The opposition between a mongoose and a serpent has been instanced as coming under vadhyaghātakavirodha, although it would not be wrong to bring it under either of the two other forms of virodha. This overlapping division does not, however, affect the truth of the Jaina stand. The English equivalents, though somewhat inadequately rendered, are adopted for brevity. When fully rendered they become: 1. The opposition of the destroyed and the destroyer, 2. The opposition of non-congruence', and 3. The opposition of the obstructed and the obstructor, respectively. The term 'non-congruence' is after S. Mookerjee's rendering.

Page #184

164
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
that if they remain two independent or separate facts they would not be opposed. If opposition could come into play even when they are separate or unconnected factors, then no serpent could ever exist in a world which is inhabited by the species of mongoose. Similarly there would be no fire left in a world where there is water. The paradox of the situation is that the two factors cannot, however, be brought together into a state of lasting union owing to their inherent opposition to each other. Even if they are coerced into a union the stronger member would destroy the weaker one and become the sole occupant, or the content, of the situation. Such a union of being and non-being with an imminent danger of a destructive union hanging upon it is not admitted to exist even for a moment (kṣaṇamātram api) between sat and asat in the anekānta ontology. This is so because the participant factors are admitted to be of equal strength (tulyabalatvāt) and, therefore, of a co-ordinate nature which admits of no fissure, in a real which can be described as unified complex or a complex union.
2. Sahānavasthānabhāva, or the congruent opposition, is a form of contradiction which occurs in the case of two states which can not exist together in one substratum. It is possible for the two states in question to exist at different periods of time (kālabhedena) but they cannot do so, it is stated, at the same period of time. In a raw state a mango, for instance, is green (śyāma). In a ripe state the same mango becomes yellow (pīta). But the raw and the ripe states cannot, it is admitted, exist together in the mango since the two states are, in the present case, consecutive (pūrvottarabhāvinau). The Jaina maintains that this form of virodha also cannot affect

Page #185

CHAPTER V
165
his conception of reality as astitvanāstitvarūpātmaka in as much as both astitva and nästitva are concurrently revealed to exist together in concrete fact. If the two states, viz., astitva and nāstitva, are consecutive, or exclusive, then when astiva prevails all would be indistinguishably existent, and similarly, when nästitva prevails all would become totally nonexistent. In such circumstance the occurrence of astitva when all is nāstitva and vice versa becomes an absurd proposition: sarvathaiva satah punar ātmalābhābhāvāt, sarvathā cāsataḥ punar abhāvaprāptyanupapatter naitayos sahānavasthānam yujyate'.
Hence to avoid this anomaly it is appropriate to assume that astitva and nāstitva are concurrent in reality.
3. Pratibadhyapratibandhakabhāva, or the obstructive opposition, is said to occur between two events or facts when one obstructs the occurrence of the other. The removal of the obstructing fact is, under this form of contradiction, the necessary antecedent condition for the occurrence of the other. To quote a traditional example, under the protective influence of a 'moonstone' (candrakāntamaņi, the fictitious gem with cooling property) the rays of the sun cannot, it is said, burn us. That is, the occurrence of the burning effect is conditional upon the removal of the heat-obstructing stone. Similarly heat, which is an obstructing factor to cold, needs to be removed before a body feels cold. The Jaina view of astitvanāstitvasvarūpatva of reality is not accepted to be liable to this form of virodha also. The obvious reason
1. SBT, p. 88.

Page #186

166
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
advanced is that both elements are concurrently revealed to our observation.
At this juncture it is necessary to point out a grave misapprehension which has implicitly prejudiced the opponents of Jainism with regard to the Jaina attitude to the problem of contradiction: The Jaina has been generally assumed to indulge, almost wantonly, in contradiction, particularly in relation to the development of his theory of reality. He has, of course, continually repudiated this assumption. In fairness to the impartial canons of philosophical criticism it is obligatory on the part of critics to realise the distinction between an avowedly conscious attempt to build up an ontological scheme on the foundation of contradiction, and an attempt to frame an ontological scheme which might seem to some critics to lead to a contradiction. The former attempt does not, but the latter does, absolve the author of the scheme from the intention of entertaining contradiction as an important element in the scheme. The Jaina seems to have persistently met with such a misconception of his ontological endeavour at the hands of even such great thinkers as Sankara and Dharmakīrti—not to mention several others whose dialectical acumen is of a lesser order. The Jaina himself does not think even for a moment that his theory of reality is built upon, or even leads to, contradiction. He is as zealous in the avoidance of contradiction as any of his adverse critics. Nowhere has he been seen to compromise on this subject. The three forms of contradiction just referred to sufficiently indicate his adherence to a non-contradictory approach to the problem under consideration. In a proper dialectical evaluation of the essential concepts in a certain

Page #187

CHAPTER V
167
school of thought, understanding the concepts as their authors wish them to be understood before proceeding to find out their faults is not the least part of a critic's duty.
There is a deeper consideration underlying the repudiation of the forms of contradiction with regard to the Jaina conception of reality. It lies in the fundamental difference in the approach to the problem of reality between the Jaina and the non-Jaina-especially the idealistic Advaitic and the Buddhist-schools. The difference may be stated, in modern phraseology, to be one between aposteriorism and apriorism. Aposteriorism signifies a direct appeal to experience and apriorism to some kind of intuition' which is "pure and transcendental". The intuitional or the aprioristic view would not of course object to the idea of experience being the sphere of verification of a truth. But it objects to the treatment of experience as the sole determinant of the knowledge and of the validity of its truth. This point of view is clearly expressed in the following observation: “The opposition between being and non-being is known a priori and does not stand in need of verification to validate it. Its validity is self-certified, and though experience may illustrate its truth it does not confer validity upon it. Its validity is intrinsic, being derived from the aprioristic constitution of our thought-principle. If experience is found to be in consonance with this law, as known a priori, it is true and valid, and if it is found to be at variance with it, it must be rejected as false".
1. JPN, p. 18.

Page #188

168
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
The aposterioristic view of the Jaina, on the contrary, takes the attitude that experience is the source of the knowledge as well as of the validity of its truth. There is, on this view, no transcendental or transempirical region of pure' thought, from which the so-called contingent and particular truths can derive their truthfulness or validity and universality. Experience which gives rise to a knowledge of truths also imprints on it the signature of their selfcertitude and self-validity.
This assumption, viz., that experience is the source of knowledge and the validity of all truths, underlies the Jaina assertion that if experience does not vouch for contradiction', then contradiction itself is false' and not the experience. Hence the Jaina feels that his view of reality as existence-cum-non-existence (bhāvābhāvātmaka or sadasadatmaka) is irrefutably valid.
1. The refutation of Virodha, supposedly the most important of the doșas attributed to the Jaina theory of reality, is
1. pratīyamāne vastuny avirodhāt. PKM, p. 93. See also PHMS, p. 28. 2. Pascal offers a corrective to those who are so obsessed with con
tradiction that they see it even where it is not. Although the Jaina does not subscribe to Pascal's view as indicated in the following passage, it is interesting to observe how Pascal gives a glimpse into the other side of the picture, as it were, than the one given by the idealistic enthusiasts:
"Contradiction is”, observes Pascal, "a poor sign of truth; much that is certain is open to contradiction, much that is false passes without contradiction. Neither is contradiction a mark of untruth, nor absence thereof a mark of truth". Pascal's Pensees, p. 95, H. F. Stewart, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London (1950).

Page #189

CHAPTER V
169
believed to weaken considerably the strength of the other dosas. These doşas have already been formulated elsewhere and referred to as being eventually the various aspects of virodha. One or two points of criticism against each of them may, however, be briefly supplemented to the above account of the Jaina refutation of contradiction.
2. The vyadhikaraṇatādosa or the fault that the Jaina notion of reality as bhāva and abhāva requires two abodes, loses its point owing to the fact that both bhāva and abhāva are unconflictingly revealed (pratibhāsanāt) together in a single locus (ekādhikāraṇatvena)'.
3. Anavasthā or the infinite regress, as applied to the Jaina theory, is claimed to need an endless progression of predicating sattva and asattva in their togetherness, of each aspect, viz., sattva and asattva of the continually-increasing series of the pairs of sattvāsattva characteristics in a substance. The Jaina adduces the following argument against this charge : sattva and asattva are, according to him, the attributes of substance (vastu) itself and cannot, therefore, be treated as further attributes of attributes which they would be if the opponent is right. This principle is clearly stated by Gunaratna: sattvāsattvādayo vastuna eva dharmāḥ, na tu dharmāņām dharmāh, dharmāņāṁ dharmā na bhavantīti vacanāt.” Umāsvāti also authoritatively
1. näpi vaiyadhikaranyam; nirbādhabodhe bhedābhedayoḥ sattva
sattvayor vā ekādhāratayā pratīyamānatvāt / PKM, p. 535, and
NEEP, p. 371. See also TRD, p. 236, PMHS, p. 28, and TBV, p. 452. 2. TRD, p. 234. Cf. NKC, p. 371, and PKM, p. 536.

Page #190

170
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
confirms this truth in the sutra: dravyāśraya nirgunah gunah. Sattva and asattva, the attributes of a vastu only, cannot, therefore, give rise to further pairs of similar attributes. Hence the question of anavastha, the Jaina concludes, does not arise in his case."
4. Sankara, and 5. Vyatikara: Neither sankara (confusion) nor vyatikara (exchange of natures) between bhāva and abhava would arise from the Jaina point of view owing to the admitted fact that the variegated character of reality is clearly evident as in the case of a multi-coloured gem (mecakaratna) or of a similar fabric (citrapaṭa). Moreover,
1. TRAG, p. 243.
2. Further, in course of his defence of the Jaina stand against this charge, Gunaratna distinguishes two kinds of infinite regress (anavastha): one the 'vicious' infinite, and the other the nonvicious or the 'harmless' (aśakta) infinite. The names he gives them respectively, are mulakṣatikari (lit. that which cuts the root) and amulakṣatikari (lit. that which does not cut the root). They are so described because the first one tends to cut at the very root of the substance it analyses and the second one to 'save' the root. The second one is also described as being indicative or illuminative of the manifoldness of reality (amulakṣatikaritvena pratyutānekāntasyoddipakatvāt). See TRD, p. 234, and compare the stanza, quoted by Gunaratna, with the one pointed out by Dasgupta as having been quoted by. Jayanta (HIP, Vol. I, p. 160, f. n. 1). Although both of them describe the two distinctions of the 'vicious' and the 'harmless' infinites the latter half of the stanza quoted by Gunaratna is adapted to express the 'anantya' or 'the anekāntatva' principle of Jaina ontology. It is, however, a pity that Gunaratna does not fully work out the implications of his argument and show how the 'harmless' infinite-which he exalts as being a 'bhuṣaṇa'-is directly applicable to the Jaina theory which is, ex hypothesi, accepted as being free from any kind of infinite regress.

Page #191

CHAPTER V
171
among the diverse shades of colour in such objects no one shade is taken for another nor does any of them exchange its character for that of another. Because they all together form an intelligible and unitary pattern in which each shade has its own specific place and feature. Similarly the unitary bhāva would be empty without the diversified abhāva; and the diversified abhāva would be meaningless without the unitary bhāva. Once the mutual necessity of the two is realised the question of confusion and misplacement in regard to the two elements in reality would not arise.
6. Saṁsaya : that doubt or lack of definiteness (adựdhapratīti) would haunt a mind confronted with the dual nature of reality is, according to the Jaina, also ill-founded owing to the vivid revelation of both being and non-being (sattvāsattvayoḥ sphuţarūpeṇaiva pratīyamānatvāt) in a vastu'. An acute observation' of Kumārila also bears out this truth.
7. Apratipatti, and 8. Vişayavyavasthāhāni: A complex structure as well as a coherent order being indubitably transparent in a real denial of either would be, according to
1. TRD, p. 236, and PMHS, p. 28.
This occurs in the following passage where Kumārila also maintains the doubtlessness (na sandigdham; suniścitam) of the non-absolute character (anekatva; anyanānyatva or sattvāsattvarūpatvc) of our knowledge of a vastu: "This fact of the nonabsolute character of an object, does not render our cognition of it doubtful (or invalid). Because it is only where cognition itself is doubtful that we can have its invalidity. In the present case, however, our cognition is perfectly certain, viz., that the object is of non-absolute... character (and as such, the
validity of this cognition cannot be doubted)". SVJha, p. 344. 3. pratipanne ca vastuny apratipattir iti sahasam / PMHS, p. 28.

Page #192

172
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
the anekāntavādin, untruthful. Hence these two dosas also are inapplicable to the Jaina conception of reality.
Arthakriyākāritvavāda
Hitherto the various objects of the abhedavādin and the
1. With regard to the five doșas noticed on p. 146, f. n. 3, there is
nothing strikingly new beyond what has already been given under the statement of the modus operandi by which being and non-being are synthesised in reality, as well as of the eight doşas hitherto dealt with.
The refutation of fault No. 9, viz., pratiniyatavyavahāralopa, by virtue of which there would be, it is contended, a'chaos' in the order of things-a'chaos' in which a person proceeding to get water might get fire and vice versa-is contained in the statement of the modus operandi by which svatattva and paratattva are combined (supra, p. 149 ff.). In other words, water or fire has its own specific nature which is distinguishable from everything else. Were it not so, chaos would certainly break out among things as well as in our cognitions of them (cf. TRD, p. 236).
Reference has already been made to the overlapping character of the refutations of the various dosas on p. 146, f. n. 3, and p. 163, f.n. 1. This is particularly evident in the case of the remaining four faults; viz., ubhaya (no. 12), pratyakşādipramāṇabādhā (no. 10), asambhava (no. 11) and abhāva (no. 13), which have also been noted in course of the same footnote. The answer to the charge of ubhayadosa would be, as already indicated, a variation of the answer to the charge of vyadhikaranatādosa. That is, just as bhāva and abhāva can reside in the same abode, so also oneness and manyness can.
Similarly, the faulty notions of being contrary to all experience', 'impossibility', and 'non-existence' (the last two of these being the consequences of the first one), which have been brought under no. 10, no. 11 and no. 13 respectively, have been repudiated, in spirit if not in letter also, under the one or the other of the eight dosas, particularly under virodha, apratipatti and vişayavyavasthāhāni. Cf. TRD, p. 236.

Page #193

CHAPTER V
173
bhedavādin to the Jaina view of reality have been jointly stated and the answers from the Jaina point of view also have been outlined. There is, however, one important principle which the Buddhist claims to be closely connected with his bhedavāda and on which it is necessary to ascertain the Jaina stand. It is the principle of arthakriyākāritva or causal efficiency which is considered by the Buddhist to form the essence of reality. The Buddhist's arguments against the applicability of this principle to any kind of abhedavada or dravyavada have already been considered' at some length. The Jaina shares the Buddhist's opposition to dravyavāda almost entirely, although some Buddhist critics imagine1, not rightly, as will be shown in the process of answering the present as well as the next question, that this opposition to dravyavāda affects the Jaina position as well, in so far as the Jaina theory is concerned with the dravya as an element of reality.
There are, however, two important points of difference between the Buddhist and the Jaina in the meaning they attach to dravyavada in their common denunciation of the view which connects this notion of arthakriyäkäritva with dravyavāda. First the Buddhist is against dravyavada of any kind, while the Jaina is against ekantadravyavāda. Secondly, the Buddhist's attack actually turns out, whatever his profession may be, to be on the hypothesis of the static (kuṭasthanitya) dravya whereas the Jaina's attack is also on
4.
1. See NBD, p. 103, NBTD, p. 17, PVD, II. 3, and HBT, p. 145 ff. See supra, pp. 52-56.
2.
3. See, for instance, TBV, p. 327 ff., PHMS, pp. 25-26, AVP, St. 26
and the SM. thereon, etc.
See infra, p. 187, f.n. 4, p. 190, f.n. 1, and p. 193.

Page #194

174
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
the same hypothesis but only as a contrast to his own theory of the dynamic (pariņāmi) dravya. It is needless to recount the Jaina arguments against ekāntadravyavada since they are largely on the same lines as those of the Buddhist', which have already been noticed earlier' except for the difference with respect to the connotation of dravyavāda just stated.
The Jaina dialecticians like Prabhācandra, Hemacandra, Abhayadeva and Mallişena do not merely show, with the Buddhist, the inapplicability of the principle of causal efficiency to the hypothesis of dravyaikantavāda. They also pursue the consequences of the application of this principle even into the sphere of the Buddhist hypothesis of kṣanikavāda, the paryāyaikantavada or the anityavada' as the Jainas would call it-which maintains that reality is a series
1. Cf. TBV, p. 729.
2.
3.
See supra, pp. 52-56.
Akalaňka is perhaps the earliest Jaina writer to dispute the relevance of the idea of arthakriyäkäritva, in its two modes (to be mentioned presently) to the nityavada or the dravyaikāntavada on the one hand and to the kṣaṇikavāda or the paryāyaikäntavāda on the other. He observes:
arthakriya na yujyeta nityakşanikapakṣayoḥ /
kramakramabhyam bhāvānāṁ sa lakṣaṇatayā matā //
AGAM (and AGAV thereon), p. 4. See also PKM, pp. 498-499, PMHS, pp. 25-27, TBV, pp. 324-331, 400-403 and 728-729, SM, pp. 18-20, NVVS, p. 91, AVV, p. 202 and SRK, p. 731.
Vācaspatimiśra, Jayantabhaṭṭa and Bhadanta Yogasena are among the early non-Jaina critics of the Buddhist idea of arthakriyäkäritva. They all, of course, criticise it from the points of view of their respective doctrines. See NVTT, pp. 554-556, NM, pp. 453 and 464, TSS, kās. 428-434, and PK thereon.
4. ekantanityavadanitye'pi kramākramābhyam arthakriyāsambhavät / PKM, p. 499. See also NVVS, pp. 91-92.

Page #195

CHAPTER V
175
of discrete moments without the thread of an inner connectedness. They try to show how arthakriyākāritva-a principle so dearly cherished by the Buddhist, who went, at certain stages, even to the extent of deriving' his very conception of reality, viz., kşaņikavāda, from it, or, at any rate, of identifying it with kṣaṇikavāda—deserts him when the consequences of its application to his theory of reality are examined. Without going into much detail the main features of the Jaina argument may be outlined as follows :
The Jaina contends that causal efficiency is incongruous” with the doctrine of momentariness or kşaņikavāda—also
1. We can distinguish three meanings in the evolution of the
principle of arthakriyalcăritva from the early times. At first it conveyed the simple meaning of the fulfilment (siddhi) of any need', then it meant 'action' (anusthiti) and finally it came to mean the efficiency of causing any action or event or simply the causal efficiency, which became the universally accepted definition of existence'. See HIP, Vol. I, p. 163, f.n. 1.
Or to express its development in a somewhat different way at first, it was treated as 'a criterion of knowledge', then as a 'criterion of existence', and lastly, as the other name of existence' (that is arthakriyākāritva came to be regarded not merely as a characteristic of reality but as reality itself: arthakriyakāritvameva sattvam tacca kşaņikānāmeveti. HBT, p. 145). Das Gupta draws our attention to the fact that athough it was historically derived from the prior doctrine of momentariness, later on, momentariness itself was sought to be proved as 'the logical result of the doctrine of arthakriyākāritva'. Ibid., p. 154, f.n. 1, and p. 209, f.n. 2. But whatever the variations in its meaning may have been, fundamentally arthakriyākāritva is treated by the Buddhist thinkers as the essence, or the characteristic, which is universally concomitant with all existence. Therefore, it is used in this sense in the course of this work. Prabhācandra mentions four doșas, viz., asiddha, viruddha, anaikāntika and kālātyayāpadişta, which are incidental to kşaņikavāda in its relation to arthakriyākāritva. See NKC, Vol. I, p. 379 ff.

Page #196

176
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
called the ekāntanityavāda or paryāyavāda-although the Buddhist himself considers causal efficiency as the very essence of his doctrine. The Jaina endeavours to prove his contention by analysing the only possible two modes in which causal efficiency can function in a reality which consists of discrete and perishing moments (pratikṣaṇavināśibhāva) without any thread of inner necessity connecting them into some kind of unity. The two modes are succession or consecutiveness (krama or paurvāparya) and nonsuccession (akrama) or simultaneity,
The causal efficiency cannot, the Jaina maintains, function successively owing to the fact that the momentary existence (kşaņas) lack abiding nature and, therefore, can have neither spatial nor temporal extension. Successionspatial or temporal—involves the notions of 'before' and * after which are absent from the moment. In confirmation of this contention both Hemacandra and Mallişeņa cite a stanza which may be rendered as follows : “Whatever is a a point of space is there alone and whatever is at an instant of time is also exclusively there. Thus in this (hypothesis, viz., the paryāyaikāntavāda) there is no spatial or temporal extension for the entities."' \
If the Buddhist replies to this contention by stating that although the moments perish and have no extension in space or time they do form a continuous series (santāna), which
1.
The stanza runs:
yo yatraiva sa tatraiva yo yadaiva tadaiva sah / na deśakālayor vyāptir bhāvānām iha vidyate //
SM (text), p. 19.

Page #197

CHAPTER V
177
does not perish and, therefore, enables the moments to be successive, then the Jaina propounds to his opponent an inescapable problem :
In the first place, santāna or the continuous series is an unreal fiction (santānasyāvastutvāt). Even the opponent has to admit this, since there is, according to him, nothing else than the self-sufficient moments.
Secondly, supposing the reality of santāna is conceded for the sake of the argument, even then the Buddhist position will be as illogical as before, for santāna also would then have to share, ex hypothesi, the momentary character of the units in it. This would be a needless duplication of momentariness in another medium (santāna) which is not merely imposed, falsely, on the momentary units, but also can never sustain any continuance in it.'
Lastly, if any continuance or non-momentariness is acquiesced in by the Buddhist, then the poignant sarcasm? (suggesting self-impeachment or self-conviction) of Jayanta and Hemacandra would be fully deserved by the Buddhist who thereby compromises his ardent passion for the notion
This Buddhistic notion of santāna like its analogous notion of "logical construction" or "symbolic fiction” as developed by Russell, has been criticised earlier. See pp. 44 (-50), f.n. 2. Jayanta disarms his opponent by the following observation : athāpi nityaṁ paramārthasantam santānanāmānam upaişi bhāvam / uttiştha bhikṣo phalitās tavāśaḥ so'yam samāptah kşanabhangavādaḥ // NM, p. 464 (quoted by Hemacandra also in PMMS, p. 27). Hemacandra also remarks in the same strain : athākşaņikatvam; susthitaḥ paryāyaikāntavādah. PMHS, p. 26. See also SM (text),
p. 19.

Page #198

178
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
of exclusive momentariness (bhedaikānta) and admits what he has all along fought against.
The Buddhist fares no better in his plea for the other mode, viz., the simultaneous functioning of the causal efficiency which might be supposed to repose in the vanishing moments of his conception. This may be illustrated by means of the example of a fruit which simultaneously reveals diverse effects like colour, taste, etc. In this case a question which naturally arises is whether the colour-moment' (rūpaksana) and the 'taste-moment' (rasaksaņa) arise from an identical or single nature of the moment, or from different or many natures of it. If they were to arise from a single nature, then they would all be the same for the obvious reason that they arise from the self-same nature (yadyekena svabhāvena janayet tadā teşām ekatvam syād ekasvabhāvajanyatvāt) and, therefore, would not admit of diversity. If they were to arise, on the contrary, from many natures—some effects like colour arising from a material cause (upādānabhāvena) and others like taste arising from co-operative auxiliary factors (sahakāritvena)—then the Jaina would ask whether the many natures are integral (atmabhūtāḥ), or non-integral (anātmabhūtāḥ), to the causal moment. If they are non-integral—that is, if they do not belong-to the cause then evidently they cannot in any sense claim to constitute the intimate nature (svabhāvatvahānih) of the cause in question. If they are, on the contrary, integral to the nature of the cause, then either (a) they will lose their
1. That is, rasādikşaņānām. 2. PMHS, p. 27.

Page #199

CHAPTER V
179
diversity or manyness, and become identically the same (svabhāvānām vaikatvam prasajyeta') since they are said to proceed from a single cause, or, for that matter, become the cause itself, inasmuch as they are non-different from it (tad avyatiriktatvāt teșām tasya caikatvāt)' or (b) the cause itself
—which is admitted to be of a single or identical nature—will become diversified because of the fact that the plurality of natures and the variety of effects (svabhāvabhedah kāryasāňkaryañ ca) will inevitably split its integrity. Arguing on the part of the Buddhist that this contingency of plurality of natures and diversity of effects would not arise in this case, owing to the fact that such plurality and diversity are due to the cause being upādāna (material) at one place (that is, with respect to rūpa or colour in the present example), and sahakāri (auxiliary) at another (that is, with respect to rasa or taste in the present example), would not be helpful to him." For this plea will not, in the least, mitigate the tendency of the cause to diversity and plurality which are too obvious in the Buddhist arguments. Hence the argu
1. SM (text), p. 19. 2. Ibid. 3. SM (text), p. 19. Moreover, if the Buddhist denies, as he does,
interaction between the so-called upādāna and the sahakāri factors in a causal event he will fall into the error of treating a causal connection as a casual coincidence. For instance if the seed (upādāna) on the one hand and the co-operative (sahakāri) factors of soil water and light, etc., on the other are treated simply as several independent series of potencies extraneously conjointed to bring a sprout (the effect) into life, then how such erratically casual coincidences could form a nexus of uniformly recurrent cause-effect relation becomes hard to explain.

Page #200

130
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
ment for the simultaneous functioning of the causal efficiency in a momentary real also becomes a nullity.'
Thus the above account indicates that neither in the dravyaikāntavāda nor in the paryāyaikāntavāda is there any logical warrant for the function of the principle of causal efficiency. That conjunction of these two hypotheses into a mechanical theory, called ubhayavāda, will also prove equally unsatisfactory in this regard will be shown in course of the treatment of the next question immediately following this.
The Jaina understands by arthakriyāsāmarthya a capacity for generating the practical consequences as indicated by Hemacandra in his sūtra: arthakriyāsāmarthyāt.? This meaning is the same as what the Buddhist means by causal efficiency. The Jaina maintains also that arthakriyākāritva constitutes a unique property (asādhāranarūpa or laksana) of a concrete real. This is laid down by Hemacandra in his sūtra on the subject : tallaksanatvādvastunah.' The concrete real, however, is an integral synthesis of continuity and transience or identity and difference. This is signified by his adherence to the dravyaparyāyātmakatravāda.' Accordingly, the only kind of reality which offers an adequate field for the operative play of arthakriyākāritva is believed by the Jaina to be the one which is contemplated by his integral view.
1. tasmātkṣaṇikasyāpi bhāvasyäkramenárthakriyā durghaţă etc. SM
(text), p. 20. 2. Vide ibid., sūtra 32 and the vștti thereon. 3. Vide ibid., sūtra 32 and the vștti thereon. 4. Cf. dravyaparyāyātmakasyaiva vastuno'rthakriyāsamarthatvād itu
arthaḥ. PMHS, p. 25. Also cf. kşaņo'pi na khalu so'sti yatra vastütpadavya yadhrauvyātmakam năsti (SM, text, p. 20).

Page #201

CHAPTER V
181
It is noteworthy that, in this connection, Hemacandra observes that the urge for right knowledge springs from the need of practical consequences.' Here Hemacandra strikes an unmistakably pragmatic note. That action is the source as well as the test of knowledge is the fundamental principle of the many-sided developments of pragmatism in the West.
1. arthakriyarthi hi sarvah pramāņam anveşate. Also see what follows.

Page #202


Page #203

CHAPTER VI
The Externalistic Doctrine of Identity-in-Difference
(Ubhayavāda)
versus
The Doctrine of a Unique and Integral Synthesis of
Identity-in-Difference (Jātyantaravāda)

Page #204


Page #205

CHAPTER VI
The Externalistic Doctrine of Identity-in-Difference
(Ubhayavāda)
versus The Doctrine of a Unique and Integral Synthesis of
Identity-in-Difference (Jätyantaravāda)
Starting with a brief statement of the Jaina view of reality, as embodied in the basic formula of Umāsvāti, we have so far addressed ourselves to the task of seeking confirmation for that view from three great representative thinkers, and then of launching out on a dialectical examination of the implications of that view under a scheme of the statement and the refutation of four questions. Two of the four questions have been jointly stated and refuted. In the process of their examination the Jaina view has been found to be confronted with a series of objections, among which contradiction, confusion, infinite regress and a few others are notable ones. In order to clarify the Jaina stand against those objections, it has been found necessary to dilate upon, incidentally, the means by which being and non-being are synthesised in concrete reality, as well as upon the significance of negation as an element of reality. The treatment of the mode of synthesising being and non-being as well as of the significance of negation as a component element of reality is aimed at serving the dual purpose of having provided the necessary

Page #206

186
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
ontological background for the refutation of the various objections (contradiction being the most important one among them) referred to in the foregoing account, and of forming the basis of a discussion of the doctrines of nayavada and the syādvada-saptabhangi which will be briefly presented in the sequel. Lastly, in the course of the Jaina answer to bhedavāda [the question (b)] we have tried to disprove the Buddhist contention that causal efficiency (arthakriyākāritva) can have an operative force only within the ontological scheme of kṣaṇikavāda, and to establish the validity of that principle within the exclusive sphere of a dravyaparyāyātmaka reality.
There still remain two more questions, viz., (c) and (d), which demand our attention before the treatment of the fourfold questionnaire is brought to a close. The question (c) concerns ubhayavada or the theory of two-fold nature of reality, or of identity and difference, and the question (d) concerns jātyantaravada or the theory of uniquenessuniqueness obtaining in every manifestation of identity-indifference constituting an object in reality-which aims at remedying the defects of ubhayavada. We may begin with the first of these two questions.
Ubhayavāda
Ubhayavada postulates that identity and difference are separate, or at any rate, separable, entities entering into the making of an object. It may be, therefore, described as a mechanical or a composite theory of reality in so far as it

Page #207

CHAPTER VI
187
treats dravya and paryāya (guna) as external or independent' entities. This is why Gunaratna describes this view as : kāņādayaugābhyupagata-parasparaviviktadravyaparyāyaikānte, etc.?, although it considers dravya as the substratum (äśraya) of the guņas. The Vaišeşika' is the author of this view although it is falsely fathered upon the Jaina also by the Buddhist logicians, Arcața and Durveka. As a matter of fact, the Jaina thinkers themselves, viz., Siddhasena, Abhayadeva,
Cf. : "Though thus dependent upon a dravya, they (guņas) are conceived as altogether distinct from it, for they can by themselves be known and as such must, according to the doctrine (the Nyāya-Vaišeşika) be independent realities. They are what they are in complete independence of everything including the dravyas to which they belong...." OIP, p. 232. See also TS, p. 82 (notes), where the guņas are characterised
as 'accidents' attaching to substance, the Ens. 2. TRD, p. 231. See also the following f.n. 3. In course of our treatment of ubhayavāda only the Vaišeşika
(the kāņāda) is referred to as the author of the theory, although the Naiyāyika (the yauga) also shares this view in important essentials. Curiously enough Arcața chooses the Jaina as the main target of his criticism against this ubhayavāda in his Dravyaparyāyayor anekāntavāda-khandana. HBT, pp. 104-107 (and the Aloka thereon), particularly the kās. 20, 25 and 24. The first two of these kās, have been quoted (infra) and the last one hints that the dravyaparyāyavāda would not be different from accepting a mixed view of kūțasthanityată in regard to dravya and kşananāśita in regard to paryāya, together. (As a matter of fact Ratnakīrti categorically affirms that there can be no third possibility beyond the alternatives of kşaņikatva and akşaņikatva in this regard : kşaņikākşaņikaparihāreņa rāśyantarābhāvāt....p. 77, SBNT).
The criticism of the Vaiseșika view, however, follows immediately the attack on the Jaina. 5. Siddhasena firmly repudiates the falsity (micchättam) of the
Vaiseșika position in gā. 49, STP, p. 656. Although the

Page #208

188
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Haribhadra, Hemacandra and Mallişeņa, have taken a strong line of criticism against this view of the Vaišeșika (kaņabhunmata). A statement of the Vaišeșika school concerning the subordination of identity to difference has already been made earlier' by pointing out the predominant importance given to the concept of viseșa or particularity by the
Vaisesika, like the Jaina, acknowledges the reality of both dravya and paryāya (guna), he treats each of them as being absolute and, therefore, as being mutually independent (annonnaniravekkha). He, therefore, resorts to ubhayavāda (dohi vi naehi niam). The two views, or nayas, which are mixed, or contained, in the ubhayavāda of the Vaišeşika, are the dravyārthikanaya (davvātthiyanaya) and paryāyārthikanaya (pajjāvätthiyanaya) each of which is severally illustrated by him in the following ga., with reference to the Kāpila (the Sānkhya) darśana and the sauddhodana (the Buddhist) darśana respectively:
jam kāvilam darisaņam eyam davvätthiyassa vattavvam / suddhoana tanaassa u parisuddho pajjavaviappo // 48 //.
STP, p. 656. Owing to their extreme (suddha or pariśuddha) or exclusive character the two nayas or doctrines, whether singly, as in the Kāpila darśana or sauddhodana darśana, or jointly, as in the Vaišeşika darśana, are called the parasamayas' or heresies. In his extensive com. on gā. 49, Abhayadeva expounds, and refutes, the most controversial problems of the Vaišeşika philosophy. The problem of ubhayavāda is, however, touched upon at the opening and the concluding parts of the com.
Hemacandra devotes to the Vaišeșika metaphysics as many as six kās. (4-9) in his AVD and a few brief but lucid passages specifically to ubhayavada in his own com. on the sūtras 30-33 in his Pramāņamimāṁsā (pp. 25, 27 and 29, PMHS). Mallişeņa, in his elaborate com. on the six kās. of AVD, especially under the kā. 5, vividly brings out, in occasional polemical passages, the critical implications of this view (SM, pp. 10 ff. (text), especially pp. 13-20). Lastly, Haribhadra makes occasional critical observations on this question in his critique on the nature of reality in his AJP, Vol. I (particularly
pp. 65-66 and 71-76). 1. See supra, pp. 107-112.

Page #209

CHAPTER VI
189
school. At present we are, therefore, concerned only with noticing how the mechanical hypothesis of ubhayavāda (which also applies to the Vaišeșika philosophy in so far as the predominant difference and the subordinate identity form a mechanical combination in the hypothesis) is unsatisfactory. This consideration will point to the necessity of treating bheda and abheda as two different aspects of an integral or vital synthesis instead of as two external entities conjoined in a composite object, which would evidently be two entities in one, although it (the composite object), is erroneously treated as one. It will also bring into the picture of reality the important trait of jātyantarată by virtue of which each real would be cognised as something sui generis. The second factor, viz., jātyantaratā, will receive a greater stress in the next question, than the first one, because it has not figured so far in our inquiry into the nature of reality, except by a casual reference to its name on a few occasions.
To resume our consideration of the present question, the externalism between dravya and paryāya (guņa) makes ubhayavāda not into one consistent theory which it is supposed to be, but into a conjunction', or mixture (miśra or miśravāda) of two independent, or even opposed' theories of dravyavāda and paryāyavāda. The reason for this is that dravya and paryāya are treated as numerically different entities, although they are supposed to exist as a single object. This is why Arcața is right in urging against this theory that
1. Abhayadeva describes it as: svavişayapradhănatăvyavasthitā
nyonyanirapekşobhayanayāśritam / TBV, p. 704. 2. Cf. viruddhadharmayogena stambhakumbhädibhedavat / TSS, kū.
561.

Page #210

190
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
it lays itself open to the combined evils' of both Identity-view and Difference-view.
The initial error of ubhayavāda is, from the Jaina point of view, the acceptance of the idea that dravya and guņa (paryāya) are 'completely independent” despite the alleged 'dependence' of the latter (guņa) on the former.
Besides robbing dravya and paryāya of their mutual dependence as complementary elements in an entity, this idea of absolute independence between dravya and paryāya leads the Vaiseșika to resort to a metaphysical tour de force, viz.,
1. Referring to the fictitiousness (kalpanāksta) and falsity
(mȚşārthatā) of the Identity-view (abhedavāda) and Differenceview (bhedavada or paryāyavāda or dravyavāda) individually Arcața observes :
abhedasyāparityāge bhedaḥ syāt kalpanākṣtaḥ / tasyāvitathabhāve vā syādabhede mỊşārthatā //
HBT, p. 106, kā. 20. Although the substance of this criticism against the two extreme views is the same as that of Siddhasena's criticism in his gā. 49 (supra, p. 187, f.n. 5), Arcața treats the Jaina, as already noted, as the main target of this as well as of the following charge:
bhedābhedoktadoşaś ca tayor iştāḥ kathań na vā /
pratyekam ye prasajyante dvayor bhāvāḥ katham na te // Ibid., ka. 25 (for a slight variation of the second line of this ka., as quoted by Hemacandra, see PMHS, p. 29, and p. 804, line 18).
Both Hemacandra and Municandra agree with this criticism against ubhayavāda : dravyaparyāyavādayoś ca yo dosah sa ubhayavāde'pi samanah. PMHS, p. 29. idamuktam bhavatikevalābhedapakşe abhedapakşe ca ye prāgeva nirūpitā doşās ta ubhayapakşābhyupagamam sutarāṁ prāpnuvanti | AJPV on
Haribhadra's com. on AJP, Vol. I, p. 13. 2. dravyagunayor asaňkīrṇasvabhāvatvāt / HBT, p. 107.
dravyaguņādibhyo vyāvsttarūpāņi / TBV, p. 656. Cf. also supra, p. 187, f n. 1.

Page #211

CHAPTER VI
191
the enunciation that a dravya can remain devoid of a guņa even though for an instant, after its birth, and that it can also outlast, by an instant, the destruction of the material cause from which it is produced. Whatever the circumstances which might lead the Vaišeșika to perform this curious metaphysical feat, the acknowledgement of the separability between dravya and guna makes his position highly vulnerable to the attack as to how the entities so external to each other get, when brought together, fused into such an intimate union as could be described as a single object.
Keśavamiśra observes: dravyan nirguņam eva prathamam utpadyate. Or again: tasmāt prathame kşane nirguņa eva ghato guņebhyaḥ purvabhāvīti... TB, Pt. I, p. 8.
"In consonance with the realistic and pluralistic spirit of the doctrine," a modern writer observes in this connection : "these qualities are all regarded as separately real or as having their own being, although they are never found by themselves. Theoretically a substance may, provided it is a product, exist without a quality for a little while.” EIP, p. 93. "....a jar for example is destroyed one instant after the destruction of the halves (kapāla) out of which it is made." The same writer further observes: "There is in this view the difficulty of satisfactorily explaining the continuance, for however short a period it may be, of the effect after its material cause is gone." OIP, p. 241.
There will arise several other objections also against the notion, viz., that dravya could be nirguna at the first moment: (1) How could a jar, for example, be perceived at the first moment while even the Vaiseșika accepts the rule that guņas like colour and touch, are necessary for the perception of a dravya? (2) Would the jar be called a dravya at the moment when it is nirguņa in the face of the definition, given by the Vaiseșika himself, that a dravya is a substratum of guņas (gunāśraya) (See NKB, p. 369)? Acceptance of imperceptibility as demanded by (1) and pleading, in answer to (2), that a 'dravya' may have capacity for being a substratum of guņas but may not be necessarily possessed of them always would be but. evasive answers.
3.

Page #212

192
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
The tendency to externalise everything has also compelled the Vaiseṣika to postulate a God (Iśvara or Maheśvara) for explaining the creation and destruction of the changing world. This deus ex machina amounts to a confession of failure in evolving an intrinsically self-sufficient notion of reality.
A further anomaly arising from the mechanistic conception of ubhayavada in the Vaiseṣika metaphysics is the division of dravyas into eternal (nitya) or permanent ones and noneternal (anitya) or transient ones. The eternal ones are said to be primary or simple substances (nityadravyam tvasamavetam eva') and the non-eternal ones are said to be secondary or composite products derived from the simple ones (anityadravyaṁ kāryarüpatvad avayavasamavetam3). This assignment of eternality or permanence to one division and of transience or change to another one results, at any rate according to the Jaina and the Buddhist critics, in a theory of two worlds in one of which, permanence enjoys an uninterrupted or lonely existence, and in the other there is the play of change in evidence initiated in a perpetually alternating cycle of creation and destruction by God or Maheśvara. From among the residents of the world a further order of substances is singled out. This order is said to consist of soul (ātmā, including paramātmā or God), space
1 & 2. See NKB, p. 370.
3. In keeping with the mechanistic temper of the system the Vaiśeşika's idea of change does not signify any internal or dynamic transformation (pariņāma) in a product but only its 'change of place' (parişpanda). Cf. OPI, p. 233.

Page #213

(dik), ākāśa' and time (kāla). These substances are said to be so absolutely eternal that they do not give rise to the products (dravyabhāvinaḥ) of the transient realm.'
This bifurcation of the world into two or three independent orders of permanence and change, or identity and difference, does not commend itself to the Jaina.
1.
Lastly, even arthakriyäkäritva or causal efficiency cannot, according to the Jaina, come into play in such a world of being so sharply separated. How causal efficiency cannot operate in the static realm of a mere dravya has been already pointed out from the point of view of the Buddhist philosophy. Hemacandra is in total agreement with the Buddhist in regard to the inapplicability of causal efficiency, either at the level of simultaneity or of succession, in a static dravya. He goes further in demonstrating how it cannot be operative even in a world of discreet momentariness which is the view of the Buddhist himself. This aspect of the problem also has been pointed out earlier." The Vaiseṣika's ubhayavāda,
2.
CHAPTER VI
3.
193
4.
13
Dik or space and ākāśa are different in the Vaiśeşika system. Akāśa is some 'ethereal substance' filling the space and having sound as its distinction.
Hemacandra describes the entire position as follows:
kanādastu dravyaparyāyavubhāvapyupāgaman pṛthivyādīni guṇādyādhārarūpāņi dravyāņi, guṇādestvādheyatvāt paryāyaḥ/ te ca kecit kşanikāḥ, kecit yāvaddravyabhāvinaḥ, kecin nityā iti kevalam itaretaravinirlunţhitadharmidharmābhyupagamāṁśasamicinavādinaḥ/
He concludes the argument by stating:
ekāntabhinnānām kenacit kathañcit sambandhayogādityähnikyapakşe'pi visayavyavasthā / PMHS, p. 27.
See supra, pp. 52-56, and also the Sec. on Arthakriyäkäritvavāda (p. 172 ff.).
See supra, p. 174 ff.

Page #214

194
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
which is but a conjunction of dravyavāda and kşaņikavāda (paryāyavāda), is shown by Hemacandra and the other Jaina thinkers, to lend itself doubly' to the lack of any play of causal efficiency.
In view of the incongruities indicated in course of the present question the Jaina rejects ubhayavāda in favour of jātyantaravāda which is claimed to avoid the pitfalls met with in the present and the previous questions.
Jātyantaravāda
It has been discovered, in course of our attempt to answer the three questions (a), (b), and (c) concerning the nature of reality, that neither the pure identity-view (dravyaikāntavāda)', nor the pure difference-view (paryāyaikāntavāda), nor even the composite view of identity and difference (ubhayavāda or parasparaviviktadravyaparyāyaikāntavāda)' but only an integral view of
1. Doubly' because the Buddhist charges (with which the Jaina
identifies himself subject to the two limitations indicated on p. 173, supra) made against the paryāyaikāntavāda (in the course of the previous question) of the Buddhist, will together hold against the mechanical theory of the Vaiśeşika who conjoins the above two extreme theories into his ubhayavāda. Although the Advaita view of reality is generally considered to be the dravyaikāntavāda (the identity-view) par excellence, the Sankhya view is also considered by the Jaina writers to be a very good example of a dravyaikāntavāda. Therefore, the Jaina writers sometimes refer, in this connection, to both or to either (as Gunaratna does in the phrase where reference to the paryayaikānta of the Buddhist also is made: sānkhyasaugata
bhimata-dravyaparyāyaikāntayoḥ / TRD, p. 231) of the two. 3. See supra, p. 187 (f.), f.n. 5, etc.

Page #215

CHAPTER VI
195
identity-in-difference offers an adequate definition of reality.' The present question, the last in the series of four questions with which we started a critical exposition of the Jaina conception of reality, aims at dealing briefly with how and why the Jaina regards every real as not merely an indissoluble (parasparānanuviddha) union of identity-in-difference but also--this is the matter of immediate concern-as something sui generis (jātyantara)'.
The Jaina ontologist maintains that a real is a synthesis of identity-in-difference and that each such synthesis is jātyantara or sui generis. That is, the combination of identity and difference in a real is not a numerical summation but a vital synthesis of the two elements. Each such synthesis is also said to be unique, in the sense that when the real is analysed the two elements of identity and difference exhaust
1. yata evotpādāditrayātmakaṁ paramārthasat / TRD, p. 229 2. Cf. “A real is a unity and diversity in one, and the
relation involved is neither one of absolute identity nor one of absolute otherness, but something different from both. It is
sui generis......" JPN, p. 207. 3. Cf. evaṁ hyubhayadoşādidoşā api na düşaņam / samyagjātyantaratvena bhedābhedaprasiddhitaḥ //
AJP, Vol. I, p. 72. Akalanka also remarks : ubhayadosa(viz., sadasadekāntapakşadosa)prasanga iti cet na jātyantaratvān narasimharūpavat / TRAG, p. 225. Through expressing himself not merely against the view that a real is 'ubhayarūpa' (composite) but also against the other two extreme dogmas, viz., that a real is merely ‘dravyarūpa' and that it (the real) is merely
paryāyarūpa', Hemacandra also asserts the manifold (sabala) and unique (jātyantara) character of the real as follows: ayam arthaḥ-na dravyarūpań na paryāyarūpan nobhayarūpań vastu, yena tattatpakşabhāvī doṣaḥ syāt, kintu sthityutpādavyayatmakam sabalam jātyantarameva vastu / PMHS, p. 29.

Page #216

196
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
between themselves the entire content of the real, although they display a distinctive (visista) structural and functional individuality-not found in the individual constituent elements—in their combination. This is illustrated by the oft-quoted instance of Narasimha' (the Man-lion): As the name itself suggests, Narasimha is a combination of nara (man) and simha (lion). Nevertheless, it indicates a being which is somehow different, in its combination, from the parts severally entering into its making, although it is impossible to get such a being outside the parts in question.
Similarly jaggery (guļa) and ginger (nāgaram or sunthi) are said to cause phlegm (kaphahetuh) and bile (pitta
1. Durveka explains this being as: hiranyakaśipuvadharthanirmita
narasimhātmakaḥ / HBTA, p. 343. 2. Cf. na naro nara eveti na siṁhah simha eva vā/
śabdavijñānakāryāņāṁ bhedājjātyantarań hi tat// na naraḥ simharūpatvāt na siṁho nararüpatah /
sāmānādhikaranyena narasimhah prakirtitah // Quoted in AJP, Vol. I, p. 71, f.n. 1 and NKC, Vol. I, p. 369. The first verse is quoted also in Siddhasena Gaņi's Com. on Tattvārthadhigamasutra, Kapadia's edn., p. 377, as well as in JTVS, p. 11 (with slight variations in the last work). The verse following it in JTVS as well as in TRD and all the verses preceding it in TRD may also be seen.
For a variant verse in which the same analogy is expressed, see SM (text), p. 20, and TPSJ, p. 79. Besides TPSJ see also TSS, kās. 325, 1733-1736 (together with PK on all these kās.), HBT, p. 104, and HBTA, p. 343 (in all of which reference is made to it either for a statement of, or a criticism against, the Jaina position). This analogy is cited in a few other non-Jaina works (e. g. NVVS, p. 261, the tippaņi against p. 88, line 16), often in somewhat different contexts. See also AGAV, pp. 103 and 108, TSV, p. 435, PKM, p. 536, TRD, p. 245, AJP, Vol. I, pp. 65, 77 and 302, SJPT, pp. 214 and 215, AVV, p. 147, NVVS, pp. 87-88 and SM (text), p. 151.

Page #217

CHAPTER VI
197
kāraṇam) respectively but when compounded (militayoh), they lose their respective harmful effects (doşān) and become something different (anyadeva, dravyāntaramidaṁ gudanāgarākhyam or guļanāgarabheșajam) despite the retention of the basic ingredients revealed in the analysis of the compound substance.
A more familiar example in this connection would be that of water and its constituent elements. When analysed, under electrolysis, water resolves itself into two molecules of hydrogen and one molecule of oxygen. That water is a distinctive or unique substance in comparison with its constituents is a scientific commonplace. These instances indicate the lines on which the Jaina treats every entity as a unique phenomenon in relation to its constituent factors of identity and difference. This uniqueness is not a mere external appendage but an inherent trait manifesting itself in the ceaseless vortex of causal interaction among the entities in the universe. In his Gifford Lectures Samuel Alexander makes a suggestive observation which brings out the spirit of the
1. Cf. na cātra bhedābhedapakşabhavi doso gudanagarasamiñitavastvabhyupagamāt / taduktam
gudaícet kaphahetuḥ syāt nāgaram pittakāraṇam /
tannu amanyatevedaṁ gudanagarasarjñitam // NVVS, pp. 87-88 (with tippaņi against p. 88, line 1, and p. 261), HBT, p. 106 (together with HBTA, p. 349). Some of the other analogies given in illustration of the jātyantara character of a real are those of Umeśvara (NKC, Vol. I, p. 349), the multi-coloured (citra or mecaka) gem (ibid.)
or mayūrānda (TRD, p. 244) etc, 3. That external factors like spatial and temporal considerations
are not irrelevant is shown below (supra, p. 201 f.)

Page #218

198
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Jaina notion of jātyantaratva as an argument against a world of repetitive cycle of entities and events : "Bare repetition it may be affirmed does not even exist. Manufactured articles are not identical though they may be identical within certain limits of precision. It is, however, true that the more closely instances reproduce each other the less useful they are for scientific discovery.""
Leibniz is more emphatically clear on this point. He states: “There is nothing in the universe which does not enjoy a certain singularity, which is to be found in no other thing.": He asserts, under the principle of the 'Identity of Indiscernibles", that not even any two leaves of a tree or any two drops of water or of milk could be entirely alike' because of the fact that "The things are......distinguishable in themselves".5
The jātyantara trait of an entity is grounded in the fundamental manifoldness (anekāntasvarūpatva) which is believed by the Jaina to be at the heart of all reality. The
1. Repetitive in the sense of lack of individuality among entities.
Space, Time and Deity, S. Alexander (London, 1920), Vol. I,
p. 231. 3. Mon., p. 222, f.n. 15.
Explaining this principle of the 'Identity of Indiscernibles' with respect to a Monad, the Leibnizian conception of a real, Leibniz writes: "Indeed, each Monad must be different from every other. For in nature there are never two beings which are perfectly alike and in which it is not possible to find an internal difference or at least a difference founded
upon an intrinsic quality". Ibid., p. 222. 5. See ibid., p. 37, f.n. 1 and A Critical Exposition of the Philosophy
of Leibniz, B. Russell, (2nd Edition, 1949), pp. 55 ff. and 220.

Page #219

CHAPTER VI
199
existence of a simple real is thoroughly repugnant to the Jaina. Uniqueness or singularity' cannot, according to him, arise from such absolutely simple real whether the real be the Advaitic Brahman or the Buddhistic kşaņikasantāna (series of full stops as it were). For there is little room in such a real for anything else than its own bare subsistence (sat). Hence the truth underlying the Advaitic dictum : naikasmin na sambhavāt, or the Buddhistic dictum : yo viruddhadharmavān nāsăvekaħ, betrays not the contradictoriness of the anekānta real but the logical consummation of the monolithic or simple form of reality. Jātyantaratva can, therefore, arise, it is believed, from the foundation of a manifold or variegated real which alone could afford the basis for the co-ordinate existence of diverse elements or components, as well as for their casual interplay, which in turn results in the emergence of a fully-fledged unique or singular entity. Therefore it is by no means an accident or a casual fancy that the Jaina conceives anekāntasvarūpatva as a synonym of paramārthasat (true reality) and conceives it as the pivot on which his entire philosophical-ontological and epistemological-developments turn. Thus anekāntavāda, with which alone the notion of jātyantaratva is affirmed to be concomitant, offers the most thoroughgoing ontological antithesis to the ekānta (extreme or monolithic) doctrine-single or composite—in Indian philosophy.'
1. See infra, p. 23-24 (and the footnotes). 2. For a reference to the synonymousness of anekāntavāda with
utpädavyayadhrauvyātmakavāda and to its being the necessary basis for the notion of jātyantaratva, see TRD, pp. 229 f. and 244 ff.

Page #220

200 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
There are two considerations—the one critical and the other constructive—which concurrently underlie the postulation of jātyantaratva as a trait in reality. Critically, the notion of jätyantaratva aims not merely at repudiating indirectly the ekānta doctrines just referred to of simple reals, but also at directly undermining the Vaiśeșika's ubhayavāda, with which the bhedābhedavāda or the anekāntavāda (of which the jātyantaravāda is a corollary) is persistently confused by the Buddhistic thinkers. This is why Akalanka contrasts jātyantaravāda with the other theories by designating the former as a case of pakşāntara' (a view which signifies the resultant real as a product distinct from—not merely as something interchangeable with—the constituent factors) and the latter as cases of pakşasankara' (a view which signifies the real as a confused complex).
2.
1. Mallisena agrees with Akalanka in treating the Jaina as
pakşāntara : nityānityapakşavilakṣaṇasya pakşāntarasyangīkriyamāṇatvāt/SM (text), p. 20. Akalanka is inclined to use this epithet, viz., pakşasankara. for both the two ekānta doctrines of the identity-view (sadvada) and the difference-view (asadvada) as well as for the ubhayavāda (which is but a numerical summation of the two) although it is more appropriate in the latter (ubhayavāda) owing to the fact that, in the latter, there are two factorsidentity and difference—which are mixed (miśra), ex hypothesi, in a mechanical togetherness. The only sense, however, in which the term would severally apply to the two ekānta doctrines also is when each of them is understood as mixing in a confused jumble: a real identity with an unreal difference (the māyā as superimposed on the sat) or a real difference with an unreal identity or continuity (the unreal santāna or continuity as superimposed on the discrete moments (kşaņas) the only reals recognised by kşaạikavāda). But this seems to be a rather far-fetched meaning; its indirect truthfulness is incontrovertible. It is, therefore, necessary to note that

Page #221

CHAPTER VI
201
AY
The most serious objection associated with the confusion of the aina theory with that of the Yaisestikto a ctitical reference has been already made to the other two ekānta theories at the beginningļof thje?piksdrit, Question—is thật the Jaina teory, like its erroneous counterpart, involves contradiștion in the contatičutibní dl2d8feathonda briation, on the part of the Jainą:of the mutual complimentariness or the integratedness of identity and difference in a real in contrast to the mere extraneous or composite togetherness of the two, as maintained by the ubhayavādin, has been observed under the treatment of ubhayavāda, to knock the bottom out of the charge of the contradiction. That is, the integrated or the indissoluble (parasparānanuviddha) structure of the real directly gives the lie to the opponents' charge of contradiction against the Jaina conception of a real. Anekāntasvarūpatva, the raison d'être of the integrated concreteness of a real, is hereby asserted to be the negation of contradictoriness, or the affirmation of complimentariness. The proof of contradiction would, therefore, mean the disproof of the anekāntasvarūpatva of all reality. But the possibility of such a proof is flatly denied by the Jaina on the strength of the warrant of experience, at perceptual and other levels, which is maintained to reveal the ultimacy of the anekānta truth in all reality.
Constructively, uniqueness or 'singularity' is a positive trait attending upon every phase of causal process which
the principle of jātyantaravāda or pakşāntaravāda is proximately directed against ubhayavāda (which has the semblance of jatyantaravada) although its indirect criticism against the other ekānta doctrines also is indubitably implicit.

Page #222

202
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
marks a transition or evolution from an anterior manifold entity to a more inclusive or less inclusive posterior entity. It is conditioned by the determinate factors-external and internal within the fourfold range of the dravya (the material factor), the kşetra (the spatial location), the kāla (the temporal reference) and the bhāva (the intrinsic nature), governing the context of the causal occurrence concerned. It is not traceable to any one of these factors singly but arises from the totality of all the factors prevailing in the causal setting from which a new entity emerges. Besides imprinting a certain distinctiveness or individuality upon the entities and events in the universe the presence of this factor, viz., jātyantaratva, saves the reality from becoming a universal mass of mere being or a conglomeration of incommunicable atomistic particulars, or a mere conjunction of such being and such particulars in a warring medium miscalled a real.
Briefly, the Jaina answer to the problem of the nature of reality-the problem which has been so far dealt with in course of the four questions—is that everything is a manifold entity, or an identity-in-differents, with an imprint of individuality in it, and that the world is a vast society of such entities which act and react upon one another in their ceaseless process of causal transformations.

Page #223

CHAPTER VII
Is relation an Entity, or a Mental Construction, or a Structural Manifestation of Identity-in-Difference in Reality ?

Page #224


Page #225

CHAPTER VII
RELATION
Connectedness is an indubitable experience of reality. Whether it is (a) an independent entity alongside the various things of the Universe, or (b) a mental construction imposed on a disjoined heap of reality of the human mind, or (c) something which is objective, without being an entity, and an experience, which is not merely subjective—is a question which is supremely important in any inquiry into the nature of reality and knowledge. Hence a brief study of relation, with the necessary reference to its implications, for instance, whether it is external or internal and valid or invalid, may be attempted here. The entire discussion will, to anticipate the conclusion, reveal that relation is the structure of reality which is identity-in-difference.
A. Relation as an Objective Independent Entity :
The Naiyāyika', the extreme' realist, advances the theory
1. "The Naiyāyika' and 'the Vaišeşika' are largely interchange
able in course of this discussion, except for an important difference of opinion between them, viz., that the former treats samavāya as perceptual, whereas the latter treats it as infer
ential. See infra, p. 212 (f.), f.n. 5. 2. The predominant note of this 'extreme' realism is the em
phasis on the full knowableness and independence not merely

Page #226

206
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
that relation is a real (vastava) entity intervening between two terms or the relata (sambandhinau) as a tertium quid (padārthantara”) or a distinct 'link' connecting them into a relational unity.
of the world from the knowing mind, but also of each part from the others in the objective and pluralistic universe. This spirit is signified by the postulate that there can be no objectless knowledge (na cāvişaye kācid upalabdhiḥ/ NBV, p. 220) as well as that what is cognitively distinguishable' is different
(pratītibhedāt bhedo'sti / NM, p. 312). 1. For the reality (vastutva) of relation, see ILE, 2, f.n. 2, p. 131. 2. Each of the two kinds of relation, viz., saryoga and
samavāya (to be presently explained) is termed as 'padārtha' or category. Samyoga (the conjunctive relation or conjunction), however, is said to a be quality and, therefore, dependent upon, though distinct from, a substance (dravya) which is the most important of the seven categories, whereas samavāya (the 'necessary relation') is treated as an independent category.
While characterising samavāya as a 'padārtha' a distinction is advanced by the Naiyāyika, viz., that samavāya is a 'subsistent' (bhāva), but not an existent (sattā). (BPV, p. 30, kā. 13, and SWK, p. 107).
Hiriyanna refers to this distinction between subsistence and existence as quite fundamental to' as well as 'quite in accordance with' 'the basic principles' of Vaišeşika philosophy. (IPC, p. 162, and p. 163, f.n. 1).
Cf. "Suppose, for instance," observes Russell, “that I am in my room. I exist, my room exists, but does 'in' exist? Yet obviously the word has a meaning; it denotes a relation which holds between me and my room. This relation is something, although we cannot say that it exists IN THE SAME SENSE in which I and my room exist”. (Problems, p. 90). A little further he continues "....we shall say that they (universals in which relations are included, cf. ibid., p. 97) SUBSIST or HAVE BEING, where 'being' is opposed to existence' as timeless. The world of Universals, therefore, may also be described as the world of being". (Ibid., p. 100).

Page #227

CHAPTER VII
207
A relation' is 'conjunctive'' (saryoga-sambandha) when the relata are 'separable' (yutasiddha), and 'necessary' or 'intimate' (samavāya-sambandha) when they are'inseparable' (ayutasiddha)".
The strict non-admission of any internality between even the 'inseparable' relata under samavāya is a character
1. dvividhaḥ sambandhaḥ samyogaḥ samavāyaśceti / TB, Pt. I, p. 5. 2. For conjunction as a 'transient' connection and its threefold
distinction, see Mis. Es., Vol. II, p. 302, and BP with SMV, käs.
114-116. 3. The relata are separable' (yuta) in the sense that they were
separate before being conjoined, e.g., the hand and the book (hasta-pustaka-samyoga); aprāptayos tu yā praptiḥ saiva saryoga iritaḥ / BP, kā. 114, and they can be again separated at our will. Conjunction is, therefore, a purely adventitious or external relation. Necessary' or 'intimate relation seems to be a more satisfactory translation of samavāya than 'inherence', although the latter is more widely current, for inherence' is suggestive of an internal character, whereas samavāya is, as indicated in the next paragraph, an external, though inseparable (aprthak
siddha) relation. 5. tatrāyutasiddhayoḥ sambandhaḥ samavāyaḥ / TB, Pt. I, p. 5. Also see SDA, p. 278, kā. 66, and TRD thereon.
For the meanings of'ayutasiddha' and 'yutasiddha' as well as for the gradual widening of the scope of the meaning of
ayutasiddha' from its original and narrow application to the relation of the container and the contained (adhārādheyabhāva)
to a five-fold one, see PDS, with NK, pp. 35-36. 6. Internality should mean, according to some critics, identity
(ätmarūpa) of the relation with the relata. This would mean that the relation would be a constitutive or 'intrinsic' element in the being of the relata. (Cf. Bradley : "But every relation, as we have learnt, essentially penetrates into the being of its terms, and, in this sense, is intrinsical; in other words, every relation must be a relation of content." AR, p. 347. Also cf. "We should then have to ask if, in the end, every possible relation does not involve a something IN

Page #228

208
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
istically significant feature about the Nyāya conception of relation. This is, of course, in consonance with the realistic and pluralistic ontology of this system. The relata in samavāya remain, therefore, mutually external,' although they are held together in an 'extrinsic' unity by samavāya. This externality is believed to guard samavāya against the
which it exists, as well as between which it exists, and it might be difficult to reconcile the claims of these prepositions." PL, Vol. I, p. 28. Elsewhere we come across the following remark: "A term in the end (we have seen) can stand in no relation into which it, itself, cannot enter”. CE, Vol. II, p. 645). Acceptance of this position would eventually result in the total obliteration of relation as a distinctive entity owing to the fact that what constitutes the nature (svabhāva) of the relata cannot exist as an independent entity intervening between the relata which are alleged to be combined by the relation. Kumārila gives a brief but clear statement of this argument:
atha tasyātmarūpatvān nanyasambandhakalpana /
abhedat samavāyo'stu svarūpam dharmadharminoh // MSV, p. 180, kā. 149 f., also see NV thereon. 1. The description of samavāya, by an eminent writer, as an
"internal relation" does not, therefore, accord with the spirit of the Nyāya view of reality. Contrasting saṁyoga with samavāya, he observes, "Samyoga takes place between two things of the same nature which exist disconnectedly and are for a time brought into conjunction. It is external relation while samavāya is an internal relation". IP, Vol. II, p. 217. Hiriyanna, however, puts forth the correct view: "Even samavāya, it is necessary to add, has to be explained as an external relation, although it is usual to represent it as internal in modern works on the Nyāya-Vaiseşika." OIP, p. 230. Again, "...in all cases alike, samavāya leaves the terms it relates unaffected. (See f.n. under "unaffected" for reference to a Vaiseșika maxim and Muktāvali). In other words, it is an external relation like samyoga. The very fact that it is independent and relates ultimately simple factors shows that it cannot be an internal one". IPC (1927), p. 162.

Page #229

209
danger of its becoming an identity and, thereby, playing the Naiyayika into the hands of the Advaitin. For if the Naiyāyika were to accept even a partial interpenetration of the terms and their relation, there would be no stopping short, at any rate according to the Vedantin, of being driven to a total merging of the two, rendering, thereby, the relation itself a superfluous entity. This would put him on the highroad to absolutism in which not merely the duality of the terms in a relation but also the entire scheme of reality will become a seamless' coat. Athalye is, therefore, perfectly right, from the Naiyayika's point of view, when he observes that "....it is the theory (of samavāya) that makes them (the Naiyāyikas) so intensely realistic in marked opposition to idealistic schools like Vedanta"."
The other important characteristics of samavāya are that it is eternal' (nitya), one (eka) and all-pervasive (sarvavyāpaka or vyāpaka).
CHAPTER VII
Thus' according to the Nyaya ontology a relationwhether conjunctive or necessary-is an objectively real and
1. "Relations exist only in and through a whole which cannot in the end be resolved into relations and terms. 'And', 'together' and 'between' are all in the end senseless apart from such a whole." Additional Notes, PL, Vol. I, p. 112.
Notes: 50.
2.
3.
4.
14
TS, with DNB, Notes, p. 9, f. 8.
These involve one another.
What is meant by 'eternality' here is uncausedness (akaraṇatva) or improducibility and, therefore, indestructibility: na hyasya kiñcit käraṇam pramāṇata upalabhyate iti. PB, p. 697. This is intended to be aimed at avoiding the fallacy of infinite regress (anavastha) inasmuch as what is produced needs a productive agent and the pro

Page #230

210
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
ductive agent in turn, a further productive agent and so on. See U in VD, p. 350, where Sankara Miśra repudiates the views that samavāya is other-caused or self-caused and affirms it is uncaused. See also TS, Notes, p. 97, SP, Notes, p. 6, and RML, pp. 148-149. The relata are, of course, said to be produced and destroyed while the relation (samavāya) is intact. samavāyas-tveka eva, TS, p. 6, sec. 8 and SP, p. 5 (text), kā. 9; sarvatraikaḥ samavāya iti gamyate, PB, p. 697; na ca samyogavan nānåtvam, ibid., p. 696; PBTS, with KR, p. 172.
The absolute oneness or sameness of samavaya inevitably raises the question how it can avoid an 'intermixture of the categories' (padārtha-sankara) which would lead, for instance, cowhood to reside in men instead of in cows. To this the Vaišeşika replies that the distinctness of the categories is sustained by the difference of the substrata and their attributes (adhārādheya-niyamāt); nanu yady ekaḥ samavāyo dravyaguņakarmaņām dravyatvaguņatvakarmatvādiviseşanaiḥ saha sambandhaikatvāt padārthasankara-prasanga iti, na adhārādheyaniyamat (PB, P. 697; see also U on VD, VII. 2. 26, and cf. SM, p. 32 (text), line 29, as well as the note on p. 81 (notes), lines 29-30), where reference is made to different media or avacchedakas of samavāya.
The unique character of samavāya, corresponding to the substantiality (dravyatva) of substance (dravya) or to the attributeness (guņatva) of attribute (guņa), etc., is the cognitive pattern "this subsists in that” (ihedam-pratyaya. or iheti-pratyaya-darśana). This pattern or mark is said to be the invariable feature of samavāya and, therefore, to denote the unity (oneness) or the sameness of samavāya in the diverse situations of its occurrence. See PB, p. 696.
The other important considerations adduced in support of the oneness of samavāya are 'economy' (läghava) and lack of evidence to the contrary: yathā dravyar sat gunaḥ sat karma sadityekākārapratītivişayatvāt nānātvasādhakapramāņābhāvāt lāghavāc ca sattā ekā, tathā ghataḥ samavetaḥ patah samaveta ityādy-anugatapratītivişayatvāt bhedakapramānābhāvātlāghavāc cn samavāyopyeka evetyarthaḥ / Von U, VD, p. 35,
see also SPS, with M, p. 18, kā. 8. 6. samavāyasyaikatvān-nityatvād vyāpakatvāc ca / SM, p. 41. Cf.
also ibid., intro. p. xcii. 7.; The three characteristics, and their implications, just re
ferred to, together with the others, in behalf of samavāya,

Page #231

CHAPTER VII
211
distinct entity co-existing with, and connecting, the relata in a relational situation.
An entirely opposite view to that of the Naiyāyika is held by the Buddhist who maintains, with the
as well as of relations in general, will all come in, as will be seen in the sequel, for sharp criticisms at the hands of the Jaina and the non-Jaina thinkers. The Jaina does go some way with the Naiyāyika in so far as he (the Jaina) concedes relation as an objective fact, though not as an independent entity. Dharmakīrti-with the exception of śāntarakṣita and his lucid commentator, Kamalaśila, who have addressed themselves to an acute criticism of a part of the problem, viz., Samavāya (vide TSS, kās. 823-866, and PK. thereon)-is the only Buddhist thinker who has developed a critique on the problem of relations in his works (e. g., PVD with VM, pp. 370-374) particularly in Sambandhapariksa (see HML, p. 319) from which 22 kārikās have been preserved, in Sanskrit, by Prabhācandra in PKM (p. 504 ff.). While criticising Dharmakīrti, Prabhācandra adds, here and there, a few short explanatory comments. A few of these kārikās are found in the brief polemical accounts of Vidyānandin (TSV, pp. 148-149), Vadidevasūri (SRK, pp. 812 ff.) and of Prabhācandra himself in his other work (NKC, Vol. I, pp. 305-309).
An account of the twenty-four kinds of relations (paccāyas), as expounded in the seventh and the last work of the Buddhist Pāli canon, Abhidhamma Pițaka, has been given, in Pāli, in The Patthanuddesa Dipani (The Buddhist Philosophy of Relations), by Ledi Sayadaw, E. T., by S. V. Nyana, pub. by U. Ba Thah and Da Tin Tin, 1935, Rangoon. An earlier account by the same writer (spelt differently as Ledi Sadaw), given in course of three “letters", E. T. by S. L. Aung, is published under the title on the Philosophy of Relations, JPTS, 1915-1916, Ed. by Mrs. Rhys Davids, 1916, London. Two other accounts of the same topic are:-The Compendium of Philosophy (Abhidhammattha-sangaha), Pt. VIII, E. T. by S. L. Aung, Ed. by Mrs. Rhys Davids, PTS, 1910, London; and the article on "Relations" (Buddhist), by G. A. F. Rhys Davids, ERE. All these accounts deal with the subject of relations mainly from

Page #232

212
Advaitin', a subjective view of relations. According to Dharmakirti a relation, like a universal, is a conceptual fiction, fabricated by the mind, having no objective reality (na vastavah), the only reals being the unrelated (niranvaya or unmixed or amiśra)' or simple moments enjoying, severally, isolated or exclusive existence (svātmanisthitaḥ; svayambhāvāḥ; vyāvṛttarūpāḥ). Being neither perceptual nor inferable-perception and inference are the only two sources
an
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
3.
1.
See infra, p. 223 ff.
2. sambandhaḥ kalpanakṛtaḥ, sambandhacintă,
PVD, III. 237;
371;
na
vikalpite kalpananirmite sambandhe...., MV, p. vastuvyatirekena sambandho....kalpanamätratvāt, TSV, pp. 148-149. Cf. this position with Hume's notion "that all our distinct perceptions are distinct existences, and that the mind never perceives any real connection among distinct existences" (quoted) JPPSM, Vol. II, p. 33.
tān (bhāvān) miśrayati kalpana, spd. kā. 5, and Prabhācandra's comments thereon, PKM, p. 506, and NKC, p. 306; see also SRK, pp. 813-814. On the basis of this conceptualist nature of relations the Buddhist denies any relation between a verb (kriya) and its agent (karaka) as, for instance, between 'drive away that white cow' and 'Devadatta' in the statement "Devadatta, drive away that white cow with your stick" (devadatta, gām abhyāja suklām dandena). Vide spd. kā. 6, and Prabhācandra's comment preceding it, PKM, p. 506.
For a critical exposition of this argument, as applied to the causal relation, from the Buddhist point of view, see PKM, p. 511 ff.
4.
the ethico-theological point of view of the early Pali Buddhism, and do not, therefore, concern themselves with the philosophical development which the problem acquired at the hands of the dialectical masters like Dinnaga and Dharmakirti. Owing to the absence of any direct philosophical bearing on the treatment of the problem in this study no reference is made to these accounts.
There is, it is necessary to note, a cardinal difference of opinion, between the Naiyāyika and the Vaiseşika concerning

Page #233

CHAPTER VII
213
of knowledge according to Buddhism-relation is unreal (avastu). Pursuing his demonstration of the unreality of relation Dharmakīrti makes a searching analysis into the possible kinds and the anatomy of a relational situation and endeavours to show that the Naiyāyika's defence of the reality of a relation is entirely baseless.
Assuming the opponent's viewpoint, Dharmakirti argues that the only two' possible ways of entertaining a relation in general, are by treating it as (a) Dependence (pāratantrya) or rather, interdependence, and (b) Interpenetration (rūpaśleșa) or interfusion, of the relata entering into the relation in question. If we grant the first alternative, then the question arises whether the 'dependence' is between two full-fledged existents(nispannayoh) or between existents which have not yet emerged into full being (anispannayoḥ). If it is, on the one hand, between two full-fledged existents, then the
the means of cognising samavāya; the former considers that samavāya is apprehended by perception and the latter by inference-pratyakşaḥ samavāya iti naiyāyikā āhuḥ / NKB, p. 961; samavā yo'tindriyaḥ anumeya eva iti vaiśeşikā āhuḥ / Ibid., p. 962; pratyakṣaḥ samavāya iti naiyāyikās tadapy anupapannań samavā yo'tindriyaḥ...VD, p. 353, and also UV thereon. Samyoga also is maintained, by the Naiyāyika, to be apprehended by perception but by two senses only.
Vide TS, p. 87 (Notes). 1. See the last line of kā. 1, quoted infra, p. 214, f.n. 2.
sambhandho'rthānām pāratantryalakṣaṇo vā syād rūpaśleşalakṣaṇo vā syāt? PKM, p. 104. See also p. 214, f.n. 2. The context in which the problem is treated is the question of the relatedness among the atoms in a so-called concrete object. The Buddhist assumes an object to be an aggregation (sanghāta) of unrelated (asambaddha) atoms.

Page #234

214
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Buddhist would argue, there is no need for a relation since such absolutely independent existents need no relating entity for the simple reason that they are, by hypothesis, severally self-sufficient entities and, therefore, admit of no dependence whatsoever (pāratantryābhāvāt)'. Such an imposition of dependence on two independent entities would, in Buddhist view, result in introducing contradiction in an otherwise relationless situation. If, on the other hand, the dependence is argued to be between two entities which are yet to come into being (anispannayoh), then it would be absurd to talk about relating two entities which are yet to be.
The second hypothesis of the interpenetration or interfusion of the relata fares, according to Dharmakirti, no better, since here also, as in the other case, the argument is beset with a contradiction : the interfusing relata should, on this
1. pāratantryavihinatvāt siddhasyetyapare viduh / TSV, p. 146, kā. 10.
Vidyānanda uses 'siddha' and 'asiddha' also for "nişpanna'
and 'anişpanna' respectively. 2. prathamapakşe kim asau nişpannayoḥ sambandhinoḥ syâd
anişpannayor vā? na tävad anişpannayoḥ, svarūpasyaivāsattvät Śaśāśvavişāņavat nişpannayoś ca pāratantryābhāvād asambandha eva/
Having thus stated the Buddhist argument Prabhācandra corroborates with the following kā, from Dharmakīrti :
pāratantryam hi sambandhaḥ siddhe kā paratantrata /
tasmāt sarvasya bhāvasya sambandho nāsti tattvataḥ // PKM, spd., p. 504, kā. 1. Also see SKR, p. 812.
Vidyānanda refers to another possible view which is not so much a third as the combined view of the two stated above. This combined view is also repudiated by the Buddhist as being liable to the defects of both the views together (pakşadvayabhāvidoşānuşangāt). Vide PVD, and MV thereon, III. 236, and TSV, p. 146.

Page #235

CHAPTER VII
215
hypothesis, remain two' in the resultant relational situation despite their mutual merging, inasmuch as a relation presupposes two disparate relational entities.' But, it is contended, how can the merging take place if the merging relata are not fused or transformed into one indistinguishable whole or identity in the process? In other words, the interfusing relata should satisfy the incompatible requirements of retaining their duality (dvisţatva) even in their resultant integration (ślesa) into a relational whole, and of becoming a perfectly related whole, in which case there results an identity (aikya)-identity, because the two become onewhich goes against the fundamental pre-requisite of all relations that they should have two discreet entities.
The moment the possibility of the two relata becoming a single relatum (identity) is accepted—this acceptance would be insisted upon by the Buddhist logician in conformity to the logical necessity of the argument: this is the reason why the Naiyāyika cautiously maintains the extrinsic character of even samavāya—the duality of the relational structure will then disappear and along with it, the need for a relation also owing to the absurdity of attempting to relate a single entity.
1. A sambandha always presupposes two things : dviştatvāt tasya
(sambandhasya). PKM, p. 505. 2. sambandhinor abhāve sambhandhāyogāt / Ibid., and NKC, p. 305. 3. Retaining duality would run counter to the integrating character
of the rūpaśleşa relation : sambandhinor dvitve rūpaśleşavirodhāt.
PKM, p.505. Vide also NKC and SRK, p. 305 and p.812 respectively. 4. See above f. n. 5. See supra, p. 207, and f.n. 6 thereon.
tayor aikye vã sutarāṁ sambandho'bhāvah / PKM, p. 505. tayor aikye'pi na sambandhaḥ sambandhinor abhāve tasyāghaganāt / TSV p. 147. See also SRK, p. 812.

Page #236

216
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Another argument which is mentioned, in passing, as meeting with the Buddhist objection is tendency to treat the notion of continuousness', or nairantarya—which means absence of any gap or interval (antarabhāvarūpam)' between the two terms—as constituting the rūpaśleșa relation. This idea of continuousness is summarily rejected by the Buddhist as a negative (atättvika' or tāttvikatvāyoga“) one (because the absence of something is passed for a positive entity which, in his opinion, militates against the opponents' (Naiyāyika’s) acceptance of sambandha as a positive entity.
Stretching the argument further, the Buddhist questions why his opponent should not accept “the presence of a gap" (sāntaratā)' or the lack of continuousness, as the rūpaśleșa relation. This implies that nairantarya is as arbitrary as
-
1. nairantaryam tayo rūpaśleșaḥ; na / PKM, p. 505. See also TSV,
p. 147, and SRK, p. 812. Also the next f.n. 2. Vidyānanda vividly renders it as chidramadhyaviraha. TSV,
p. 148. This notion of gaplessness attributed to the Naiyāyika, seems to be intended to defend his position against a split which cuts asunder a related whole into two independent, and therefore, unrelated entities. This is viewed, of course from the Buddhist angle. The Buddhist, however, contends, and rightly so, according to what rūpaśleşa ought to be, that the acceptance of gaplessness does not, as stated at the end of the paragraph, save the Naiyāyika from playing into the
hands of the Advaitin and accepting an unqualified identity, 3. The editor gives the equivalent of 'atāttvika' as "abhāva'
(tucchabhāvarūpatvād abhāvasya). PKM, p. 505, f.n. 3. 4. Both Vidyānanda and Vādidevasūri use this phrase. TSV,
p. 147, and SRK, p. 812. 5. nirantaratāyāś ca sambandharūpatve sāntaratā'pi katham sam
bandho na syāt? PKM, p. 505. anyathā sāntaratvasya sambandhaprasangatvāt / TSV, p. 148, and NKC, Vol. I, p. 305.

Page #237

CHAPTER VII
217
säntarată and, therefore, that there is no logical bar against accepting the one or the other as the rūpaśleṣa relation, although both are equally absurd. The Naiyāyika, however, cannot concede säntarata between the relata since even the utmost closeness (santarata) would not save him from the charge of the Buddhist who demands, under rupaśleṣa, nothing short of a 'total merger' or fusion of the relata entering into the relation. Nor does such closeness banish duality or the separateness of the relata in the composite whole resulting from such admission. Acceding to a 'total merger' would inevitably land him in the forbidden region of identity, to the delight of the Advaitin.
A further dissection into the implications of the rūpaśleṣa relation is attributed to the Buddhist dialectitian: If the relata are interfused, is the fusion, he asks, total (sarvātmanā) or partial (ekadeśena)? If it is total, he answers, then the fusing relata become a single mass of identity. An aggregation, or a plurality, of atoms (āṇūnām piṇḍah) becomes on this hypothesis, indistinguishable from, or identical with, just a single atom (aņumātraḥ) and then, on this score, the question of relation does not at all arise in the case of a single entity. If, on the other hand, the interfusion (śleṣa) is partial (ekadeśena)—that is, if a part of a relatum comes into contact with another part of the other relatum-then the problem arises whether each of the related parts is identical with (atmabhūtaḥ) or different from (parabhutaḥ) each of the corresponding unrelated parts in the relational whole. It cannot be said, he adds, that the related and the unrelated parts, within a relation, are identical. If it is so, a part of the

Page #238

218
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
relatum becomes identical with the whole of it and, in such circumstances, describing the relation as partial would become absurd. This also gives rise to the error of rejecting two entities, given by hypothesis, in favour of one entity which does not admit of any relation. In order to escape this dilemma, if the opponent (the Naiyāyika) accedes to the idea of a split, or distinction of parts, in the relatum-this would be inevitable if the present principle of relation is accepted-then arises the consequence of disintegrating a unitary relatum into two parts, one of which is in relation and the other out of the relation, which is an absurd proposition. For, once the compartmentalising a relatum into the related and the unrelated parts is acquiesced in, the Buddhist will naturally compel the opponent to accept the inevitable fallacy of an infinite regress. This is because division of a relatum gives rise to two parts—the one related and the other unrelated—and, again, division of the related part, leaving out the other one, gives rise to similar two parts, and then again, a further division into further two parts, and thus goes on a progression of successive and unending divisions.'
In the light of the above arguments Dharmakirti concludes that there can be no rūpaśleșa sambandha between two distinct entities, and that all entities are, therefore,
1. The elaboration of these implications is based on the follow
ing passage of Prabhācandra who puts the argument as follows: kiñca asan rūpaśleşaḥ sarvātmana ekadesena vā syāt? sarvātmana rupaśleşe anūnāṁ pindah anumatraḥ syāt / ekadesena tac-chleşe kim ekadeśas tasyātmabhūtaḥ, parabhūtaḥ vā? ātmabhutaś cet, na ekadeśena rūpaśleşas tadabhāvāt / parabhūtaś cet; tair apy aņūnāṁ sarvātmanaikadeśena rūpaśleşe sa eva paryanuyogo'navasthā ca syāt / PKM, p. 505; also NKC, Vol. I, p. 350.

Page #239

CHAPTER VII
219
discreet by nature, and, as such, do not admit of any relation whatsoever.
Then Dharmakirti proceeds to unravel two more rifts in the conception of relation as a real entity combining two terms, or relational factors, involved in it.
It is impossible to conceive a relation without the relata it combines. It is, therefore, appropriate to consider relation, he pleads on behalf of his opponent, as involving, or forming the basis (āśraya) of, the duality (dvişțatva) of its terms. In other words relation cannot be conceived of as a distinct entity without its attribute (dharma) of the terms contained in it. When this is conceded Dharmakirti probes into the implications of this view and tries to show an inconsistency. In view of the fact that relation is admitted as an objectively real and independent entity (sat) it ought to be, on the strength of this admission, a self-sufficient entity; that is to say, it should not have any lack or 'expectancy' (apekṣā) for 'anything else' (para; the reason is described as sarvanirāśaṁsatvāt). If it shows any kind of lack' or ' expectancy', then it forfeits its claim for its very existence (anyathā sattvavirodhät) owing to the fact that nothing can, according to the opponent, exist without the condition necessary for its existence-here the condition for its existence are its relata-being fulfilled. Therefore, if relation is to be considered an absolute entity it should not, the Buddhist
1. rūpaśleşo hi sambandho dvitve sa ca katha bhavet/ tasmāt prakstibhinnänāí sambandho nästi tattvataḥ"//
PKM, spd., p. 505, kā. 2. 2. The lack' here refers to the existence of relation being
conditional upon the existence of the relata.

Page #240

220
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
maintains, require the necessity of the relata in it and, consequently, should exist in its own right. An analysis of its requirements, however, exhibits the serious lack of dependence upon its relata for its existence. It cannot therefore exist, Dharmakīrti affirms, as a full-fledged and independent real (tan na parāpekṣā nāma yadrūpah sambandhah siddhyet).
. When the truth of Dharmakirti's contention in the above argument is recognised, the falsity of the converse of the argument could also be easily perceived : a non-existent relation cannot, as it has been just observed, exhibit any 'expectancy' for the necessity of the relata inasmuch as the relata will not, then, have any basis for their subsistence (apekṣādharmāśraya-virodhāt”).
Lastly, Dharmakirti scathingly brings out a major inconsistency which, from the Idealist point of view, is destructive of the opponent's strength in upholding the reality of relation. Relation is acknowledged, as it has been repeatedly pointed out, by the Naiyāyika to be a distinct entity besides the relata in a relational situation. This provokes the Buddhist dialectician to the presentation of a new dilemma inherent in the relationship between the consti
1. PKM, p. 505. 2. Ibid. 3. The purport of this argument is contained in the following kā. of Dharmakīrti :
parāpekşã hi sambandhaḥ so'san katham apeksate/
saṁs ca sarvaniräśamso bhāvaḥ katham apekşate// PKM, spd., p. 505, kā. 3. See also NKC, Vol. I, p. 306, SRK, p. 813, and TSV, p. 148.

Page #241

CHAPTER VII
221
tuent elements of the situation, viz., the relation itself (sambandha) and its relata (sambandhinau). Is the relation, it is questioned, identical with (abhinnah; anarthāntaram) the relata, or different from (bhinnah; arthāntaram) them ? If it is argued to be identical with them, then comes the Buddhist retort that there will either be the relata only (sambandhināveva, na sambandhaḥ-) or the relation only (sa eva vā na tāviti'), not the two together. If, on the contrary, the other position is advanced, viz., that the relation is different from the relata, then it would be asked, how could the relata which are absolutely (kevalau) independent of the relation be related by it at all ?: No two things, which lack some kind of mutual affinity can be related.
Further, granting the opponent's supposition that a relation is a distinctive entity alongside the relata (sambandho'rthāntaram) the Buddhist objects how the two relata could be related by one relation' at all ? Positing another relation in order to relate each relatum to the relation in question, would raise the difficulty of endlessly positing an increasing multiplicity of such relations landing the Naiyāyika in an in
1. PKM, p. 505. Vidyānanda comments: Yady anarthāntaram tadā
sambandhināveva prasajyete / tathā ca na sambandho nāma / TSV,
p. 148; also see SRK, p. 813. 2. PKM, p. 505. 3. sa (sambandhaḥ) tato’rthāntaram cet sambandhinau kevalau
katham sambaddhau syātām / TSV, p. 148. See also SRK, p. 813. For a reference to sankara's view in this matter, vide p. 222,
f.n. 1. 4. tenaikena sambandhena saha dvayoh sambandhinoh kaḥ
sambandhah ? PKM, p. 505.

Page #242

222
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
escapable regressus ad infinitum (anavasthā)'. In consequence of this 'absurd' (atiprasanga) hypothesis, and the other simi lar difficulties', the most important of which have been so far considered, Dharmakīrti finally, and categorically, rules out the notion of relation as an independent entity as a false one (na västavi).
Sankara and his followers are at one with Dharmakirti
sambandāntarābhyupagame cānavastha syāt tatrāpi sambandhantarânuşangāt/ Ibid., p. 505-506; see also SRK, p. 813. pareņaikena sambandhad iti cet tenāpi na sambandhaḥ / TSV p. 148.
The consequence of regressus ad infinitum, as a result of recognizing two absolutely distinct relata, is clearly argued out by śankara. Vide BBSB, II. 2. 13. For the Jaina answer to this charge, see infra, p. 232 (ff.), f.n. 2. Another criticism which Dharmakīrti brings in, is the stock Buddhist argument that a relation or the relata should, like everything real, satisfy the requirement of serviceability or usefulness (arthakriyākāritva or upakāritva). Referring to samavāya, in a similar context, he observes:
nityasyānupakāritvād akurvāṇas ca nāşrayaḥ 1. PVD, III. 231 See also PKM., spd., p. 510, kā. 21.
Prabhācandra meets this criticism, from the Jaina point of view, by carrying the fight into the enemy's camp. See infra, pp. 226-7. tan na sambandhinoḥ sambandhabuddhir vāstavi.... PKM, p. 506. Dharmakirti expresses the purport of this argument in the following kā.:
dvayor ekābhisambandhāt sambandho yadi tad dvayoḥ / kaḥ sambandho'navasthä сa na sambandhamatis tathā //
PKM, spd., p. 506, kā. 4. 4. See, for instance, "The Refutation of Relation" (sambandhakhandanam) by Śrī Harşa, KKS, pp. 1090-1099.
Here, śri Harsa's treatment of the problem is mainly concerned with the refutation of the relation of the "container' (adhāra) and the "contained' as well as of samavāya, and does not make any significant novel contribution to the content of the subject.

Page #243

CHAPTER VII
223
in their denial of relation as an objective and independent entity intervening between the relational terms. It is needless to go into the elaborate subtleties—some of which have already been anticipated in substance, if not in letter, by Dharmakirtiof the critique that both Sankara, his commentators and others. following him, have launched out on this subject. Just one or two important features which indicate the Vedāntic attitude towards the problem may, however, be referred to here :
The Vedāntic view of reality is fundamentally based on the postulate that the effect is nothing other than 'a specific state-of-existence (saṁsthānamātram) of the cause itself'.' This doctrine has already been found to render the acceptance of any genuine or ultimate duality of any kind unreal and therefore illogical. But duality is, as has been frequently
1. For further criticisms see BBSB (text), II. 2. 3, IP, Vol. II,
pp. 218-219. 2. na hi karya-kāraṇayor bheda äśritāśrayabhāvo vă vedantavădibhir
abhyupagamyate, kāraṇasya iva saṁsthanamätram kāryam ity abhyupagamāt / BBSB (text), II. 2. 17, p. 62. See also BBSB, II. 1. 16, pp. 25-26 and PHO (E.T.); upapattyanubhavābhyāṁ na karyasya kāraņād-anyatvam / Bhāmati, BSB, p. 521.
It is necessary to note, in this connection, that the Sāńkhya also takes the same view of non-difference between the cause and the effect, or rather, that the effect already pre-exists in the cause. See SKIS, kā. 9. This evidently leads to the rejection of relation-particularly samavāya— in the Nyāya sense of the term, viz., that there should be two genuinely different entities for a relation (a third entity) to relate. Consequent upon the rejection of samavāya the Sāňkhya comes somewhat nearer the Jaina on the particular point of viewing "the nature of object in question" as serving the purpose of the samavāya relation : "The category of inherence, Samavāya....is rejected in favour of the simpler view that what it means is really to be expressed by the nature of the object in question." SSKH, p. 105.

Page #244

224
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
observed in course of this section, and, as confirmed by Śankara'himself, the sine qua non of a relation. The incompatibility between the absolutistic or the monistic dogma and the dualistic requirement of relation leads the Vedāntin altogether to deny relation either of samyoga or of samavāya, and, to accept the principle that there can be nothing like a relation apart from the object supposed to be joined by it."
In answer to the opponent's assertion that samyoga and samavāya are also subsistent' owing to the fact that we find, in experience, distinct designations or terms denoting their being (sabdapratyayadarśanāt)," Sankara observes that even where there is only one object there may be many designations referring to it in accordance with its myriad 'intrinsic' (svarūpa) and extrinsic' (bāhya) predications. One and the same Devadatta, for instance, may be, Sankara adds, the object of the epithets 'a man', 'a Brāhmaṇa', 'learned-inVeda', 'affable ',' a boy', 'a youth', 'an old man', 'a father' and 'a son' etc. Therefore the objects themselves (sambandhinaveva) can be fittingly termed by the epithets samyoga'and 'samavāya'and, there need be no third entity
1. dvayāyattatvāt sambandhasya / BBSB(text), II. 2.19, p. 61.
napi samyogasya samavāyasya vā sambandhasya sambandhivya
tirekenastitve kiñcit pramānam asti / Ibid. 3. Ibid. See the next f.n. infra. 4. sambandhisabdapratyayavyatirekena s amyogasamavāyaśabda
pratyayadarśanāt tayor astitvam iti cet / na / ekatve'pi svarūpabahyarūpāpekṣayānekaśabdapratyayadarśanāt / yathaiko'pi san devadatto loke svarūpaṁ sambandhirūpam capekşyānekaśabdapratyayabhag bhavati manusyo brahmanaḥ śrotriyo vadānyo bālo yuvā sthavirah pitä putrah pautro bhrātā jāmāteti... / Ibid., p. 61f.

Page #245

CHAPTER VII
225
(vyatiriktavastu) existing apart from them (the objects).' In other words Sankara's view of relation is that it has no existence apart from the objects which may be called the relata, by courtesy—and its use signifies neither a mechanical nor an inseparable connection among them but just a synonym for the objects themselves.
This negative attitude of Sankara towards the problem of relation is essentially the same as that of Dharmakīrti except for the fact that the latter has brought a more acute and thorough dialectical analysis to bear upon the problem.
The Jaina View
In keeping with his reconciliatory metaphysical standpoint the Jaina offers a via media between the extreme externalism of the Naiyāyika and the equally extreme illusionism or idealism of the Buddhist and the Vedānta schools. An attempt is made here to state the Jaina view of relation, first, in relation to the Buddhistic and the Vedāntic approach, and then, to the Nyāya approach, to the problem.
The Jaina postulates the reality or the factuality of relation as a deliverance of the direct and objective experience. He, therefore, posits relation not merely as inferable”, but
1.
tath
tathā sambandhinor eva sambandhisabdapratyayavyatirekena samyoga-samavāyaśabdapratyayarhatvam, na vyatiriktavastvastitvena / Ibid. p. 62. atas tad (sambandhah)anyathānupapatteś căsau siddhaḥ. PKM p. 514.

Page #246

226
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
also as an indubitably perceptual fact. He does so in opposition to what he considers as the aprioristic dialectic of Buddhism, and by implication, of the Vedānta also, wherein the mind imposes its own forms upon, instead of obeying the dictates of the events of the objective realm. This is the spirit underlying Prabhācandra's contention that the Buddhist seriously errs, not merely by ignoring what is directly perceivable, viz., the relational element, but also in describing it as a conceptual fiction (kalpanā) which is anything but perceptible.' This does violence to a "brute' fact of perceptual validity. If the Buddhist denial of the perceptual validity of relation is right, then, linen and its yarn, or the linen and its colour etc., ought to be seen as separate entities; but Prabhācandra rightly asserts that they are always perceived together. This constant togetherness is not conceived to be possible without the actual connecting factor of a relation.
One of the grounds on which the Buddhist bases the inadmissibility of relation is the lack of serviceability or practical utilitys (upakāritva, arthakriyäkāritva) attributed to relation. Prabhācandra effectively turns the table on the Buddhist by applying this test to the Buddhist conception of objects in general, and thereby shows how the relational element is a constituent factor in the make-up of the objects. If the atoms, for instance, are absolutely exclusive or discreet
1. sambandhasyadhyakşenaivārthānāṁ pratibhāsanāt/ Ibid. 2. kathar ca sambandhe pratiyamāne pratīyamānaşyāpyasambandha
sya kalpanā pratītivirodhāt ? Ibid. 3. See supra, p. 222, f.n. 2.

Page #247

CHAPTER VII
227
entities, as the Buddhist maintains, then Prabhācandra asks, atom A is unconnected with atom B, and atom B with atom C, and atom C in turn with atom D and so on in any concrete object, say, a pitcher. Being a conglomeration of such unconnected units or atoms, it ought not to be a 'pitcher' at all useful for fetching or holding water in. Similarly when a tender bamboo is pulled with a string tied to it, it ought not, on the Buddhist theory, to bend as it does. Such phenomena are inexplicable unless the atoms composing the objects are admitted to be cohesive, that is, capable of being connected or combined to become concrete and useful objects. The Buddhist cannot deny the occurrence of such phenomena and such undeniability amounts, according to the Jaina philosopher, to a covert admission of a relational factor in the texture of objective experience.
Alluding to Dharmakirti's objection' to pāratantryasambandha, one of the only two possible kinds of relations conceded-conceded, of course, only for disproving, since no relation is accepted to be intrinsically valid—by the Buddhist logician, Prabhācandra remarks that far from being untrue it (pāratantrya-sambandha) is a matter of common knowledge (pratītitaḥ suprasiddhatvāt). However, Prabhācandra accepts its reality with the qualification that the essential nature of pāratantrya is unification of the relata (ekatvapariņatilakṣaṇapāratantryasyārthānām),' not mere 'dependence' as described by the Buddhist. In the eventual negation of the dependence-relation by the Buddhist, Prabhacāndra
1. See supra, pp. 213-214. 2. See PKM, p. 514,

Page #248

228 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE sees the repetition of the error just referred to in the instances of the pitcher and the bamboo, viz., the impossibility of denying it without implying a tacit acceptance of its reality. Because the negation of pervasiveness with reference to the relata is itself an attempt to invest the relata with a relational trait. In other words, attributing a lack of dependence or pervasiveness to the relata amounts to positing a relation between the relata. No negation is, as a Western' idealist would say, absolute; it generally implies an affirmation of something. An attempt to deny the very thing which is, in some form (kvacit) accepted, is, according to Prabhācandra, a form of contradiction.
The consequence which is supposed, as already indicated, to result from accepting the pāratantrya-sambandha, viz., the non-necessity for a relation between any two either 'fullfledged' or 'wholly finished' (nișpannayoh) or 'not-yetemerged' (anișpannayoḥ), entities is also resolved by Prabhācandra by his explanation that both alternatives are the two aspects of a single total situation which is identity of differents. A piece of linen, for instance, even prior to its coming into existence as a fabric, that is, when it is still anișpanna, exists (pațaparināmotpatteḥ prāg api sattvāt) in the form of yarn which is already nișpanna (tantudravyatayā nişpanna eva). Or, conversely, the yarn as the material cause, or substance, is concurrently existent, as itself (svarūpeṇa), with the yarn as linen which is yet
1. "The bare form of negation is not adequate to fact; it contains
mere emptiness or ignorance; we nowhere come upon a mere 'not-something'..every affirmative denies and every negative affirms." EIB, p. 134.

Page #249

CHAPTER VII
229
anişpanna, or non-existent, as its effect or modification. In other words, the yarn, as the dravya, is the element of identity and the linen, as its pariņāma, is the element of difference, both together constituting the relational situation. Here, as everywhere else, identity as the substantial element is the
continuant' (or the continuing principle, anvayā or dravya) existing in the yarn as well as in the linen, but difference, as the modified form of the substance, is yet distinguishable-in the sense that linen is not quite the same as the yarn-from identity. Therefore, generically, the Jaina view of relation is that it is an identity of differents or different terms.
As regards Dharmakīrti's contention that the rūpaśleşa-sambandha, or the relation of interpenetration, the second possible relation, could have only two modes, viz., total (sarvātmanā) interfusion or partial (ekadesena) interfusion, and that both are untenable for the reasons already adduced”, Prabhācandra maintains that Dharmakīrti's analysis is both wrong and inexhaustive. It is wrong to say that we encounter any paradoxical situation here, for relation could often be one of totalmerging, and at other times, of partial contact depending upon the nature of the relata involved. There is, for instance, a wholesale merging, or mutual permeation between the
Jioni
4.
tantudrayam api svarūpeṇa nişpannar pațaparināmarūpatayā
nişpannam / PKM, p. 515. 2. See infra, p. 217 ff.
Ibid. Prabhācandra describes this process as follows: kvaccit tu nikhilapradeśānām anyonyapradeśānupraveśataḥ-yathā saktutoyādīnām...PKM, p. 515. It is, however, necessary to note here that in spite of such wholesale' permeation the relata retain their distinctness, and never become a single relatum. It is

Page #250

230
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
meal' (saktu) and water (toya) blended with it, whereas there is only a partial contact between the hand and the table when the palm of the hand comes into contact with the surface of
interesting to compare the Buddhist notion of 'merging' in which the relata are 'lost', and the Jaina notion in which the relata are distinct', with the distinctions made by Parker and William James: Parker distinguishes 'two types of unity'. "In one case", he observes, "the related elements interpenetrate and are lost; in another case, they remain distinct from one another" (The Theory of Relations, SNdeW, p. 272). Similarly, James also refers to a "partial conflux” or “a concatenated union” and contrasts it with a "total conflux” or a “through-and-through type of union”. The Thing and Its Relations, JPPSM, Vol. II, p. 35.
The meal obtained from grinding fried corns. 2. In the case of a 'partial contact', that is, when the palm is in
contact with the surface of the table, the Jaina does not posit that the contact is between the whole hand and the entire table. He admits that only a part of the hand is in contact with a part of the table. This admission of parts might immediately put the Buddhist on the offensive and provoke from him the retort how such admission of parts in or the divisibility of, the objects can accord with the Jaina notion of impartite, or indivisible, atoms. nanv evam (that is, sāṁśatvavastuprakāreņa) paramāņūnām apy añśatvaprasangaḥ syāt? PKM, p. 515. The words in the round brackets are from the editor's note in f.n. 15, ibid. The whole passage, opening with this statement, is quoted later in this f.n. See next page.
In this connection Prabhācandra offers a brief, suggestive and 'irrefragable' (anuttaram) answer on which McTaggart's remarks, also made in connection with relations, seem to make an unconscious vārtika. (The relevant remarks from both the authors are quoted, in appropriate places, in course of this note). Although his answer appears to be ingenious, it vividly brings out the spirit of manifoldness pervading the Anekānta philosophy : 'Parts' which mean divisions into which an atom is said to be divisible, do not, according to Prabhācandra, refer to the possibility of physically dividing an atom which is located in a particular spatial point, and, is really impartite, in the physical sense. They refer, it is suggested, to an

Page #251

CHAPTER VII
231
infinite diversity, or to the fact of the infinitely manifold relatedness of an atom to the other atoms similarly located. The Jaina does not believe in the existence of absolutely simple entities. A real, say even an atom, is not a lonely being but a star in a constellation of similar entities, which assume, in their multitudinous groupings, various patterns and magnitudes which are determined by the laws of their internal compulsions and external pressure, and bear, accordingly, an infinity of relations, internal and external, total and partial, immediate and mediate, to the other phenomena in the universe. A real is, indeed, an independent existent but it is also a complex focus or network of relational forces. It is as it were a knot into which the strands of such forces are woven. The fact of the star or the knot being tethered to a point or a stretch of space, need not condemn it to a bare unrelated existence. The idea of the universe as a realm of interacting and interlocked elements of reality will be touched upon elsewhere (ch. IX.).
The aim of this note is somewhat to enlarge upon the implications of Prabhācandra's important distinction between the two meanings of "having parts" (añśatva) or divisibility, viz., (a) physical partition, and (b) infinite diversity or manifoldness of nature (anantadharmātmakatva) exhibiting a varied relational structure. He agrees with his Buddhist opponent on the impartiteness of the ultimate units or atoms of nature, but he also puts forward the other meaning which brings out the vital aspect of its manifold nature. As a matter of fact, he even suggests that such divisibility or manifoldness is possible because of the impartiteness of the units of nature. No fixed character can, after all, attach to a floating phantom or tyrannically isolated units of windowless monads!.
nanv evaṁ paramāņūnām apy amśatvaprasangaḥ syād ity apy anuttaram; yato'trāṁsa-sabdaḥ svabhāvārthaḥ, avayavartho vā syāt? yadi svabhāvārthah, na kaścid dosas teşām vibhinnadigvibhāgavyavasthitānekāņubhiḥ sambandhānyathānupapattyā tāvad vå svabhāvabhedopapatten / avayavārthas tu tatrā sau nopapadyate/ teşām abhedyatvenāvayavasambhavāt/ na caivar teşām avibhāgitvam virudhyate / yato'vibhāgitvam bhedayitum asakyatvam, na punar niņsvābhavatvam / (PKM, p. 515).

Page #252

232
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
the table. In the infinitely variegated (citra) nature of things the one, or the other, or even both, might occur at a time and any kind of rigid legislation as to their occurrence could be motivated only by an artificial logic which does not take full cognizance of the plenitude and variety of the things in nature.
There are two very important considerations to be noticed in this connection. In the first place, however closely the
"We have come to the conclusion then, that no simple substance can exist, and that every substance that exists is divided into parts, which again have other parts, and so on, to infinity...... If we are compelled to add to this, the further conclusion that no substance can, without contradiction, be divided into parts of parts to infinity, we could not escape from contradiction any way. If, on the other hand, we should find that infinite series of parts of parts would involve a contradiction unless the substances had a certain nature, we should be certain that all substances had that nature, since under no conditions could they have the infinite series of sets of parts which they do have. NEMC, Vol. I, p. 192.
Incidentally, the charge of regressus ad infinitum (anavasthā) directed by the Buddhist against the Realist (see supra, p. 222 and also f.n. 1 thereon) as resulting from an attempt to relate two 'absolutely distinct' entities, is suggestively answered by Prabhācandra, and his answer is borne out by McTaggart (NEMC, Vol. I, p. 142 ff.). The Buddhist would, indeed, be right if the relata are 'absolutely different' (atyantabhede) from each other. But, owing to the fact that they are, according to Prabhācandra, of the nature of identity and difference-which is entirely different from either view when each of them is taken singly and totally (anekāntavastuno nātyantabhedābhedam jātyantaratvāt/ PKM, p. 515)—the relation obtaining between is a unique synthesis partaking of both the elements which enter it. This consideration, combined with the fact that the relatedness of the relata is not something ab extra but is grounded in the very nature of the relata, sets at nought the accusation of the vicious infinite against the Jaina view. Cf. PKM, p. 515, and NEMc, Vol. I, ch. xxiii.

Page #253

CHAPTER VII
233
relata permeate each other, they do not lose their individuality. If they do, they cease to be as such. Here we see that the Jaina does accept a kind of internal relation but he does so in the same degree as he accepts internal change in the objects, and also consistently with the external changes happening to them. The change happening when a wooden stick is burnt to ashes is internal as compared with the conjunctional or external change occurring when a few such sticks are tied in a bundle. In adopting this attitude the Jaina avoids the two extremes of the Naiyāyika externalist with whom an effect makes a complete break with the cause (arambhavāda), and, even samavāya is a mere external relation, and, of the Vedantin with whom the cause alone is, and the effect is not, and, therefore, a relation, if any, can operate within the being of an identical entity.' That relation is an objective fact-not an objective entity-grounded in the relata themselves, and that it is internal or external in accordance with the relative proportions of the intimacy or distinctness of the relata concerned in a particular situation are the important consequences resulting from the attitude the Jaina has adopted toward the problem of relations.
The other consideration relates to the notion of 'uniqueness' (jatyantararupatva) attaching to a relation: The Jaina looks upon the relation resulting from a combination of the relata in it as something unique (jātyantara), or sui generis, in comparison with the combining relata. That is, the resultant product emerging from the effectuation of the
1. As a matter of fact, a relation can never be substained on a strict absolute hypothesis.

Page #254

234
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
relation is something novel and peculiar although it necessarily accommodates the respective natures of the combining relata. Necessity and novelty', to express the same in the idiom of western logic, are, therefore, the characteristics of the resultant relation. The uniqueness of relation is the element of novelty-not by any means a novel entity but a character or a trait-emerging from the relational transformation in which the natures of the relata are not totally annihilated but become overlaid with, as it were, a new informing trait. This idea is elucidated by the beautifully suggestive analogy of painting. A painted picture is indeed a product of a variety of paints and patterns, but yet it is not equivalent to a mechanical sum
Necessity refers to the constituent factors, or the terms already existing, and novelty to the emergent feature attendant upon the fruition of a relation. The satkāryavāda of the Sankhya system may, in spite of its evolutionary character, be said to exemplify the element of necessity inasmuch as the entire world-process derives, though gradually, from praksti, under the influence of puruşa. Nothing new is created at any stage, since the history of the entire reality is an alternation of evolution and involution. The Nyāya-Vaiseșika seems, prima facie, to be what might be described as novelistic, in contrast to the necessitarian view of satkāryavāda. It is described as ārambhavāda, owing to the fact that the effect of a cause appears to be totally novel in comparison with its cause. But a closer examination shows that it is almost as necessitarian as the other; because it is more appropriate to describe the effect as merely different, not novel, from its cause. In the case of two different things, the question of novelty does not arise. Novelty is cognised to be so only against a background of necessity or permanence and when both form the ingredients of a single total situation. The notion of 'jätyantararūpatva' seems to fit in appropriately only with the view of identity-in-difference.

Page #255

CHAPTER VII
235
mation of the paints and patterns. It is a unity and, at that, a novel unity, resulting from, and existing concurrently with, the paints and designs in a certain order. Similarly a relation is a unique combination of the constituent relata.
The Jaina is at one with the Nyāya-Vaiseșika in entertaining relation as a part of the real and objective world. There are, however, two points of significant difference which call for a brief reference although they have been anticipated at several places in course of this account. The first concerns the question of an independent existence of relation as a distinct entity, and, the second, of samavāyasambandha (necessary relation).
The Jaina attitude to the first question is that relation is something which is integral to the terms but not something which is an absolutely independent entity. This does not at all mean that it is subjective or mental as the Buddhist means. It is indeed an objective fact serving as a link as it were between the terms of relation. The 'link' need not necessarily mean an independent existent. What is objective need not be an absolute or separate entity somehow penetrating into the being of the terms from without : A relation refers to the capacity of the terms for an 'intrinsic' or 'extrinsic' determination between themselves by virtue of the relational power seated in them. In spite of the diversities in the relatedness, between the terms, ranging from the most intimate or inseparable, to the most mechanical, or separable, kind, all relations are specific embodiments of identity-in-difference. This approach to relation as identity-in-difference containing, within itself, the power of bringing into connection the varie

Page #256

236
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
gated contents of reality is sure to bring upon itself not merely the reproach of the idealists (the Buddhist and the Vedantin whose views have already been examined) but also of the extreme realists, viz., the Naiyāyika to whom any reference to internality is disagreeable. The reproach from both sides would be that the Jaina holds a contradictory view owing to the incompatibility of identity and difference, or of internality and externality.
But once the manifold nature of things is granted, it is easy to understand that the Jaina position is inevitable. As Russell clearly points out a consistent monist finds relation needless for the obvious reason that there should be, for a relation, at least two entities which are irreducible to each other. But this is, ex hypothesi, impossible. Relationing is equally impossible with a consistent pluralist who subscribes to an unrelated series of momentary entities. Hence the Buddhist and the Vedantin have repudiated, rightly from their respective points of view, relation as a part of reality. The Nyaya-Vaiśeṣika also admits relation as third entity but unless he accepts it as being, in some degree, grounded in the relata, it is impossible for him to avoid infinite regress. There cannot be a genuine relational 'transaction' between externally conjoined relata. Hence the theory of identity of differents seems to be the only possible hypothesis on which any genuine element of relation can work.
لیے
The most surprising fact about the development of the Nyaya philosophy is that it compromises, at the hands of the neo-Naiyāyikas, some of its fundamentals and arrives at a

Page #257

CHAPTER VII
237
position which, if developed to its logical conclusion, will approach the Jaina viewpoint. This fact becomes particularly evident in the case of samāvaya which, as will be presently seen, is given up all but in name. The admission of svabhāvasambandha' or svarūpasambandha', the ‘natural' or the ‘simple' relation, offers the thin end of the wedge in dispensing with relation as a tertiary entity in a relational situation. This notion of svarūpasambandha connotes that the terms themselves contain, within their nature, the relational trait which is as objectively real as
aici
1. Cf. JPN, p. 232. 2. samjñāmātrena, na vastutathābhāvaḥ / STP, p. 704.
Cf. śri Harsa's observation that the Naiyāyika regards the 'nature' of things also as their 'determinant' : svabhāvasyāpi bhavatā niyamakatvängikārāt / KKS, p. 1091. Chatterjee writes: "Unlike the relations of conjunction and inherence Svarūpasambandha is not distinct from the terms related by it. Rather, the relation is itself constituted by one of the relata....the relation is constituted by the object, or is due to the nature of the object.” NTN, p. 188.
The distinction, in the Nyāya philosophy, between relation as a 'third unity' (an independent entity) and relation 'without a third relating unity' as Stcherbatsky renders it expresses the difference between 'separable conjunction' (samyoga) and inseparable conjunction' (samavāya) on the one hand, and the simple relation' (svabhāvasambandha) on the other. The former is found with the reality of the 'link' (anubhūyamāna sambandha, or vigrahavan sambandha) and the latter without the reality of the link' but yet objec
tive. Cf. Log., Vol. II, f.n. 3, p. 287. 4. Cf. JPN, p. 232, and RML, pp. 153-154. Regarding the direct
ness of the temporal and spatial relation, Ingalls writes : "Everything resides directly in time by a temporal relation. Time thus acts like space (dik) in that it is a substratum,
for all entities.” NNLI, p. 78. 5. Just because relatedness is 'resident' in the relata, the ideal

Page #258

238
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
the terms themselves. Its application is unfortunately restricted to the cases of visayavişayābhāva (the subject-object relation) and višeşaņavićeşyabhāva (the substance-attribute relation, such as (a) the absent jar and 'the empty space' (bhāvābhāvayoḥ) and (b) (i) the spatial relations
ist objection that relatedness disappears, or becomes, under the circumstances, merely a'way of looking at things' (conceptualistic), is not endorsed by the Naiyāyika (in this respect the Jaina is with the Naiyāyika). The Naiyāyika never accepts the position of non-relatedness of even the 'natural property' (svabhāvadharma) of things : cf. “We have to accept it (svarūpa) as a relation because without some relation we cannot explain our sense of one thing being resident in another.” RML, p. 153.
It is a significant fact that svarūpasambandha is attributed, by the Naiyāyika, even to samavāya, although it is normally distinguished from the latter, and definitely from saryoga, as 'a third relation' (see NTN, p. 188) and is said to explain' such cases as do not come under either samāvaya or saryoga. Cf. IPC, 1927, p. 165, where Hiriyanna, while discussing the nature of samavāya, remarks that "it (samavāya) is directly connected with the relata", and then, adds, in a f.n., "This is technically described as svarūpasambandha, i. e., it is self-related not unrelated". Its self-relatedness is said to be due to the fact that it cannot, being an independent category (padārtha), abide in a dravya or a cause. The important fact to be noted, in this connection, is that eventually, even the Naiyāyika has to admit the 'nature' of things as the determining factor of at least one kind of relation. A wider scope of its applicability is not resorted to by him owing to his commitment to a radical pluralism. As for the Jaina, anything which does not have its own nature, which is the source of all relations, is to be described with Mallişeņa, as 'nissvabhāva' 'avastu', śaśavişāņa, or nothing (SM (text), p. 33). The compelling truth of nature' as the determining factor is somewhat indicated by the Naiyāyika's limited acceptance of svabhāvasambandha. Treating all relata as 'naturally' related will save the Naiyāyika from an unduly formal and hyperrealistic procedure.

Page #259

CHAPTER VII
239
(daiśikavišeşanata) and (ii) the temporal relations (kālikaviśesanatā).'
Nevertheless its extension to cover the entire range of the relational nature of things is but the logical culmination of such a limited acceptance. Moreover, the consideration of the economy of thought (laghava) and the faithfulness to experience demands such extension.
Kumārila' also supports this thesis and admits that there is nothing like a separate relational link which is an independent intermediary between the relata and that the terms contain within themselves the relational trait which brings about the contact between things. The acceptance of this fact, viz., that relation is an objective factor residing in the relata themselves, and is, therefore, their (svabhāva or svarūpa) leads him to the conclusion that relation is nothing else than identity-in-difference which constitutes the nature of things. The Jaina concurs fully with this view and believes that objects have a natural disposition (yogyatā) for mutual contact at all levels and this disposition, described as relation, forms an integral aspect of the nature of things as identity-in-difference.
The untenability of the Nyāya position is particularly evidenced in its surrendering, at the hands of the
1. See Bud. Log., Vol. II, f.n. 3, p. 287, and f.n. 8, p. 290. Also, RML
pp. 153-154. 2. He characterises samavāya as svarūpam dharmadharmiņoh; see
supra, p. 222, f.n.2. 3. Vide Intro, SN, p. xcii, JPN, pp. 232-233.
"There is samavāya of smell in earth and not in water; SO the samavāya is many, say moderns". Dinakari, quoted in MML, f.n. 1. (The statement runs as: pşthivyāṁ gandhasya

Page #260

240
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
later' Naiyāyikas, the oneness (ekatva), and the eternality (nityatva) of samavāya, for manyness (anekatva) and transcience (anityatva). Consequently, with the admission of manyness what was conceived as all-pervasive (vyāpaka) became something which is restricted to individual objects.
This triple change in the conception of samaväya has been actuated by the compelling force of the opponent schools like the Buddhists, the Vedāntins, the Mimāmsakas and the Jainas. The Jaina does not concede' the occurrence of the 'ihapratyaya' or ihabuddhi ('in-ness')-e.g., the linen is in the yarns (iha tantuşu paṭaḥ)-which is held by the
1.
samavāyaḥ, na jale ityādi pratiteḥ samaväyasya nānātvam iti navyāḥ/BPVK, p. 113.) Also see NNLI, f.n. 162, p. 75, and f.n. 165, p. 76. "The later Naiyayikas and the Mimaṁsakas following Prabhakara refuse to view samavāya either as eternal or one." IPC, 1927, p. 162, f.n. 3. (The references indicate the Prabhakara view of samavāya: samavāyo nānā nityaś ceti Prabhakaraḥ, U on VD, p. 353, also see V thereon.) "Samavaya, Inherence, cannot be regarded as everlasting, because it is actually found to be ephemeral; for instance, the Inherence between the Community and the Individual comes into existence when the Individual is produced, and perishes as soon as that Individual perishes." PMS, p. 63. See also, ibid., p. 93, where "Eternal contact" is regarded as a contradiction in terms. Dhruva maintains that the "earlier logicians" could not accept a plurality of samavāyas since they feared that the quality of number would be associated with it. See Notes, SM, p. 81. But it is difficult to see how they could avoid accepting even "one" as a number.
For the statement of the early Naiyayikas on the oneness, the eternality and all-pervasiveness of samavaya, see supra, p. 209 and the footnotes thereon.
2. Abhayadeva describes this as a fancy induced by the bias towards one's own system: svasamayahitavāsanāprakalpita iva. TBV, p. 700 ff. Cf. tadeha ihavijñānam pareṣām eva vartate, svasiddhäntänurāgena nadartum laukikam tu tat / TSS, kā. 827.

Page #261

CHAPTER VII
241
Vaišeșika to be the sine qua non of samavāya. According to him, no such 'in-ness' intervenes between the terms. Nor does he admit the relation of samavāya as something which conditions the terms.' He postulates spontaneity (svabhāva) of relatedness which is immediate or direct (svataeva) between the terms themselves. This applies not merely to samavāya but to the whole range of relatedness in propositions which embody, within the being of their terms, the objective content which is identity-in-difference. In the instance of the yarn and the linen ‘yarn' is the identical or 'continuant', and 'linen' the changing (modificational) or 'occurrent’, element. The 'continuant' (dravya) and the 'occurrent are no doubt interrelated and this interrelatedness is as objective' a feature as the relata themselves. It is in the very nature (svabhāva) of the relata to be mutually and appositely or appropriately—this latter feature is implied by the term 'yogyatā' and is intended as an answer to the objection of intermixture' (sankara) of the relatarelated. Sankara’ and his followers also are inclined to treat
1.
na
na ca vşkşe sākhā ityādikāpi matiḥ samavāyanibandhanā / TBV, p. 701. padārthā api svata eva parasparam abhisambaddhā bhavanti / SRK,
p. 790. The next fn. gives the instance. 3. Or better still in the example of atman and jñāna (knowledge). 4. Cf. The following observation of William James: “.... the
relations that connect experience must themselves be experienced relations, and any kind of relation experienced must be accounted as 'real' as anything else in the system”. JPPSM,
Vol. I, p. 534 (James has put these words entirely in italics). 5. näpi samyogasya samavāyasya vā sambandhasya sambandhivyatirekenāstitve kiñcit pramāņam asti / BSB, II. 17, p. 521 f.
"It is absolutely necessary for you (the Naiyāyika) to regard the nature of all things as determinants (as it is only 16

Page #262

242
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
'naturalness' (svabhāvatā) of relation-or relation as a part (atmabhūta) of the terms themselves—as a less unsatisfactory hypothesis for the Naiyāyika. The difference, however, between Jainism and Vedāntism (and for that matter, also Buddhism, which takes relation as merely conceptualistic) is that the former takes relation as a real and objective trait whereas the latter as unreal and a subjective fancy.
The Naiyāyika's fallacy, according to the Jaina view, is that relation is treated as an independent entity. The indefensibility of the Nyāya position is pointed out to be inherent in the view held by the Nyāya pluralist : He rigidly clings to the argument that not merely the relata are absolutely different (atīva bheda) from each other but also that even the relation combining them is totally different from either of the relata.'
by means of its nature that anything can ever be determined"; IT, Vol. V, p. 273 (ET. Khandana-khanda-khādya, II. 85).
tādātmyapratīteś ca dravyaguņādinām samavāyakalpananarthakyam / BSB, II. 1. 18, p. 486. tasmāt kāraṇasyatmabhūtā śaktih sakteś cātmabhūtam kāryam / Ibid.
Vācaspati Miśra also observes : sattvam tu svabhāvata eva sad iti na sattvāntarayogam apeksate, tathā sāmavāyaḥ samavayibhyāṁ sambaddhum na sambandhāntarayogam apeksate svayam sambandharūpatvād iti / Bhāmati on II.1.18, ibid., p. 468.
All that we cognise are the two relata, one of which is the dharmi (substratum : dharmāņāmaśrayabhūto dharmi) and the other, dharma (attribute), and no third independent entity -corresponding to 'lac' (rāla) rivetting two separate stones (šilāśakalayugala)—is, according to Hemacandra, cognised besides these two, either by perception or by inference: ayam dharmī ime cāsya dharma ayam caitatsambandhanibandhanasamavāya ityetat tritayaṁ vastutrayam na cakāsti jñānavişayatayā na pratibhāsate yathā kila silāśakalayugalasya mitho'nusandhāyakam rālādidravyan tasmāt pệthak tȚtiyatayā pra
tibhāsate...../ SM (text) p. 32. 1. As a matter of fact, between any two totally different
entities the very distinction that the one is dharmi, and the

Page #263

CHAPTER VII
243
This naturally raised the legitimate objection that the two absolutely different relata cannot be related by a relation-whether it be samyoga or samavāya—without a further relation relating the relata to the initial relation. The second relation, again, necessitates a third, and the third, in turn, a fourth, and so on, interminably, landing the Naiyāyika in the muddle of an infinite regress.'
By extending the notion of svarūpasambandha, which has already been accepted in some form, within a limited sphere of experience, over the entire range of experienced reality and, thereby, conceiving the relational element to be embedded in the terms themselves, the Naiyāyika can avoid the above difficulties. This would tone down his close adherence to difference and bring him nearer to the
other dharma, cannot arise; much less does, therefore, the question of relating them arise if only for the reason that no such tertiary entity is vouchsafed to us in our experience; na dharmadharmitvam atīvabhede vṛttyāsti cen na tritayam cakāsti / AVD, p. 31, kā. 7. SM (text); see also SM on the kā.
The acceptance of such an absolute distinction leads the Naiyayika to the curious position of holding caitanya or jñāna (caitanyaṁ jñānam, p. 38, SM) to be absolutely separate from atman connected with it (atman) by samavayasambandha. This samavayasambandha is supposed to avoid the contingency of why the jñāna of Caitra should not belong to Maitra since jñāna is adventitious to both persons alike. But this sambandha does not seem to help the Naiyāyika-samavāya being one, eternal and all-pervasive, and therefore identically the same (sarvatra vṛtter aviseṣāt) in both persons. Vide SM, p. 41.
The Jaina also accepts difference between the dharmi and the dharma (cf. prativastusvabhāvabhedad iti / SM (text), p. 32) but not in the absolute sense. See Note 8, p. 80 (Notes), SM. 1. samavāyasya samavāyāntarena vṛttyabhyupagame tu, tatrāpyaparasamavāyakalpane'navasthā nätidustarā / SDS, p. 252 f., TRD.

Page #264

244
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
acceptance of the view that relation is of the nature of identity-and-difference to which the Jaina subscribes. The Śānkara and the Saugata view, which treats relation to be mind-created, contradictory and even illusory, shows scant regard to the intrinsic objectivity of the relational element in the make-up of things.
These considerations leave the Jaina view of relation as identity-of-differents' unaffected. It strikes a golden mean between regarding relation as a solid and independent entity and a fanciful myth in the subjective realm.
1. It is interesting to note that in recent contemporary Western
philosophy also a similar development of thought, concerning the problem of relations, has taken place. F. H. Bradley's view approximates to that of the idealist Sankara and Dharmakīrti. Russell opposes Bradley and takes the line of the Naiyāyikas. Several writers like Parker, William James and McTaggart have views which come between the two extremes of Bradley and Russell. There are, of course, fundamental differences in their metaphysical postulates, not merely among these western thinkers themselves but also between them and the Indian philosophers. There is, however, an unmistakable correspondence, in the three major trends of relational thinking between the western thinkers and their Indian counterparts. The following few statements and references from some of the western writers will indicate their respective alignments :
Bradley : "Relational experience must hence in its very essence be called self-contradictory....it can claim no title higher in the end than that of a necessary makeshift.” CE, Vol. II, p. 635. A little further he writes that accepting "relational truth as final" leaves us "hopelessly in a blind maze of unending regress" ibid., p. 641, and the chap. on Relations, p. 62, f.n. 1. See also p. 207, f.n. 6, in this work.
Russell: "Hence we admit that the relation, like the term it relates, is not dependent upon thought, but belongs to the independent world which thought apprehends but does not create." Problems, p.98. "When it ('a fact') consists of a rela

Page #265

CHAPTER VII
245
tion between two things, it has three constituents, the things and the relation. When it consists of a relation between three things, it has four constituents, and so on." OKEW, p. 61.
Between these two extremes we have the others whose views correspond, at least in some essentials, to the Jaina viewpoint:
De Witt Parker: "They (relations) are neither divided up among the terms, as Leibnitz thought, nor suspended between them, as Russell would have us believe, but character of the terms when united. We should not think of the unity which relation involves as a link or a tie or as glue, as a thing which externally affixes itself to elements and thus unites them. We should think of relations as rather running through terms, as embedded in them....; or if we cannot help thinking of them as bonds, we should picture them as so tight that they cut into the flesh and leave no space between." The Theory of Relations, SNDeW, pp. 250-251. See also ibid., p. 260. "Since everything exists both on account of itself and of other things, there would be a part of the thing which would remain the same before the entrance into the new relationship and another part which would be different." (p. 261). See also p. 241 (the last paragraph wherein he suggests a compromise between
different theories'), pp. 258-260 (where he replies to an 'objection'), and ibid., pp. 271-272, para. Nos. 1, 7 and 8.
William James characterises the relational experience as a "primordial and empirically incorrigible" and "intelligible factor" of reality. "Continuities and discontinuities" (which may be taken to be equivalent to the factors of identity and difference which, according to the Jaina, together form the nature of things) are said to be factors which "compenetrate harmoniously" and are said to be "co-ordinate". JPPSM, Vol. II, p. 30 and p. 35. The Thing and its Relations, CPP, pp. 29-41.
Striking a note of finality on the nature or "constitution" of things as the basis of the co-ordinate elements of "continuities" and "discontinuities" James writes : "Somewhere we must leave off with a constitution behind which there is nothing". Ibid., p. 39, f.n. 14. See also "A Treatment of Relations”, “A World of Pure Experience", 2 articles : 1. pp. 533-543 and 2. pp. 561-570, JPPSM, Vol. I. For reference to some important points of resemblance between McTaggart's and the Jaina theory of relations, see supra, pp. 230, f.n. 2.

Page #266


Page #267

CHAPTER VIII
A Consideration of Two Controversies Concerning Dravya and Guņa (and/or Paryāya) with a view to Clarifying the Nature of Both :
(1) How far could a Dravya be treated as A Concrete
Universal ? (2) Are Guņas the Same as, or Different from,
Paryāyas ?

Page #268


Page #269

CHAPTER VIII
A Consideration of Two Controversies Concerning Dravya (Substance) and Guņa (and/or Paryāya) with a View to Clarifying the Nature of Both
Our investigation so far has led us to the conclusion that reality is a co-ordinate synthesis of identity-in-difference and that every real accordingly is a unique embodiment of identity-in-differents. There are, however, two controversies which further elucidate the nature of dravya and of paryāyas in the anekānta ontology. One of them owes its genesis to an impact of recent Western philosophy (Hegelianism and neoHegelianism) on Indian thought and is, therefore, modern, and the other is a natural development arising from an impulse to obviate an inherent inconsistency and dates back, at any rate in its more conscious form, to the times of Siddhasena Divākara. These controversial problems are : A. whether a dravya could be described as a concrete universal, and B. whether the paryāyas are the same as, or different from, the guņas, in a dravya. They deserve at least a brief notice and, therefore, an attempt may be made to consider their salient features.
A. How far could a Dravya be treated as a Concrete
Universal? In a fit of Hegelian enthusiasm, two critics, Nahar and Ghosh, have attempted to find in the Jaina notion of dravya

Page #270

250
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
an echo of the Hegelian and the neo-Hegelian idea of the concrete universal.' For Hegel, as for Bradley and Bosanquet,
1. Describing a real in Jainism as "The Absolute' the two critics
proceed: “The Absolute is the Universal. This Universal is not the abstract Universal of the formal logic but the concrete Universal. The absolute expresses itself in A ...... A is the particularisation of the Universal...... The Universal comes out of Itself and particularises Itself in the particular objects......" etc. EJNG, p. 166. A passage like this could be taken, almost at random, from any page in Hegel, Bradley, or Bosanquet. The last sentence, in particular, looks like a faithful parody on the well-known Hegelian dictum : that the Absolute goes out of itself, returns to itself to be itself.
The tendency to compromise the co-ordinate status of difference in a manifold real as a result of this bold Hegelianisation of Jainism is too obvious. This is corroborated, on the side of Western philosophy, by Bosanquet who, in course of his treatment of the concrete universal', observes: "The universal is just that character of experience which overcomes the 'is not' by reducing it to an element harmonious with and corroborative of the 'is'. It is the self in the other'.” The Principle of Individuality and Value (1912), p. 46.
The concepts of the 'is' and the 'is not have been noted already to signify identity and difference respectively. 'Reducing' the 'is not' to a foil which sets off the glory of the 'is' is a familiar idealistic rigmarole.
Expounding Hegel's view, Stace observes that "the universal is the absolute and ultimate being which is the foundation of all things, which produces the world out of itself”. (Italics in the text). The Philosophy of Hegel (Macmillan and Co., Ltd., London, 1924), p. 14.
The neo-Hegelian Bradley writes: "But in the concrete universal, which has guided our steps, and which has appeared as the identity of analysis and synthesis, we have turned to truth and made our peace with reality." PL, Vol. II, p. 487, (22nd edn., 1940).
While controverting the view of Bosanquet, the other great neo-Hegelian, N. K. Smith, points out that the doctrine of the concrete universal is "Hegelian in origin" (Mind, 1927, p. 156) and S. Alexander adds that this doctrine is "nowhere

Page #271

CHAPTER VIII
251
the two great modern heirs of Hegelian absolutism, the Absolute, which is identity par excellence, is the supreme consummation, and the sole presupposition, of our entire philosophical quest. Furthermore, it (the Absolute) is also said to be the perfect concrete universal. Being completely identical with itself” this 'being' of the concrete universal does not admit
expounded with more effect and enthusiasm than by Mr. Bosanquet”. Space, Time and Deity, Vol. I, p. 233, S. Alexander, (The Humanities Press, New York, 1950). We notice this
enthusiasm'in Bosanquet's own words: “The recognition of this logical form (the concrete universal) as the true type of universality is the key to all sound philosophy." The Principle of Individuality and Value.
It may be doubted, for a moment, that the words "logical form", in the above statement of Bosanquet, do not bring out the ontological significance of the concrete universal. But that they do so will be realised when it is remembered that 'the identity of knowing and being' (and therefore of the
thought' and the thing'), as will be pointed out later in course of this topic (infra, p. 255) forms "the basic principle of all idealism".
This truth of the ontological significance of the concrete universal is further demonstrated by the self-contradictory idealistic argument that the true (the concrete) universal is the perfect 'Individual' and that the only such perfect 'Individual' is of course the supremely 'Real' (the ontological principle), or the Absolute. Cf. “We say then with Bradley, following, of course, Plato and Hegel, that the Individual which, as we have seen, is the only true form of the universal, is the Real.” Bosanquet, op. cit., p. 68, f.n. 3. (See also PL, Vol. II, p. 487). "......the Absolute is the concrete universal”. P. T. Raju's Thought and Reality (George Allen and Unwin, Ltd., London, 1937), p. 174. Hegel no doubt speaks, as already observed (supra, p. 98, f.n. 2) of mere identity as 'pure light' and of mere difference as 'pure night', and of both as 'two voids'. This seems to be opposed to such a description of the Absolute, which is the
2.

Page #272

252
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
of difference (of which change, plurality, etc. are but variant forms) or otherness or, as it is otherwise called, "the opposite ', being lastingly and coordinately rooted in reality. At best it allows difference, in its course of ‘self-dispersion', as a 'transitional' phenomenon which appears for a moment only to dissolve itself into the matrix of identity-identity which, in the course of its development, culminates in the supreme state of the Absolute. In brief, this entire development is one of the Absolute going out of itself and finally returning unto itself. This fact that Absolute Idealism celebrates, under
concrete universal, as being completely identical with itself'. From the Hegelian point of view, however, difference figures as a transitional, and even necessary, element, but it does so only during the relatively imperfect stages of the development of reality towards the ultimate stage of the absolute. But when the development reaches its consummation in the Absolute, the Absolute, conducting itself as an all-enveloping identity in which difference, if it exists at all, would be hushed into a a silent or theoretic existent and would, therefore, be functionally effete. Hence the description of the Absolute as being "completely identical with itself” would be, it will be explained, perfectly right.
To the Jaina at any rate, this treatment of difference, viz., recognising its necessity at the so-called transitional stages of development and trifling with it eventually (by assigning to it a theoretically subordinate status which logically amounts almost to an actual cancellation or annulment) at the supreme level of the Absolute, will appear as hunting with the hound and running with the hare. Cf. "Hence we have now reached the idea of a being which in passing outwards into its opposite passes only into itself, and this opposite does not become anything different, but remains even in the opposition, completely identical with itself." Stace, op. cit. p. 222. (Italics in the text.)
A little further on Stace adds: "Hence in determining B (the opposite) A determines itself."

Page #273

CHAPTER VIII
253
the notion of the concrete universal, the triumph of identity, ignoring the primal importance due to difference, is too obvious to need any further treatment at length. Identifying the Jaina concept of a dravya, which accords to difference an equally primordial status to that of identity, with the Hegelian concrete universal, therefore, does violence to an important point of principle.
Besides the non-recognition of difference also as a co-ordinating primal element of reality, the Absolute Idealism, with its adherence to the doctrine of the concrete universal, treats all reality as ultimately 'spiritual' or 'mental'. This 'panlogism' or mentalism leads the idealist to
2.
1. Concluding his great work, Bradley observes: "We may fairly close this work then by insisting that Reality is spiritual. There is a great saying of Hegel's, a saying too well known, and one which without some explanation I should not like to endorse. But I will end with something not very different, something perhaps more certainly the message of Hegel. Outside of spirit there is not, and there cannot be, any reality, and the more anything is spiritual, so much the more is it veritably real." AR (9-10th imp., 1930), p. 489. Hegel himself observes: "The aim of knowledge is to divest the objective world that stands opposed to us of its strangeness, and, as the phrase is, to find ourselves at home in it: which means no more than to trace the objective world back to the notion,-to our inmost self." The Logic of Hegel (Trd. by W. Wallace, 1892, Oxford), p. 335.
Cf. "The universe is nothing but the content of consciousness." Stace, op. cit., p. 73. "The absolutely concrete is the mind." The Logic of Hegel, p. 295. "The Notion of the Absolute fully realised, in and for itself, is thus 'Mind'....' ERE, Vol. VI, p. 574.
Not satisfied with reducing 'the objects' to 'minds' the Absolute Mentalist proceeds to reducing them to one 'mind'. Cf. Alexander's remark while criticising Bosanquet's view:

Page #274

254
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
uphold the identity of the real' and 'the rational', 'the thing' and 'the thought', 'the experienced' and 'the experience'. “The real is the rational" and "the rational is the real” is a Hegelian commonplace signifying the interchangeability or the eventual identity of reality and rationality. The Jaina, who, as a realist, firmly believes in an ultimately or irreducibly dualistic reality of souls and the material world, does not, therefore, subscribe to this idealistic spiritualisation of the world. This second radical difference, in the approach to reality, between the Jaina on the one hand and Hegel and the neo-Hegelians on the other, prevents a facile identification of the Jaina conception of reality-whether this reality be the macrocosmic dualistic universe of spirits and the physical world, or the microcosmic real of dravya and paryāya—with the mentalistic concrete universal into which the principle of difference (macrocosmically the physical
"The very objects of the mind themselves, it is urged, are, not indeed minds, but mind...." The Basis of Realism (The Annual Philosophical Address to the British Academy, 1914), p. 28. Contrasting his own position with that of the Absolute, Alexander adds: “.... the realist does not commit the mistake of declaring, therefore, that things are, in their real and deep seated nature, mind." Ibid., p. 29. "The identity of knowing and being is, in fact, the basic principle of all idealism.” Stace, op. cit., p. 73.
“That the thing is identical with the thought—this means that there is no absolute separation between subject and object, for the object is within the subject.” Ibid. (Italics in the book.) This is why the absolutist asserts that, finally, there is onlyand that would be only one-experience: cf. "And there is no distinction here between the experience and what is experienced.” Bradley's Essays on Truth and Reality (1914, Oxford), p. 196. Further, Bradley adds elsewhere : "And Reality is one experience self-pervading..etc." AR (9th imp., 1930), p. 489.

Page #275

CHAPTER VIII
255
universe and microscosmically, the paryāyas) or 'the Other'. would be untraceably 'absorbed'.'
These two major divergences-not to speak of the other cognate ones concerning, for instance, unity and plurality, or the non-occurrence or the otherwise of the compresence' of the universal and particular in a real-militate against a wholesale comparison being made—except with reference to the earlier phase of Hegelianism, and, within the limits to which a reference has been made earlier-between the absolutistic idea of the concrete universal and the Jaina notion of a real. But the authors of An Epitome of Jainism seem to ignore these divergences, and, to reduce Jainism to an imperfect copy of the Hegelianism in respect of the problem in question. In their attempt at comparison of the two schools they write, for instance, that "everything which is real is rational”, and add, as if by way of elucidating this truth: “The thinker and the object thought of are nothing apart from each other. They are twain and yet
1. "The Other, which it asserts, is found on enquiry, to be really
no Other.... And the form of otherness or of opposition again has no sense, save as an internal aspect of that which it endeavours to oppose." AR (9th imp., 1930), p. 463. “.... Mind on its part is not merely a world beyond Nature and nothing more: it is really, and with full proof, seen to be mind, only when it involves Nature as absorbed in itself." The Logic of Hegel, p. 180. (Italics mine.) Bradley confirms this truth: "Nature is an abstraction from experience, and in experience it is not co-ordinate with spirit or mind. For mind, we have seen, has a reality higher than Nature, and the essence of the physical world already implies that in which it is absorbed and transcended. Nature by itself is but an indefensible division in the whole experience." AR (9th imp., 1930), p. 470.

Page #276

256
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
one.... They have no meaning or existence taken individually and in their union they are not two separate things stuck together but two that have lost or dissolved their duality in a higher unity." This passage, like the other several passages in the book which are suffused with a "blind adoration to the German Idealism", as Chakravarti describes,"
2.
EJNG, p. 109 and p. 114. By a curious irony this critic also becomes, eventually, a victim to the Hegelian hypnosis of which he is initially critical in the authors of the Epitome and goes to the extent of even declaring firmly that "The Jaina metaphysics does not contemplate the Hegelian absolute." (PSKC, Intro., p. li). Referring to the Jaina conception of dravya as an 'organic unity' of 'permanency in change' he writes, in a later passage: "Hegel is responsible for introducing such a conception of reality in modern thought. Jainas in their conception of Dravya have anticipated such a modern idea, several centuries in advance. Of course the concept was not fully worked out because of other limitations peculiar to their age.” Op. cit., p. 5.
One might concede that there is, as it has been already pointed out earlier (supra, pp. 98-101), a certain similarity between the Jaina view of reality and that of Hegelianism with respect to the latter's 'relative' or 'transitional' phases. But it cannot be conceded that the Jaina view, when 'fully worked out' would, unless there was a radical departure from its fundamental ontological presupposion (viz., the bhedābheda nature of reality), ever take the Hegelian view in its (the latter's) final form of absolutism (abhedavāda or the identity view) by which Hegel firmly swears. But Chakravarti seems to regret that the Jaina view did not take the final form of Hegelianism "because of other limitations peculiar to their (the Jainas') age.” While admitting that the Jaina metaphysics has, in general, remained comparatively stagnant in its growth, it would be wrong to think, on this specific issue, that it would be more logical if it had gone the way of Hegel in search of an Absolute. If it did so it would fall into the very pitfall which it has been doing its best to avoid throughout its polemical history.

Page #277

CHAPTER VIII
exhibits a complete lack of the awareness of the divergences just referred to. The mentalizing tendency of a real is indicated in the dictum, repeated almost verbatim from Hegel, that everything which is real is rational' as well as in what follows, and the primacy attached to identity over difference is indicated in the reference, at the end of the passage, to the loss and the dissolution of 'their duality in a higher unity'.
"
257
These two important considerations do not, therefore support the close comparison which Nahar and Ghosh have made between the Jaina notion of reality and that of the absolutistic concrete universal, although there are some comparable traits between the former school and the preabsolutistic, or 'the relative' phases of Hegelianism to which a reference has been already made at some length.1
17
B. Are Guņas the same as, or different from, Paryāyas?
Having briefly occupied ourselves with the controversy, given rise to by some modern Hegelian enthusiasts, whether a dravya could be treated as a case of a concrete universal, and found that it cannot be, we may now proceed to a study of a considerably earlier controversy concerning the relation between a paryaya (modification or mode) and a guna (quality or property) in a dravya. There are three views"
1. See supra, p. 98 ff.
2.
The third 'view' is, as will be indicated later (infra, p. 265), more a tendency than a well-defined doctrine.

Page #278

258
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
involved in this controversy which aim at the determination of the principle of change or difference which is constituted by these elements of paryāya and guņa: First, that the two, viz., paryāya and guņa, refer to the same unitary principle of change under two different names; secondly, that the two are two distinctive elements or aspects, the one, viz., the paryāya, being an external mode and the other, viz., the guna, being an internal attribute, the two together constituting the principle of change; and, thirdly, that the two are mutually identical as well as different. The three views are described as the Abhedavāda, the Bhedavāda and the Bhedābhedavāda respectively, and the authors of each view will be referred to in the appropriate places.
1. Abhedavāda
Siddhasena Divākara is the champion of this view that paryāya and guņa are synonyms' (tullatthā or tulyārthau) signifying the principle of change. This change consists in the external and the internal transformations of all entities consistently, of course, with the continuance of the entities. In proving the identity of paryāya and guna, Divākara, bold as he is in often departing from tradition, appeals to revelation' (desaņā) as almost the sole argument on his
1. This topic has been discussed in STP, ch. III, gās. 9-14. Prefacing
the gā. 12 the Commentator, Abhayadeva, remarks: atha tatra guņa eva paryāyaśabdenoktah tulyarthavat / TBV, p. 635. Continuing the line (after tulyārthatvāt), cited in the above f.n., Abhayadeva adds "agamisca”, and quotes the following statement from the agama : ya eva paryāyaḥ sa eva guṇaḥ / Ibid.

Page #279

CHAPTER VIII
259
side : "Lord Mahāvira has,” he observes, “once and for all, acknowledged only two points of view namely Dravyāstika and Paryāyāstika; now if the idea of Guņa would have been altogether different from the Paryāya, he would have certainly admitted a third viewpoint, namely that of Guņāstika." This appeal to tradition has a special force in view of the fact that the theory of abhedavāda, propounded by Divākara, is not widely held and is strongly opposed by even Kundakunda, Umāsvāti and others. Divākara is, however, supported in his view by Siddhasena Gani’, Haribhadra", Hemacandra', Yaśovijaya and, among modern critics, by Hermann Jacobi'.
1. STP, gā. 10. Tr. Athavale and Gopani (ST, ch. III, p. 120). The gāthā runs as follows :
do una nayā bhagavayā davvātthiya-pajjavätthiyā niyaya /
etto ya guņavisese guņātthiyanao vi jujjanto // See also Abhayadeva's introductory statement to this gā.) vastutah paryāyaḥ guna ityaikāntikam / Siddhasena Gani's
Tattvārthaţikā, Pt. I, (ed. H. R. Kapadia, Bombay, 1926), p. 428. 3. Cf. The lengthy passage, in STP, p. 633 (f. n.) from śāstravārtā
samuccaya, wherein Haribhadra offers, in substance, the same arguments as Siddhasena Divākara. Hemacandra's attitude to the problem is indicated by the total absence of any reference to the concept of gua in his treatment of the real (vastu) in either the relevant sūtra (viz. pramāṇasya vişayo dravyaparyāyātmakaṁ vastu) or his own com. thereon, in his work Pramānamīmāṁsā. Vide PMHS, pp. 24-25. Jacobi's view is that there was "no room for an independent category 'quality' at the early epoch in the development of metaphysics" and that paryāya included the qualities. To quote his own words, ".... the ancient Jaina texts usually speak only of substances, dravyas, and their development or modifications, paryayas, and when they mention guņas, qualities, besides, which however is done but rarely in the Sūtras and regularly in comparatively modern books only, this seems to be a later innovation due to the influence which the

Page #280

260
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Yaśovijaya distinguishes between the 'sahabhāvi', the simultaneous or the intrinsic aspect, and ‘kramabhāvi', the successive or the extrinsic aspect, of paryāya, and identifies guna with the former. He observes that each of the two names is a specific sign (višeşasamjñā) for its corresponding aspect and brings the two signs together under the generic sign (sāmānyasamiña) of paryāya. By thus treating guna as a kind of paryāya he is able to assert, with Divākara, that the twofold' framework of dravyästika and paryāyāstika is adequate to comprise the full content of reality.
philosophy and terminology of Nyāya-Vaiseșika gradually gained over the scientific thoughts of the Hindus. For on the side of paryāya, of development or modification, there seems to be no room for an independent category 'quality'since paryāya is a state in which a thing, dravya, is at any moment of its existence, and this must, therefore, include qualities, as seems to be actually the view embodied in the oldest text." JSJ, Pt. II, p. xxxiv. He also refers to this view of paryāya as a "mark of antiquity" of Jainism.
Whatever might be the date of the "ancient Jaina texts" or "Sūtras" in which the problem of paryaya has been treated, it is hard to think of Kundakunda's Pravacanasāda or Umāsvāti's Tattvärthādhigamasutra, works which mention regularly' the distinct category of guna, as comparatively modern books only'. It would, perhaps, be better to recognise that postulating the distinct category of guņa must have been done at a considerably early period, may be in the early centuries of the Christian era, posterior, of course, to the period when paryāya alone was accepted as the more inclusive category. This must have come about from the spontaneous perception of an obvious gap in the ontological picture of a dravya as well as from the "influence” of the Nyāya-Vaiśeşika philosophy as suggested by Jacobi and Upadhaye (see PrSKU,
Intro., p. lxvii f.). 1. iti dravyaparyāyārthikabhedāddvaividhyameva / Vivsti on Yaso
vijaya's Nyāyalokah (The śri Jaina Grantha Prakāśaka Sabha, Ahmedabad, vik. sam. 1974), p. 203. See also the early part

Page #281

CHAPTER VIII
261
2. Bhedavāda
Bhedavāda, the opposite of the view held by Siddhasena Divākara and some others, is championed by Kundakunda, Umāsvāti, Pūjyapāda and Vidyānanda. This upholds the distinction of paryāya and guņa.
Kundakunda describes the protagonists of the Abhedavāda, or the Paryāyavāda as it is otherwise called owing to its belief in the oneness (aikantikam) of paryāya and guņa, as 'false believers (parasamayā) who are deluded by modifications (pajjayamūdhā)''. As against their view he expresses his own dualism of guna and paryāya which, in combination with the dhrauvya (or dravya) element, give rise to the triune conception of a real (attho) which reveals itself as of "dravyagunaparyāyasvabhāva”. This triune conception is described by Amộtacandra as the true (parameśvarī) one. In the words of Kundakunda himself : “The object of knowledge
of the passage. In this connection the following line is quoted : davvātthiyo ya pajjavanayo ya sesā vigappa sim/ See PrSKU, ch. II. gā. 1. Commenting on "pajjayamūdhā hi parasamayā” in the gā. Jayasena observes: yasmăditthambhūtadravyagunaparyāyaparijñanamūdhā .... bhedavijñānamüdhāśca parasamayā mithyādsştayo bhavantīti / In the same connection Amộtacandra writes : hato hi bahavo’pi paryāyamātramevāvalambya tattvapratipattilakṣaṇań mohamupagacchantaḥ parasamayā
bhavanti / Ibid., pp. 121-122. 2. iyam hi sarvapadārthānām dravyaguņaparyāyasvabhāvaprakā
śikā parameśvarī vyavasthā sadhīyasī, na punaritarā/ Ibid., p. 121. Although guna and paryāya may be collectively designated as attributes, guņa is generally rendered as equality and paryāya as modification or mode.

Page #282

262
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
is made up of substances, which are said to be characterised by qualities, and with which, moreover, are (associated) the modifications." A substance is, therefore, that which is endowed with qualities and accompanied by modifications.'
Despite their common abode, there is, between guna and paryaya, a considerable difference: a guna is, according to Kundakunda, a trait which is deeply embedded in the being of a dravya and is therefore called 'sahabhavi', simultaneous or intrinsic. A paryaya, on the contrary, is a relatively extrinsic feature appearing in a dravya for a time and disappearing later giving place to another paryaya. It is, therefore, called 'kramabhavi'-successive or extrinsic.
It is, however, necessary, to remember that a dravya is invariably accompanied not merely by the ever-inseparable
1. attho khalu davvamao davvāņi guṇappagāni bhaṇidāni / tehim puno pajjaya......
PrSKU, ch. II. See also the comms. on this ga. In his comm. A mṛtacandra refers to 'vistara' and 'ayata' as synonyms of guna and paryaya respectively and also distinguishes two kinds of paryaya, the 'svabhava' and the 'vibhāva'. Ibid. p. 119. 2. gunavam ca sapajjāyaṁ jaṁ tam davvaṁ hi vucchanti // Ibid., ch. II, ga. 3. See also, gas. 4 & 15, ibid., and 10, 13 in PSKC.
3. Guna and paryaya are also called anvayi, or inclusive, and vyatireki, or exclusive, respectively. Evidenty, the inclusiveness refers to the inwardness of guna in dravya and the exclusiveness refers to the separation of one paryaya from another in the succession of paryayas happening in a dravya. Vide PrSKU, p. 121, Jayasena's Com.
It is necessary to note here the difference between Kundakunda's and Yaśovijaya's use of the terms 'sahabhāvi' and 'kramabhävi'. Kundakunda treats the term as referring to two distinct existents (bhäväntarau) while Yaśovijaya does so as referring to two aspects of the single principle, viz., paryāya (vide supra, p. 260).

Page #283

CHAPTER VIII
263
guņa' which is either generic (sāmānya) or specific (viseșa)? but also by some paryāya or the other. That is, a dravy may be, at a particular moment, without this or that paryāya but it can never be without some paryāya going with it. In this sense paryāya is as essential an attribute in a dravya as a guņa, although the former is internal and the latter external. In modern parlance, guna and paryāya together constitute the “what' whereas dhrauvya constitutes the 'that' of a vastu.
1. This prefix 'ever', though apparently superfluous, has been
advisedly used here in order to distinguish the Jaina idea of inseparableness of dravya and guņa from that of the NyāyaVaišeşika. According to the Nyāya-Vaišeşika a guna, though intimately or 'inseparably' related (samaveta) to dravya, is said to enter into the dravya a moment after the latter's birth, and to cease to be a moment after the latter's cessation. The Jaina, on the contrary, does not entertain such a paradoxical situation. He believes in the unconditional inseparability of dravya and guna without prejudice, of course, to their distinctions. svakiyavišeşasāmānyagunebhyaḥ.... sarvadravyāni gunātmakāni bhavanti/ PrSKU, p. 121. The distinction between a sāmānyaguna and a višeşaguna may be illustrated by a simple instance: amūrtatva or formlessness is a generic or common quality (sāmānyaguna) between space (ākāśa) and a pure soul. Being a receptacle for (avakāśasthānayogyatvam) objects is the specific quality (viśeșaguna) of space and consciousness (cetanā) of a
soul. 3. Cf. PrSKU, ch. I, gā. 10, the Comms. thereon and Intro., p. lxviii. 4. While comparing guna and paryāya A. N. Upadhye refers to
them as "inseparable and separable accidents" respectively (PrSKU, Intro., p. lxvi). This does not seem to be happy even as a 'rough' comparison, for paryāya, like guņa, is, despite its extrinsic character, almost as 'inseparable' from dravya as a guna in as much as no dravya, in the Jaina view, could be ever found without some paryāya. Upadhye himself is not unaware of this fact of inseparableness of paryāya and

Page #284

264 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Another difference which is said to be observed between guņa and paryāya is that when the one remains the same the other may vary. The qualities of gold, for instance, will remain the same when it is transformed into the various modifications like a ring, a bangle or a chain. Conversely, the modification of jarness will remain the same among several jars made from different substances like gold, silver or clay which vary in qualities from one another. Thus guna and paryāya are two distinct elements constituting, in their togetherness, the nature of a dravya in the Jaina ontology as expounded by Kundakunda and his commentators.
It is needless to give individual statements of the views held, among others, by Umāsvāti, Pūjyapāda and Vidyānanda, since all these writers substantially concur with Kundakunda in maintaining the distinction between guņa and paryāya.
Umāsvāti's view may, however, be briefly mentioned. He enunciates his bhedavāda in the sūtra : Substance is possessed of qualities and modifications (gunaparyāyavad dravyam). In contrast with Siddhasena's view that paryāya comprehends, and is another symbol (samjñāntaram) for, guņa, he categorically declares that paryāya is not merely a
dravya (vide, ibid., p. lxv), although he chooses a comparison which understates the case. Moreover, the epithet 'accident' as applied, in particular, to guņa, is, despite the adjective 'inseparable', inappropriate in view of the fact that no 'accident', however 'inseparable' it is from a dravya, can ade quately represent the depth of the intimateness commanded
by a guņa in its dravya. 1. STSU, V, Sū. 37. .

Page #285

CHAPTER VIII
265 different symbol but also a distinct subsistent (bhāväntaram) existing, along with guņa, in the substance.
3. Bhedābhedavāda
The third 'view', viz., bhedābhedavāda, could be described more as a tendency than as a well-developed attitude. It suggests a coalescence of mutual identity and difference between guņa and paryāya in a substance. Akalanka an Vadideva seem to hold this view. Akalanka, for instance, holds at once that guņas themselves are, or are identical with, paryāyas (tato guņa eva paryāyaḥ)", and that they (gunas) are also a distinct category from paryāyas, a fact which is sanctioned, according to Akalanka, by scriptural authority (qunābhāvādayuktiriti cennārhatpravacanahrdayādişu gunopadeśāt). It is interesting to observe that both Akalanka and Siddhasena derive sanction of the same divine authority for their contrary views on the present question.
1. bhāvāntaram samjñāntaraṁ ca paryāyaḥ. Ibid. The Com. on Sū.
37. For definitions of guna and paryāya" (or pariņāma) see ibid., V, Sūtras 40-44 and the Com. thereon. Concerning the abheda side of the problem, Akalanka remarks: guņa eva paryāya iti vā nirdeşaḥ/ athavā utpadavyayadhrauvyāni na paryāyaḥ/ na tebh yo'nye guņāḥ santi tato guņa eva paryāyaḥ iti.../ Supplementing this, and as if in answer to Siddhasena's repudiation of the independent status of the category of guna on the basis of the scriptural authority (infra, p. 258) Akalanka refers to the bheda view of the matter as follows: guņābhāvādayuktiriti cennārhatpravacanahsdayādişu guņopadeśāt/ uktam hi arhatpravacane "dravyaśrayā nirguņā guņā” iti/ etc... TRAG, p. 243. These statements concerning both the views, occur in course of the com. on the sūtra of Umāsvāti already referred to on p. 170. The manner in which Akalanka has

Page #286

266 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Vādideva approaches the problem under consideration on the same lines as, but more consistently than, Akalanka : “The question may be asked,” he observes, "Why are guņas and paryāyas, which are presumably the same, differentiated?' The answer would be that while guņas always (kālābhedāpekṣayā) inhere in an entity, paryāyas come one after another (kālavibhedāpekṣayā). (Hence the two, viz., guņa and paryāya, are different). It may, however, be observed that the difference between the two is not absolute (sarvathä) because of the fact that they are partly identical, which is not at all an incompatible circumstance' (with their difference). Surely the difference between the two is not (as great) as it is between a pillar and a jar; nor is the identity (abheda) between them (as indissolubly intimate) as it is between a thing and its nature (svarūpavat). The difference consists in the peculiar nature (svarūpāpekṣayā) of each and the identity in their (common) abode (dharmyapeksaya)”'
merely juxtaposed the two views does not seem to be very convincing; it even tends to leave the impression that the two views are somewhat paradoxical and that they are not properly synthesised into the form of a bhedābhedavāda. Vādideva puts the matter in a more consistent form. Reference to
Vadideva's view will presently follow. 1. kathañcidabhedasyāpyaviroahāt / See the following f.n.
nanvevam ta eva gunasthā eva ca paryāyā iti katham teşam bheda iti cet / maivam / kalabhedavibhedāpekṣayā tadbhedasyānubhūyamānatvāt/....na caivameșāṁ sarvathā bheda ityapi mantavyam / kathañcidabhedasyāpyavirodhatvāt / na khalveşām stambhakumbhavadbhedo-näpi svarūpavadabhedaḥ / kintu dharmyapekṣayābhedaḥ / svarūpāpekṣayā bheda iti / SRK, p. 736.
The English rendering is mine and is free, including the transposition of the last two sentences as well as the simple and obvious correction of "kālabheda...." into "kālābheda" of the Sanskrit original.

Page #287

CHAPTER VIII
267
Thus we see a divergence of opinion among the three views so far outlined, regarding the relation between guņa and paryāya. But it does not materially affect the fundamental conception of a real which is the foundation of the Jaina metaphysics: A real has been observed in Jaina ontology to be an enfoldment of the permanent and the changing elements within its being. Whether the changing element is a comprehensive and unitary (abheda) concept, designated by Divākara as Paryāya, or a dual (bheda) concept consisting of two distinct elements known as guna and pāryāya, it does not impair the basic structure of the real in so far as it (the changing element) remains an inseparable complement of permanence. This approach has been envisaged by Vādideva who endeavours to combine the two elements in his bhedābhedavāda' in which bheda is represented severally by the 'peculiar nature' (svarūpāpekṣayā) of guņa and of paryāya and abheda by the common residence (dharmyapekṣayā) of guna and paryāya, in their inseparable togetherness in the dharmi.
On a critical analysis of this situation we find that the spirit of Vadideva's argument is largely agreed to by the two so-called extreme theorists also, viz., the abhedavādin and the bhedavādin. For, all the three schools now under consideration agree on the following three factors as being indispensable for anything to be a real : 1. Continuance (dhrauvya); 2. Quality which is internal to (sahabhāvi) the real; and 3 transformation (pariņāma) which consists in the process of
See supra, pp. 265-6.

Page #288

268
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
successive (kramabhävi), more or less extraneous events happening in the real. The main difficulty which has led to the disagreement on the relation between guna and paryāya is that abhedavādin considers himself a nominalist (hence the belief that the difference between guna and paryāya is one of name only) and bhedavādin a realist (hence the assertion that guna and paryāya are not merely two different names but also that they signify two distinct existents corresponding to the names). But the abhedavādin is not quite right in thinking that he is a nominalist owing to the fact that he does recognise the existence of guņa also, even though in an indirect form, viz., as something which is incorporated in paryāya. As a matter of fact Yaśovijaya even goes to the extent of singling out sahabhāviparyāya and naming it specially as guna.'
Hence the rift between the abhedavādin and the bhedavādin is not so great as to disrupt the uniform agreement between them on the basic structure of a real which is the foundation of the Jaina ontology. Vādideva's statement of the case, in the form of his bhedābhedavāda, not merely embodies a compromise between the other two rather extreme viewpoints but also suggests the right solution which is in consonance with the basic ontological presupposition of the Jaina philosophy.
1. See supra, p. 260.

Page #289

PART II
ETISTEMOLOGY
A. ANEKANTAVADA, the Theory of Manifoldness,
the Most Consistent Form of Realism; B. NAYAVĀDA, the Theory of Standpoints;
C. SYĀDVĀDA, or Saptabhangī, the Dialectic or
Conditional or Sevenfold Predication.

Page #290


Page #291

CHAPTER IX
Anekantavāda or The Theory of Manifoldness

Page #292


Page #293

CHAPTER IX
Anekāntavāda or the Theory of Manifoldness
The Most Consistent Form of Realism
Anekāntavāda is the heart of Jaina metaphysics and Nayavāda and Syädvāda (or Saptabhangi) are its main arteries. Or, to use a happier metaphor, the bird of anekāntavāda flies on its two wings of nayavāda and syādvāda. It is beyond the scope of the present work to give a full exposition, not to mention an ample critical assessment, of even some of the most essential aspects of these three topics. The traditional viewpoints are, of course, presented in the old Prākst and Sanskrit works. But no sizeable literature, which is commensurate with the magnitude and importance of these problems, and which represents any significant effort for achieving a reorientation of these problems to the trends of modern thought, has yet come into existence although the need of such effort cannot be exaggerated. However, consistently with the aim of the present study that it should confine itself to certain important problems which have received inadequate or little attention, we may discuss, in the present chapter, how anekāntavāda—the theory of manifoldness or indetermination-manifests itself as the most consistent form of realism in Indian philosophy. A glimpse into some significant implications of nayavāda and syādvāda will also follow the inquiry into anekāntavāda.
18

Page #294

274
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
As already shown, while repudiating the idealistic notion of the concrete universal, the theory of identity-in-difference, the metaphysical presupposition of anekāntavāda, animating all the spheres of Jaina philosophical thinking, recognises the objectivity of the material universe. The objectivity of the universe signifies the fact that the universe is independent of the mind or consciousness. This independence, or the duality of consciousness and the material universe, necessarily presupposes the principle of distinction, which exerts a compulsive force until the logical goal of this principle is reached in the form of the development of the Jaina concepts of reality and knowledge into the comprehensive scheme of anekānta realism. In other words, once the initial step is taken, namely the recognition of the principle of distinction as being at the root of the duality of the mind and the world, there is no stopping short of working out, to their logical conclusion, the consequences of the operation of the principle of distinction. The claim that anekāntavāda is the most consistent form of realism lies in the fact that Jainism has allowed the principle of distinction to run its full course until it reaches its logical terminus, the theory of manifoldness of reality and knowledge.
The first significant step to be taken, once the operative principle of distinction is accepted, is the postulation of a multiplicity of ultimate reals constituting the cosmos. The material or the objective world is constituted, according to Jaina ontology, by five ultimate reals : viz., matter (pudgala) space (ākāśa), time (kāla), the medium of motion (dharma) and the medium of rest (adharma); and the mental or the subjective world consists of an infinity of independent minds, or

Page #295

CHAPTER IX
275
spirits, in their conditioned or free existence. An analysis, on the physical as well as on the mental side, reveals, therefore, a multiple or pluralistic universe.
The other step, which, along with the corollary to be referred to a little later in this chapter, fulfils the purpose of the ubiquitously operative principle of distinction, and which imparts the name of anekāntavāda', after which the entire Jaina metaphysics is often known, is the postulation of manifoldness, or inherent complexity, within each of the reals in the universe. In other words, reality, according to Jainism, is not merely multiple but each real, in its turn, is manifold or complex to its core. Reality is thus a complex web of manyness (aneka) and manifoldness (anekānta). The central thesis of the Jaina is, according to a modern critic, “that there is not only diversity but each real is equally diversified”. 1
The diversification’or manifoldness-also described as indeterminateness' or 'indefiniteness'—may be illustrated by the two instances of matter and space in the physical universe. Dealing with the atomic theory of matter and space in Jainism Hiriyanna observes: "The atoms, according to it (Jainism) are all of the same kind, but they can yet give rise to the infinite variety of things so that matter as considered here is of quite an indefinite nature. Pudgala has, as we know, certain inalienable features, but within the limits imposed by them it can become anything through qualitative
1. JPNM, p. 70.

Page #296

276 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE differentiations. The transmutation of elements is quite possible in this view and is not a mere dream of the alchemist." The material world evolves from the diversification of these homogeneous atoms into aggregates of earth, water, fire and air. It is pointed out that "Jainism also, like Upanișads, does not stop in the analysis of the physical universe at the elements of prthvī, etc. It pushes it farther back where qualitative differentiation has not yet taken place. But while in the latter the ultimate stage is represented by the monistic principle of Brahman, here it is taken by an infinity of atoms." Indicating that the character of indefiniteness or indeterminateness is extended to the sphere of quality also the same writer further observes : "It is not qualitatively only that matter is indefinite. Quantitatively also it is regarded as undetermined. It may increase or decrease in volume without addition or loss."* A further treatment of the notion of manifoldness of matter has been offered in the chapter on Relations, in connection with the problem whether an atom has, and if so in what sense it has, an infinite part (amśa), despite the fact it is impartite (niravayava) in its nature. In the course of the treatment of the problem we have met with an occasion to discuss the light which is shed on it by three thinkers, viz., Prabhācandra and McTaggart on the one hand and Abhayadeva
1. OIP, p. 212 f. 2. Ibid. The phrase "an infinity of atoms' may be substituted,
without being incorrect, an infinity of diversified atoms'. 3. Ibid. Cf. the following fragment of Empedocles in Greek
philosophy: "Earth increases its own mass and Air swells the bulk of Air.” Burnet's Early Greek Philosophy, the edn. Adam & Charles Black, London, 1952, p. 212.

Page #297

CHAPTER IX
277
on the other. Again, in the present instance of matter', the brief hints hitherto given of the Jaina atomic theory sufficiently indicate the nature of indeterminateness or manifold
ness in reality.
Space or ākāśa is another example of a manifold real.? Its manifoldness is connoted, as in the case of matter, by its possession of parts. According to Abhayadeva as well as Prabhācandra even an incorporeal or formless real may contain parts or divisions, as evidenced by the obvious instance of ātman', which contains cognitive and other powers. Abhayadeva points out further that to be divisible does not necessarily mean that the parts should be put together at some point of time prior to division. In other words the divisibility of space is a spontaneous feature.
The entire argument on the manifoldness of space, as well as of other reals, is developed by Abhayadeva in his polemic against the Naiyāyika view of ākāśa. According to
1. For a somewhat clearer view of the problem, this account of
the indeterminateness of matter may be read in conjunction with the controversy regarding the sāvayavatva or otherwise of
an atom in an earlier chapter (ch. VII). 2. Cf. nanvanārabdhamūrtimaddravyāvayavatve gaganādināṁ nirava
yavatvaprasakter anekāntatva ekatvavyāghātah, na...TBV, p. 641, For an explanation of the term anārabdha, occurring in this
quotation, see infra, f. n. 5. 3. ākāśasya...sāvayavatvar ghatāder ivopapannaṁ sävayavama
kāśań himavat-vindhyāvaruddhavibhinnadeśatvāt / Ibid. Ibid., p. 642, lines 9-11; cp. amūrtasyāpyātmano jñānādyadhi
karaṇatvapratīteh / PKM, p. 563. 5. The term for the state in which the parts need not be put
together prior to division is anārabdha.
4.

Page #298

278
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
the Naiyayika ākāśa or 'ether' is one (eka) or partless (na nānā or niravayavi) and, consequently, it is all-pervading (vibhu) and eternal (nitya)-the distinctions, therefore, like ghaṭākāśa and maṭhākāśa are, like the concepts 'here' and 'there', a superimposition (upadhi) upon that eternally unchanging medium.
But the Jaina believes in the genuine divisions of infinite pradeśas which are as much objectively existent as the medium of which they are divisions. Were it not so, the two towns, say, Pataliputra and Mathura which, like the two mountains, the Himavat and the Vindhya," occupy different locations of space (nānākāśapradesăḥ), would, he affirms,
1. Besides ākāśa or 'ether' the Naiyayika recognises another entity, viz., dik, which is translated as 'space'. But in actual fact it is ākāśa, not dik, which corresponds to the Jaina conception of 'space'.
2. nanvākāśamapi kim prthivyādivan nānā/netyäha-taccaikamiti / bhede pramāṇābhävädityarthaḥ/ Tarkadipika on the su. 14 of TS (text, p. 11) which runs as: sabdaguṇamākāśam/ taccaikam vibhu nityam ca //
3. ekatvadeva sarvatropalabdher vibhutvamangikartavyamityāhavibhviti/ Ibid.
4. vibhutvadevätmavan nityamityäha-nityam ceti / Ibid.
5. Cf. "The epithet one implies that the mention of numerous ākāśas such as ghaṭākāśa and maṭhākāśa in common parlance is due to upadhi and cannot be real". Ibid., Notes, pp. 127-128. Akalanka's term for 'upadhi' is 'aupacāriki' or 'adhyāropa'. Calling the person 'Māṇavaka' a 'lion' because of the former's fierceness (kraurya) and bravery (saurya) etc., is cited as an example of upacara. Similarly, the attribution of pradeśas or parts to the partless medium of ākāśa is from the point of view of the Naiyayika, a case of upadhi, or upacara: pradeśa-kalpana niravayavatvadaupacāriki simhavat // TRAG, p. 202, kā. 9. 6. Vide TBV, p. 642.

Page #299

CHAPTER IX
279
tend to be at one location (taddeśabhavinyeva) which is an absurd proposition.'
But the Naiyayika may advance a more ingenious argument' by stating that the savayavatva of ākāśa is like a monkey in relation to a tree (kapivṛkṣasamyogavat). That is, the statement that 'the monkey is sitting on the tree' denotes that the monkey in question is sitting on the branch of the tree (śākhāvacchedena) but not on the tree itself, or rather on the root of the tree (mulavacchedena). This analogical argument indicates the truth that just as the idea of the tree in its relation to the idea of the monkey does not pervade the latter fully (vyāpyavṛttitvam or samastyavṛttitvam) but does if at all, only partially, so also does ākāśa pervade its socalled avayavas at best only partially. This partial pervasion of the tree in the monkey, or of the akasa in the parts, is described as avyāpyavṛttitvam or avyāpyavṛtti. This relation of avyāpyavṛtti aims at suggesting that, eventually, ākāśa does not directly possess the avayavas, or if it does possess any at all, it does so only in a remote and superficial way so that it would not be far wrong to say that the parts are almost unreal. The Jaina would, of course, turn the tables on the Naiyayika by
so,
1. Commenting on his own kā. (16), viz., dravyāṇāṁ pratiniyatapradeśavasthānāt, Akalanka observes: Ihanyeṣu ākāśapradeśeşu pāṭaliputram sthitam anyeşu ca mathura ato nānākāśapradeśaḥ / yasyaikāntenāpradeśam ākāśaṁ tasya yaddeśe paṭaliputram taddeśabhāvinyeva mathurāpi syat / Ibid., p. 203.
2. This argument and the supplementary argument on samyoga as described in the following paragraph are elaborated on the basis of suggestive hints thrown in by Abhayadeva in the course of his commentary. See TBV, p. 602.
3. vyapyavṛttitvam tu samastyavṛttitvam / Ibid.

Page #300

280
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
rejoining that all the latter's verbal subtleties have not succeeded in ruling out a reference in the latter's argument-however indirectly it might be-to the avayavas with regard to ākāśa. It is, as a matter of fact, quite obvious that the Naiyayika's analogy of the tree and the monkey would fall to the ground if the essential element of the branch of the tree is removed from it.
Another important consideration which undermines the Naiyayika's thesis of indivisibility (niravayavatva) of ākāśa in the above argument of kapivṛkṣasamyoga hinges on the relation of samyoga figuring in it. The sitting monkey is conjoined to the branch of the trees by way of samyoga or external relation. Samyoga is admitted by the Naiyāyika himself as a guna, and a guna in turn is admitted to need a dravya for its asraya', or support. The support in the analogy under consideration is the tree and, correspondingly, the support for the avayavas of ākāśa, is evidently ākāśa itself. This means that the avayavas of ākāśa are not a case of either upadhi or avyäpyavṛtti as is evidenced by the grounds admitted by the Naiyāyika himself. Thus this as well as the previous argument as advanced by the Nyāya school presupposes, at any rate indirectly, the Jaina thesis of the savayavatva of ākāśa.
Akalanka also does not see eye to eye with the Naiyāyika on the question of impartite ākāśa. He is inclined to feel that the divisibility of ākāśa would be incompatible with the divisibility of a material object. In other words, the
1. samyogasya gunatvena dravyāśritatvāt tadabhave ca tadabhāvāt / Ibid. See also TS, sū. 4.

Page #301

CHAPTER IX
281
indivisible ākāśa is not a favourable receptacle for the divisibility of an object like a jar' (dravyavibhāgābhāvāt).
The last significant argument which is brought by Abhayadeva to bear upon the present issue concerns the Nyāya view of sound (sabda) as the special quality (viśeșaguna) of ākāśa. It is a commonplace universal experience that a particular sound prevails (vartate) only at a particular place (ekadeśe eva) but not everywhere (na sarvatra) and that the sound subsequently fades away (vinaśyati) from where it is heard. If the Nyāya thesis of the partless-or unitary and, consequently, of the eternal-ākāśa were right, then every sound, for that matter even the distant word uttered by the divine Brahman (brahmabhāṣitam) would be straightaway heard by us' everywhere (sarvagatatvaṁ syāt), and would remain everlasting (nityam)". In point of fact even the usage (vyapadeśa) that "a particular sound prevails only at a particular place but not everywhere” would be evidently impossible under the conception of a partless äkāśa. Besides even the established fact of the transitoriness of sabda would militate against the Nyāya conception of an all-pervasive
1. Commenting on his own kā. (5), niravayavatvānu papattiriti
cen na dravyavibhāgābhāvāt /, Akalanka observes: yathā ghato dravyato vibhāgavān sāvayavah na ca tathaiņām dravyavibhāgostīti niravayatvar prayujyate // TRAG, p. 202. Cf. yadi ca săvayavaṁ nabho na bhavet tadā śrotrākāśasamavetasya śabdasya brahmabhāṣitasyāpyupālambho'smadăder bhavet nirava
yavaikākāśaśrotrasamavetatvāt/ TBV, p. 641. 3. yadi ca săvayavam ākāśam na bhavet, śabdasya nityatvaḥ sarvāya
tatvaṁ ca syāt / Ibid. 4. na hi niravayavatve 'tasyaikadese eva sabdo vartate na sarvatra'
iti vyapadeśaḥ sangacchate/ Ibid.

Page #302

282
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
(vibhu) åkāśa. Nor does the Nyāya belief in what might be described as the wave theory of sound—that is, the theory according to which sound is transmitted by waves-work without presupposing a divisible ākāśa. Hence the Nyāya view of äkāśa' points, according to Abhayadeva, to the Jaina thesis of the sāvayava nature of äkāśa.
Thus the Jaina view of äkāśa is that it is an objective real having infinite parts' or pradeśas“ ('space-points') which signify its anekānta nature (nānātvam ityanekāntaḥ').
1. Cf. na ca niravayavatve ākāśasya santānavșttyā āgatasya śabda sya
śrotreņāpyupalabdhiḥ sambhavati anyanyákāśadeśotpattidvarena tasya śrotrasamavetasyānupapatteh jalataranganyāyenāparāparākāsadeśādāvaparāparaśabdotpattiprakalpanāyāṁ katham nākāśasya
sävayavatvam / TBV, p. 642. 2. For a further reference to a few other consequences resulting
from the Nyāya view of ākāśa, see ibid., pp. 641-642. 3. anantabhāgapramitam ākāśadravyam/ Brahmadeva's Dravyasan
grahavṛtti (Davva-samgaha by Nemicandra S. Chakravarti, ed.
S.C. Ghosal, Arrah, 1917), p. 24. 4. A pradeśa or 'space-point' is 'the space occupied by an atom'.
PrSKU, p. 17 (E. Tr.), f. n. 4. The pradeśas are, however, limited to physical space' (lokākāśa) only, the other part of äkāśa
being a 'non-physical space' (alokākāśa). Ibid. 5. Vide TRAG, p. 203, gā. 19 and the com. thereon.
The manifoldness of time is indicated not merely by an infinity of intrinsically real (pāramārthika) units called kälānus or 'time-atoms' which form the basis of the conventionally temporal (vyāvahārika) distinctions like the minute, the hour, the day, the year and so on, but also by the diverse effects which are brought about by the instrumentality of the kālāņus which permeate the events in the universe. Cf, so'nantasamayah/ TSVJ, V. 40, "The Jaina Theory of Time", Y. G. Padmarajiah (a paper read in the Indian Philosophical Congress Trivandrum, 1947) and TRAG, V. sū. 22, especially the kā. 14 and the comm. on both. For further light on the manifoldness in various senses, of ākāśa as well as on dharma and adharma,

Page #303

CHAPTER IX
283
Lastly the soul or atman, an individual centre of experience among an infinity of similar centres in the realm of consciousness, is the subjectivistic instance of manifoldness in Jainism. It is needless to enlarge upon the manifold nature of an atman since it is evident in every one of the infinite states (anantabhāvas or pariņāmas) as well as in the multiple powers which are attributed to ātman." There are at least two considerations which indicate the manifoldness of atman: First, an atman, like the Liebnizian entelechy, mirrors the the entire universe within itself as a unique centre of experience. The universe it mirrors, or comprehends, is an infinitely complex one. Hence its experiential powers must be manifold, or commensurate with the complexity of the experienced universe. This is an implication of Vadideva's idea that difference in the cognised (viṣaya) signifies a (corresponding) difference in the cognition (vikalpa) concerned' as well as of the characteristically Jaina idea of relativity of knowledge, which signifies that "the full knowledge of everything is inextricably bound up with the full knowledge of everything and (vice versa)".
the medium of motion and that of rest respectively, see TRAG, p. 210 ff., su. 12, kā. 27 and its comm. It is, however, necessary to observe that the nature of manifoldness in the case of dharma and adharma has not been very clearly developed, although their conformity to the supreme law of the entire reality as expressed in the celebrated formula of Umāsvāti, viz., utpādavyayadhrauvyayuktam sat, has been clearly stressed. Vide TB on ST, p. 641 f., ga. 33.
1. Cf. the Vivṛti and Prabhācandra's comm. thereon-NKC, Vol. II, p. 686 and p. 689 respectively.
2. visayabhede hi siddhe vikalpabhedaḥ sidhyati / SRK, p. 755.

Page #304

284 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Secondly, ātman, as conceived by the Jaina thinkers, is the exact antithesis of the Advaitic Brahman. The Advaitic Brahman, as pointed out on several occasions in the course of this work, is a monolithic conception, or an unredeemed identity. Being antithetical to this extreme Advaitic conception the Jaina notion of ātman is that of an infinitely diversified centre of experience.
The significance of manifoldness characterising the consciousness in the latter's function of apprehending the many-faceted universe has crystallized itself into the twofold dialectic of the nayavāda and the syädvāda to which reference will be made in the course of this section.
In our endeavour to trace the logical steps which have led the Jaina conception of reality to the most consistent form of realism in Indian philosophy, we have been able to observe that in consequence of recognising the force of the principle of distinction inherent in all realistic procedure, the Jaina has postulated an independent objective world as against the world of consciousness, and has proceeded to posit manyness in reality and manifoldness in each real. The progress from multiplicity of reals to manifoldness of each such real consists chiefly in advancing from the number to the nature of the reals. The last step, which completes the logical picture of this realistic procedure, is an implicit recognition of what may be called, after Kant, the Principle of 'Reciprocity', or of 'Interaction', or of Community', among the reals in the universe.
Except for an occasional hint here and there the principle of Reciprocity or Interaction is more implied than expressly

Page #305

CHAPTER IX
285
stated or developed in Jainism. Nevertheless its necessity and importance are undoubtedly clear. It would not, therefore, be inappropriate if we approach Kant for an explicit formulation of this idea which is germane to the fundamental notion of Anekanta in Jainism.
It has been observed earlier that the Anekantavādin postulates the interrelatedness of all reals in the universe, and, therefore, that one who has a total cognisance of one thing would have a total cognisance of everything and vice versa. This interrelatedness or relativity of nature evidently involves, at any rate in its narrow sense, the permeation of the relational factor in reality, but does not explicitly specify the dynamical element of interaction among the reals. It is this dynamical or active element which is provided for by the principle of 'reciprocity' or 'interaction', or 'community (commercium).
91
Without 'the reciprocity of the manifold' the interrelatedness, therefore, becomes 'merely an ideal relation', whereas with it the inter-relatedness becomes a 'real one' This is the significance of the description of reciprocity as "the action and reaction of quite different substances, of which each determines the other's state..". Prichard's instance of
1. Kant formulates this principle under his "Third Analogy', as: "All substances, so far as they coexist, stand in thorough-going community, that is, in mutual interaction". In his earlier formulation (first edition) Kant uses 'reciprocity' in place of 'community'. KCPR, p. 233.
2. This is one of the two Latin meanings of the original German 'Gemeinschaft'. See KCPR (1923), p. 381, f.n. 5.

Page #306

286
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
the reciprocal influence between 'a lump of ice' and 'fire' clearly illustrates this idea of interaction. Describing reciprocity as a 'double refraction....of objects upon each other', Caird refers to it, in Kant's own words, as "the condition of the possibility of the things themselves as objects of experience"!.
In Kantianism, as in Jainism, the principle of reciprocity goes beyond the co-existence' or the interrelatedness of the substances, and explains the dynamical community' among them. This is in sharp contrast with the 'isolation of the individual substances' as found in the individualism of Leibniz or the momentariness of Hume and Buddhism.
The terms like anyonyātmakatva' (mutuality) or anyonyavyãptibhāva (mutual pervasiveness), used by Abhayadeva and Haribhadra in the somewhat limited context of a concrete real, correspond, at least in a limited degree, to the Kantian idea of 'reciprocity' or 'dynamical community among the reals in Jainism. When we consider, however, the Jaina view of the universe as a fully interrelated or relativistic (sāpeksa) system of reals, which in turn are causally efficient (arthakriyākāri) it is not difficult to see that the feature of Kantian
1. For the slight difference in the meaning between 'influence'
and community or reciprocity', see KCPR, p. 234. 2. KJKP, p. 303 f. The last sentence, in the description of the
illustration (p. 304) refers to "the determination of the un
observed states coexists with the observed states". 3. CPKE (Vol. I), p. 535. 4. TBV, p. 645. 5. AJP, Vol. I, p. 132. 6. Vide infra, p. 157 ff. (together with the footnotes). 7. Vide infra, the section on Arthakriyākāritvavada, especially the
last page.

Page #307

CHAPTER IX
287
reciprocity'is implicitly contained in the structure of reality as envisaged by Jainism.'
In course of this brief enquiry into, and the illustration of, the steps in the development of the spirit of distinction involved in the theory of the Anekānta (the manifold or indeterminate) nature of reality we have observed that the notion of manifoldness not merely presupposes the notion of manyness or pluralism, but also contains the activistic implication of reciprocity or interaction among the reals in the universe. Although manifoldness is the most significant step in the dialectical analysis of the Jaina conception of reality, it comprehends and presupposes the other steps within its scope as a logical necessity. That is, independence (of consciousness and the world), pluralism, interrelatedness and reciprocity or dynamism are component factors in the amplitude of the ontological as well as the epistemological significance of the relativistic notion of manifoldness or indetermination with which the entire reality is, according to Jainism, stamped (syädvādamudrāńkitam).
Before proceeding, finally, to consider the theories of standpoints (nayavāda) and of the Conditional Predication (syādvāda) or the Sevenfold Dialectic (saptabhangīvāda, as syädvāda is otherwise called), it is necessary to point out that the whole above account of the nature of anekāntavāda,
1. The notion of a mere interrelated universe has an idealistic
flavour. The Jaina is a thoroughgoing realist. This realistic spirit cannot, therefore, remain satisfied with a mere interrelatedness, but demands an impact or 'a double refraction', among the dynamic reals which influence or impinge upon one another proximately or remotely.

Page #308

288
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
has aimed at progressively demonstrating the fact that anekāntavāda is the most consistent form of realism in Indian philosophy.
The claim that Anekāntavāda is the most consistent form of realism in Indian philosophy hinges mainly on the fact that it has allowed the maximum scope for distinction to play its role. It will take us far afield if we go closely into the problem of elucidating how the analytical function of distinction is inherent in any realistic procedure. This problem deserves to be specifically brought within the focus of the discussion of comparative Indian philosophical thought although some broader questions like how the notion of anekānta is found, in some measure and form, even in some non-anekanta' schools of philosophy, a conscious,
1. The reconciliatory spirit (samanvayadsșți) which consists in an
endeavour to harmonise, by various methods, different or apparently conflicting views in a new synthesis, is found, in however imperfect a manner it may be from the Jaina point of view, among the several non-Jaina schools of philosophy. Some of the notable instances are: (a) the Ajñānavāda (agnosticism) of Sanjaya (vide B. M. Barua's A History of PreBuddhistic Indian Philosophy, Calcutta Univ., 1925), pp. 328-330; and JSJ, Pt. II, Intro. p. XXVIII-IX, (b) the Vibhajyavāda ('the Critical Method of Investigation'as contrasted with what the Buddha himself describes as the Ekantavāda, or the one-sided method, in Majjhima-nikāya, Sutta 99, vide NVVS, Prastāvanā, p. 11) or the Madhyamapratipada (samyutta, vide PMHS, Bhāṣātippaņāni, p. 62) of the Buddha which induced him to treat prevalent opinions with all due consideration' (JSJ, Pt. II, Intro., p. XXIX); (c) the celebrated four-fold (catuṣkoți) antinomial method of the Madhyamika founder, Nāgārjuna (cf. atastattvam sadasadubhayānubhātmakacatuskoțivinirmuktam sūnyameva / Sarva-darsana-sangraha, Ed. V. S. Abhyankar, Govt. Oriental (Hindu) Series, Poona, 1924; see also pp. 572-3 in

Page #309

CHAPTER IX
289
balanced and systematic treatment of it being a special feature of Jainism-have been noticed with some degree
Nagarjuna's Mülamadhyamikakarikā, Ed. la Vallee Poussin, Bib. Bud., St. Petersbourg, 1913); and (d) the critique, on the eight doctrines, of Gautama (vide ch, IV, Āhnika, sūtras 14-43 in Gautama's Nyāyasūtras, E.T. Ganganatha Jha, Poona Oriental Series, Poona, 1939). Despite the fact that these methods are treated in the respective systems with which they are severally associated, in the spirit and form resembling the Anekantavāda, they have not been considered to be so fundamental and pervasive (vyāpaka) as they have been in Jainism. It is, therefore, no surprise that the early critics of Anekāntavāda like Dharmakīrti (see PVD, ch. III, käs. 180-1 and MV thereon, and f.n. 3), and Sankara, the earliest commentator on the Brahmasūtras of Bädarāyaṇa, make Jainism the target of their polemic against Anekantavāda. This is done on an even more elaborate scale by Arcața also (HBT, pp. 104-107).
Furthermore, some schools like the Bhedābhedavāda, especially of Bhartsprapanca whose system is even referred to as 'anekānta' (vide PMHS, Bhāşāțippaņāni, p. 62, f.n. 3); the Bhatta-Mīmāṁsā and the Sāṁkhya have an anekānta bias with respect to some of their methods and ideas. While criticising the concept of 'vaicitrya' which is so vital to Anekāntavāda, śāntarakṣita significantly attributes it to the Mimāṁsā (Vipra) as well as the Sāṁkhya (Kapila) systems also (kalpanáracitasyaiva vaicitryasyopavarnane / ko nāmātiśayah prokto vipranirgranthakāpilā// TSS, kā. 1776). Arcața, who also chiefly attributes it to Jainism and criticises, describes it as 'vaicitryam' or 'vicitram' as: vicitraṁ hi rūpam sabalamucyate; or, vicitrată ca nānāsvabhāvatā (HBT, p.104). These considerations indicate the influence which the notion of anekānta has, unwittingly or otherwise, in various forms and degrees, on the systems other than Jainism in Indian philosophy. For two further references bearing on this thesis see the next two footnotes. For a brief treatment (with occasional references to, and quotations from the texts) of this topic with regard to the non-Jaina systems see PMHS, Bhāşățippaņāni, pp. 61-63, NVVS, Prastāvanā, p. 11 ff.; and ST, Intro. 150-2.

Page #310

290
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
of attention by a few old writers and contemporary critics. A brief attempt has, however, been made in the immediately preceding pages to show how the impelling logic of distinction, inherent in all realistic metaphysics, has led to the evolution of the Jaina conception of reality from the simple notion of dualism to the complex one of manifoldness or indetermination. All that is necessary for our purpose now is to indicate how this notion of manifoldness or indetermination is the most consistent and inevitable manifestation of the realistic spirit in Indian philosophy.
This fact, that the theory of manifold or indeterminate reality is the most significant form of realism in Indian philosophy, could be adduced from the following two considerations : First, that the Jaina conception of reality admits of the principle of distinction which is the universal and basic axiom of all realistic metaphysics. Having admitted it the Jaina view allows this principle to exercise its full logical function so that every detail of the universe, physical and mental, becomes an infinitely diversified fact of nature. Secondly, the Advaita absolute, which is the exact logical antithesis to the Jaina conception of the diversified real, does
1. For instance, by Siddhasena Divākara, at several places
in his STP, Ch. III; by Mallişeņa in his SM, pp. 16-17(the systems referred to are those of the Svāyambhuvas and the Prakrāntavādins, or the Vaiseşikas. See the Editor's explanations of these terms in his Notes, pp. 45-58); and, by Gunaratna in his TRD, pp. 237-244 (the systems referred to are those of Bud. dhism in general, as well as the Vaišeşikas and the Sauntrāntikas in particular, the Naiyāyikas, the Vaišeşikas, the Samkhyas
and the Mimāṁsakas). 2. See the end of f.n. 1, and AGAM, Prastāvanā, p. 90.

Page #311

CHAPTER IX
291
not admit of distinction in any form in its ultimate nature of pure being (sat), and, therefore, develops itself, inevitably, into a spiritualistic ekāntavāda par excellence. This fact proves, indirectly, that once the initial assumption of distinction is allowed to operate-as it should be, since distinction is an irrefutable fact of reality—it leads to the Jaina view, as a logical necessity, of an indeterminate reality. In other words, the developments of the two contrasting conceptions of reality, the Jaina and the Advaita, reveal the truth that if we follow a strictly monistic hypothesis of Advaitism we must inevitably accept some kind of mentalism or spiritualism which asserts the identity of the knower and the known, or rather the reality of the knower and the falsity of the known which, consequently, is treated as a projection of the knower. It is, therefore, not a surprise that Advaitism in India, like its Hegelian counterpart in the West, received the characteristically subjectivistic interpretation of the drstisȚstivāda of Prakāśānanda, which has its counterpart in the Berkeleyan theory of esse est percipi. Alternatively, in order to avoid a mentalistic or subjectivistic orientation in our approach to reality, if distinction or objectivity is admitted to be real, anekāntavāda represents the most logical form which such a realistic procedure can take. Owing to the decisive significance of this issue the two considerations just outlined deserve a some-what closer notice here. We may start with the second one first :
1. The Advaitic absolute is what may be described as a monolithic conception. It is also driven home to us, repeatedly, that its nature, like that of the Hegelian absolute,

Page #312

292
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
is mentalistic or epistemic (prātītikasattvam). Nothing else than it is real. This pan-psychic reality cannot, in the nature of the case, admit of objectivity or an independent non-mental principle. Hence the question of distinction cannot arise in it. If it does, we have to find something which is to be distinguished from the absolute. There is nothing answering such a description. It is not possible to speak of a distinction in a real where there is no possibility of an actual separableness in some genuine sense. This is the story of all idealism, viz., that the real therein stages its duel with itself, or, at best, its shadow; it enacts a play in which the dramatis personae consist of one character only; or it constitutes a musical scale which consists of one note onlynamely, itself. Not merely this, it is also the duel as well as the participant in it; the play as well as the player; and the music as well as the musician. Hegel at least tries to integrate difference in the ascending order of his triadic dialectic but, eventually, with the same result as his Indian counterpart.
It may, however, be argued that Śankara does recognise
1.
Prātītikasattvam sarvasyeti siddham/ p. 537, Advaitasiddhi of Madhusudanasarasvati (with three commentaries, ed. N. S. Ananta Krishna Sastri, Bombay, 1917). avidyāyonayo bhāvāḥ sarve'mi budbudā iva / kşaņamudbhūya gacchanti jñānaikajaladhau layam // Ibid. (quoted by the author from Śruti). etat sarvam mana eva (quoted in Gaudabrahmanandi, a com. on the above work Ibid., p. 537). jagato manaħpariņamatvamuktam / Ibid. Lastly, asmādātmanaḥ sarve prāņāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve vedän sarvāṇi bhutani / (quoted by Nyāyāmộtakāra) Ibid., p. 538.
2. See the above f.n., particularly the second quotation.

Page #313

CHAPTER IX
293
some kind of objectivity at the so-called empirical level of existence (vyāvahärikasatta). But he does so only as a mere 'epistemic' phenomenon which is not of the substance of the real in a straightforward way. His grand tour de force only proves the obstinacy of objectivity, which cannot be explained away even by his logical genius. Hence the term 'objective' in the so-called Objective Idealism is a misnomer. It attributes 'objectivism' to a philosophy of objectless reality.
Further, the mental realm, the realm of souls which are the centres of experience, should and does command its legitimate place and importance in any reasonable scheme of reality, but the total mentalization of the objective world by the schools of idealism imports into their scheme a kind of anthropomorphism. Had it not been for this Alexander would not have proclaimed his mission to "de-anthropomorphise” philosophy. Despite its length his statement on this question bears reproducing here. Writing under "The Spirit of Realism” he observes : "The temper of realism is to de-anthropomorphise : to order man and mind to their proper place among the world of finite things; on the one hand to divest physical things of the colouring which they have received from the vanity or arrogance of mind, and on the other to assign them along with minds their due measure of self-existence. But so deeply is the self-flattering habit of supposing that mind, in its distinctive character of mind, is in special sense the superior of physical things, so that in the absence of mind there would be no physical existence at all, that Realism in questioning its prerogative appears to

Page #314

294
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
some to degrade mind and rob it of its richness and value.”'
The mere magnification of the mental principle into a cosmic one and the description of its function as an act of objectivisation does not make the real either any the less mental or the more objective. The ghost of objectivity or independence cannot be laid by the magic of verbal trickery. It comes back in some kind of awkward form as an empirical' or 'epistemic' phenomenon or an 'antithesis'.
There is, therefore, nothing strange in the fact that the mind-ridden Absolute Idealism gave rise to the curious doctrine of DụstisȚstivāda or Jñātasattāvāda of Prakāśānanda and others, which affirms thať a thing exists only when it is perceived. In this view the "blue”, for instance, and its awareness are one, and there is no external object apart from its cognition."' Alluding to this view an Indian critic observes: "The whole world is thus only a psychic modification and has no reality outside the mind." Prakāśānanda himself observes : “The wise maintain the psychological ideality of the world, the ignorant its objective reality."
1. "The Basis of Realism" (p. 1), an Address by S. Alexander to
the British Academy in 1914. 2. P. N. Srinivasachari's Aspects of Advaita (Sri Krishna Library
series, Madras, 1949), p. 16. 3. Ibid. See also pp. 97-98. 4. Jñānasvarūpamevāhur jagadetadvicakşanāḥ 1 arthasvarūpań
bhrāmyantah paśyanteti kudȚstayaḥ // The following line also expresses the same idea more pithily: dȚsţireva bhavet srsţirdrşțișrstimate../
These lines have been quoted in M. N. Sircar's The System of Vedāntic Thought and Culture (published by University of

Page #315

CHAPTER IX
295
This view, in which 'spirit greets the spirit', or dĩști is srsti, has its close parallel in the well-known Berkeleyan view esse is percipi. Referring to the relation of the 'unthinking things' of the objective world to this intuitive or self-evident' principle Berkeley observes: "Their esse is percipi; nor is it possible they should have any existence out of the minds or thinking things which perceive them." !
Drstis?stivāda and its close Western parallel have been mentioned here, not merely because they are a particular school of idealism but because they represent the tendency of all idealism towards subjectivism. As a critic observes :
Calcutta, 1925), p. 126, footnotes 1 and 2. See also pp. 125-26 (the text).
Madhusudana also observes: imameva ca dịştissștivādamā. cakşate asmimś ca pakṣe jīva eva svajñānavaśājjagadupādānanimittam ca / dravyaṁ ca sarvam prātītikam / Siddhāntabindu (of Madhusudana with a Com. by Purusottama, ed. P. E. Divan, GOS, Baroda, 1933), p. 29. See also Advaitasiddhi and Prakāśā. nanda's Siddhāntamuktavali (E. T. by Arthur Venis, Reprint from the Pandit, Benares, 1890), p. 25 ff. (text).
Even the so-called 'opposite view' to this (drșțisrşțivada) viz., srstidȚşțivada, also retains the character of mentalism in so far as it maintains that the world is a "creation or emanation" from Brahman (see Siddhāntamuktāvali, Pref. p. II, f. n. 1). The difference, if there is any at all, is that in srstidsstivāda the world is supposed to 'precede' our knowledge of it, while in drsţisrstivāda it is said to be concurrent with (because it is also the creation of) our knowledge. The difference, however, is not material owing to the fact that Brahman is only an exten
sion of the individual psychic principle. 1. Of the Principles of Human Knowledge (Vol. I of The Works of
George Berkeley, in 4 Vols., ed. A.C. Fraser, Oxford, 1901), p. 259. Cf. Russell's observation that "...very many philosophers, perhaps a majority, have held that there is nothing except minds and their ideas. Such philosophers are called 'ideal ists" etc. Problems, p. 14; see also p. 37.

Page #316

296
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
“The forms of idealism like objective idealism and absolute idealism are only attenuated forms of subjective idealism and the true subject transcends the subject-object relation." In his celebrated essay “The Reputation of Idealism”, G. E. Moore also is in full accord with this criticism. He characterises the notion of esse is percipi-conceding generously to the idealist that percipi need not mean "sensation' only but thought' also, both of course being 'forms of consciousness -as the ultimate premise of Idealism' in general. Confirming his attitude to the same notion, he further observes : “I believe that Idealists all hold this important falsehood.” His choice of this notion as the most vulnerable point for attack in idealism has considerably strengthened the realistic stand for objectivity or independence in the analysis of the nature of reality."
1. Srinivasachari in Aspects of Advaita, pp. 14-15 (the italics are
mine). L. T. Hobhouse demonstrates this truth in a lucid and critical note wherein he analyses the positions of T. H. Green and B. Bosanquet. See his The Theory of Knowledge (third ed. London, 1921), p. 537 f., f. n. 2. Philosophical Studies (The International Library of Psychology, Philosophy, and Scientific Method, 1951 (reprinted), London),
pp. 7-8. 3. Ibid., p. 12. 4. The following witticisms make an interesting reading: It
would be more appropriate, in this context, to substitute 'percept' wherever the term 'idea' occurs. So Beattie told Hume that the idea (or image) of a roaring lion is not a roaring idea, and that the image of an ass is not a long-eared sluggish idea; and he put some 'clownish questions' to Berkeley in the same spirit. "Where," he asked, "is the harm of my believing that if I were to fall down yonder precipice and break my neck, I should be no more a man of this world? My neck, Sir, may be an idea to you, but to me it is a reality and

Page #317

CHAPTER IX
297
an important one too. Where is the harm of my believing that if, in this severe weather, I were to neglect to throw (what you call) the idea of a coat over the ideas of my shoulders, the idea of cold would produce the idea of such pain and disorder that might possibly terminate in my real death?” A Study in Realism (John Laird, C. U.P., 1920, Cambridge), p. 63.
Repudiating the claim that the Modern Einsteinian Theory of Relativity supports idealism, Russell writes under the heading Realism in Relativity'; "It is a mistake to suppose that relativity adopts an idealistic picture of the world-using 'idealism' in the technical sense, in which it implies that there can be nothing which is not experience. The observer who is often mentioned in expositions of relativity need not be a mind, but may be a photographic plate or any kind of recording instrument. The fundamental assumption of relativity is realistic, namely, that these respects in which all observers agree when they record a given phenomenon may be regarded as objective, and not as contributed by the observers." Bertrand Russell on 'Relativity', Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., The Univ. of Chicago, 1950. See also his The A. B. C. of Relativity (London, 1925), pp. 219-20.
Max Born, the great theoretical physicist, also offers a similar vindication of the 'reality' of the pre-existing external material world. This is done in answer to Herbert Dingle's thesis. Dingle puts to himself the fundamental question, viz. "What exactly is it that physicists are doing?” The answer: "That can be answered satisfactorily only in terms of experience, not of the external world.” In his reply to Dingle, Max Born describes the former's viewpoint as "a standpoint of extreme subjectivism" or "physical solipsism" and endeavours to restore, by means of several technical and lay arguments, common sense to the relativistic, quantum, (for an unequivocal support of Max Plank to an external world "which is 'independent of ourselves', something absolute that we are facing...” see Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist, 2nd ed., ed. P. A. Schilpp, New York, 1951, p. 136 f.) and other theories of science and, thereby, to philosophy. (Vide H. Dingle's lecture to the British Association, 1951, on "Philosophy and Physics", 1850-1950, in Nature (London), Vol. 168, pp. 63036, especially p. 634, para 2, and Max Born's article on "Physical Reality” in the Philosophical Quarterly (ed. T. M. Knox), Vol. III No. 11 for April 1953, pp. 139-149.) A. P. Ushenko is

Page #318

298
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
II. Thus the Advaitic attempt at building up a structure of reality from which the independence of the objective world is explained away has been revealed, in our analysis so far, to tend towards some form of mentalism. Even if any other school of idealism attempts to bring anything in ab extra into the being of its ultimate realm the attempt would be foredoomed to failure in the same measure as its denial of self-existence to the objective universe. Nothing short of a forthright recognition of the independent and intrinsic nature of reality will ever succeed in avoiding the mentalization or spiritualization of the non-spiritual realm of reality.
Once the claim of independence as an integral part of reality is initially conceded, then, it becomes the thin edge of the wedge; that is, the operative force of the principle of distinction thus introduced in the real will work itself out, through various stages of increasing approximation like duality, plurality and reciprocity towards the anekānta view of reality. The dialectical evolution of these approximations
another fierce critic who joins issue with Dingle: "If I am asked to mention,” he observed, "some particular metaphysics which clearly does not fit in with the theory of relativity, I should name solipsism.” Albert Einstein, p. 613.
Yet another writer of today to whose views on the present problem Einstein himself has paid a serious attention is Henry Margenau. Margenau's argument for the reality or objectivity of the universe, under Einstein's theory, cannot be cited here, but merits our attention. Vide his article on "Einstein's Conception of Relativity” in Albert Einstein (see 4, pp. 252-57), and his recent work, The Nature of Physical Reality, The GrawHill Book Co. Inc., New York, the sections on The Reality of Data, Other Selves, pp. 297-9, and the Real World, pp. 299-305; and the entire chap. (21) on The Contours of Reality, pp. 448
67.

Page #319

CHAPTER IX
299
or stages has been already traced out earlier in course of this section. According to the Jaina dialecticians the several schools which do recognise the independent objectivity of the world have inevitably, though often unwittingly, been confronted with the necessity of acknowledging the anekānta view, at least in some aspects of their conception of reality as well as of knowledge. The instances, which, among others include the Mimāṁsā, the Sānkhya, and the Vaišeșika schools, have already been mentioned elsewhere. He feels that they all have stopped short of consciously allowing the principle of distinction to reach its logical conclusion in an indeterminate approach to the problem. If the compulsive force of the spirit of anekānta is allowed to have its sway, then, according to him, reality would be infinitely diversified. The optimum point of the restless force of distinction is represented in the inexhaustible diversification of every detail in the physical and the mental universe consistently, of course, with the equally enduring identities in nature. The theory of manifoldness is therefore the story of the gradual unfoldment of the implications of distinction which is at the heart of everything. If this cardinal truth is disproved, then the entire structure of the anekänta philosophy will collapse like a house of cards.
To summarise the entire argument: The essence of realism is the principle objectivity, independence, or dis
1. The Vaišeşika comes nearest, particularly with respect to his
atomism, to anekavāda, but he stops at the level of what may be described as mechanical pluralism, rather than in determinate relativism of the Jainas. Cf. supra, ch. on Arthakriyakäritvam and the Vaiseşika's Ubhayavāda.

Page #320

300 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE tinction. The alternative to the non-acceptance of this principle in reality is some form of idealism which is generically inadequate and has a tendency towards subjectivism. Acceptance of the intrinsic objectivity of the world marks the starting point of the functioning of distinction which progressively develops until the point of culmination is reached in the fact of the indeterminate and manifold nature of reality. It is in the logical necessity of the development from the initial simple state of distinction to that of infinite diversification of everything real, physical or mental, that the justification of the claim of Anekāntavāda as the most consistent form of realism lies.

Page #321

CHAPTER X
Nayavāda
or
The Theory of Standpoints

Page #322


Page #323

CHAPTER X
NAYAVĀDA (The Theory of Standpoints)
Anekāntavāda as a theory of reality, according to which reality is infinitely manifold, or relativistic in its determinations, has been observed to be inherent in the co-ordinate conception of identity-in-difference. It has also been pointed out, at the beginning of our treatment of anekāntavāda that the nayavāda, or the method of standpoints, and syödväda, or the method of dialectical predications, are the two main wings of anekāntavāda. A brief attempt may be made, in this part, to bring out how the two theories, viz., nayavāda and syādvāda, bring out and sustain the relativistic character of reality.
Logically, nayavāda and syādvāda are two complementary processes forming a natural and inevitable development of the relativistic presupposition of the Jaina metaphysics. They form a scheme which is pre-eminently one of correlative methods' rather than of theories of reality although they both presuppose and explain the primordial notion that all reality is relativistic. Nayavāda is principally an analytical
1. While dealing, principally, with nayavāda Rao characterises
'Jainism' as follows: "It is essentially a method and an attitude.” The Half-Yearly Journal of the Mysore University, New Series, Section A-Art, March 1942, p. 79.

Page #324

304
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
method investigating a particular standpoint of a factual situation according to the purpose and the level of equipment of the experient (jñāt?). The particular standpoint thus investigated is one among a multitude of different viewpoints which, in their totality, reflect the full nature of the situation. Syädvāda, or Saptabhangī, is, essentially, a synthetical method designed to harmonise the different viewpoints arrived at by nayavada.
Making a further distinction between nayavāda and syādvāda Upadhye maintains that the former is “primarily conceptual” and the latter “mainly verbal”. Although not quite incorrect, this distinction is apt to be somewhat mis
1. Cf. "...each of the rayas comprehends things from only one
particular standpoint, knowledge derived from a naya therefore is partial and incomplete. To comprehend things in all their aspects, therefore, a special mode or form must be found. This, according to the Jains, is their Syâdvāda or the doctrine of many possibilities.” The Nyāyāvatāra (Ed. by P. L. Vaidya, Bombay, 1928), Intro. p. XL. 1.
"The nayas refer to the parts of the thing, whereas the saptabhangi refers to the things as a whole; nayas have relation to analysis, whereas saptabhangi relates to synthesis; nayavāda is the analytical method of knowledge, whereas saptabhangi is the synthetical method of knowing a thing." H. L. Jhaveri's The First Principles of the Jaina Philosophy, London, 1910, p. 42. See also NKV, Intro. pp. 21-22. Also,
nayānāmekanişthānām pravstteḥ sȚtavartmani /
sampūrňārthaviniścāyī syādvadaśrutamucyate // The Nyāyāvatāra, kā. 30. See also Siddharşi's Comm. thereon. 2. He observes: "Syädvāda is a corollary of Nayavāda: the latter
is analytical and primarily conceptual and the former is synthetical and mainy verbal”. PrSKU, Intro. p. LXXXV. Incidentally (see SJJ, p. 17 and p. 52), it would be more correct to say, with Jacobi, that syādvāda is a logical complement' than a 'corollary' of nayavāda.

Page #325

CHAPTER X
305
understood if we are not aware of the background against which it is made. This is because the so-called 'primarily conceptual' method is also verbal, inasmuch as it not merely requires the aid of words for the expression of its various standpoints but also has as many as three, among its seven, standpoints which are exclusively concerned with the verbal problems, and are therefore designated as sabdanayas. Similarly, in contradistinction to the verbal elements of the
conceptual'nayavāda, the mainly verbal' method of syādvāda is so much charged with the epistemological character that we might say that its verbal side is more instrumental than intrinsic in value. The term 'conceptual' may, however, be applied to the four dravyanayas, under nayavāda, with relatively greater propriety. But under syädvāda no distinctions, such as the verbal modes of syādvāda and the non-verbal or the epistemological modes of syädvāda, can be made since all modes are both verbal and epistemological. This is so in spite of the fact that much care and exactitude are needed in the verbal formulation and manipulation of the modal judgments.
Leaving aside the epistemological content of the modal judgments for the moment, the description of all the modes of syādvāda as verbal also may give rise to a possible objection that such a description should not be applied to the mode which contains the 'inexpressible' (avaktavya) as its predicate. For the 'inexpressible'is, ex hypothesi, a verbal failure insofar as it is incapable of a co-presentation' or a simultaneous expression of the positive and the negative traits of a real in a single attempt. Describing a mode as verbal
20

Page #326

306
when a signal verbal failure is inscribed on it would, therefore, be, according to the possible objector, paradoxically objectionable. Deferring a fuller discussion of the modal predicate, the 'inexpressible', to the next chapter, we may briefly indicate here the line of argument the Jaina would take in answering the present objection. The Jaina answer to this objection, it may be noted, necessarily entails a reference to the third mode of syādvāda also:
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
The predicate 'the inexpressible' does indeed record a signal verbal failure in expressing, at once, the great amplitude of the variegated reality as embodied in every factual event. But this failure is not due to the inherent unknowability, and, consequently, of the inexpressibility of reality, as in the case of the theories underlying the formulae like "sa eşa neti neti" or "catuskoțivinirmuktatvam" or "anirvacaniyata". It is, on the contrary, due to the bewildering wealth of impressions directly pouring into the human mind whose limitations of powers are such that it cannot at once grapple with all the impressions by way of all-comprehending attention and precise expression. Hence the postulation of the predicate in question. The only verbal feature of the predicate is the symbol (samjñā) 'avaktavya' employed in designating the predicate. This symbol declares the inadequacy of the verbal machinery when confronted with such cognitive situations. But this does not mean that avaktavya is the last word in our cognitive venture and, consequently, that we are inescapably condemned to be cognitively overwhelmed and verbally dumb. What is not simultaneously expressible can be expressed by a gradual process in the order of the atten

Page #327

CHAPTER X
307
tion severally paid to the manifold features in the situation concerned. This fact introduces a sequential outlet (kramarpana) for what would otherwise remain a 'paradoxically objectionable' position. In other words, if the mode of avaktavya were an absolute position (sarvathaikāntadṛṣṭi) it would certainly be 'a paradoxically objectionable' position, but since the mode represents a relative position (kathañcidekäntadṛṣṭi) it leaves room for a sequential alternative which guarantees a gradual unfoldment of the entire complex structure of the factual situation in hand.
Words have a vital role to play in the process of the unfoldment of the complex or the simple meanings of reality in spite of their limitations as noticed under the 'inexpressible" (avaktavya) mode. Communication of the meanings of reality either to us (svarthaḥ) or from us to others (pararthaḥ) is said to be an inherent power (svābhāviki śaktiḥ) in words. Devabhadra, for instance, observes that every specific meaning is resident in a particular
1. Referring to this śaktiḥ or yogyata Prabhācandra observes: yogyatā hi sabdarthayoḥ pratipādyapratipādakaśaktiḥ, jñānajñeyayor jñāpyajnapakaśaktivat/ NKC, Vol. II, p. 538. See also PKM, p. 428, where also he writes to the same effect when commenting on the following Parikṣāmukha sutra: sahajayogyatā sanketavaśāddhi śabdadayaḥ vastupratipattihetavaḥ/ Ibid., p. 427. (Here 'sabdadayaḥ', or words etc., means words, gestures made by fingers, etc. (angulyādivākya) and any similar signs.) In NKC, Vol. II, p. 541, the same writer again observes: śaktis tu svabhäviki yathā rūpaprakāśane cakṣuradeḥ tatha arthaprakāśane sabdasyāpi / Vadideva also makes similar observations on this question. See SRK, pp. 702-3. A brief comment of Kumārila also is of interest in this connection: sarvo hi sabdo'rthapratyayanartham prayujyate (Tantravārtika, I. 3. 8).

Page #328

308
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
word.' Siddharși supports this idea from another angle by remarking that there are no objects (artha) without names.' Maladhāri Hemacandra believes that everything cognisable is also expressible in some way.
The Jaina is, however, cautious in not stretching this belief in the natural power of words to the extent of advocating the identity (tādātmya) of essence between the word and its meaning. Had it not been so he would find himself an ally of Bhartphari and the other grammarian philosophers who maintain the doctrine of śabdādvaitavāda. According to the Jaina words are only expressive (vācaka) or, as Yaśovijaya puts it, suggestive (inäpaka) symbols rather than productive (kāraka“) entities of meanings. In other words, what is meant by the remark that a meaning resides in a word is nothing more than forcefully stating that the word has the natural power of expressing the meaning which is not produced by, or derived from, it. The meaning is eventually rooted in the nature of things in reality, but is conveyed to us through the natural expressive capacity of words.
The main purpose of introducing here the above brief discussion on the linguistic aspect of syādvāda has been to show how far syādvāda can be described as “mainly verbal', or, for that matter, a 'verbal' method at all. The discussion
1. pratyartham sabdanivāsād iti/ Nyāyāvatāra (of Siddhasena
Divākara, with Siddharşi's Vivști and Devabhadra's Tippaņa, ed. P. L. Vaidya, 1928, Bombay), p. 81.
nirabhidhānārthābhāvāt / Ibid., p. 80. 3. kaścit tu gamyatayā sarvo'bhilapyah../ SHM, on gā. 143, VBJ. 4. sabdánāṁ ca arthajñāpakatvam na tu kārakatvam / SKL, p. 250.

Page #329

CHAPTER X
309
indicates the undoubted necessity for a precise scheme of linguistic symbols (vacanavinyāsa). But the scheme of linguistic symbols is only the garb of the modal judgments which represent a system of alternative and exhaustive aspects of truth of a particular factual situation investigated by syādvāda. The content being such judgments syādvāda is essentially an epistemological method. This pre-eminently epistemological character of it becomes more evident when we remember that the knowledge obtained by its use is conceived to be the human analogue of the perfect knowledge (kevalajnāna) attained by the perfect souls (kevalins), the difference between the two being that the one is mediate (asākṣāt) and the other immediate (sāksāt').
The purport of the entire argument is that the distinction between conceptual' and 'verbal' is a relative one, and therefore that when it is associated with the two methods under consideration, it should be done subject to the consideration outlined in course of the argument.
The logical justification for the formulation of these two methods of nayavāda and syadvada consists in the fact that the immense complexity of the relativistic universe is too baffling for the human mind, with its limited range of perceptual and other capacities, to penetrate at once, into its full secrets. In the process of grasping the bewildering universe analysis, or nayavāda, naturally precedes synthesis, or syādvāda, and the two methods together offer an articulated knowledge of the universe. After this comparative estimate
1. Cf. syādvádakevalajñāne sarvatattvaprakāśane / bhedaḥ sākşādasā
kşāc ca.....// AMS, kā. 105.

Page #330

310
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
of the two methods we may now proceed to consider them in their natural order.
The Definition of Nayavāda
A naya is defined as a particular opinion or (abhiprāya or abhimata) or a viewpoint (apekṣā)—a viewpoint which does not rule out other different viewpoints and is, thereby, expressive of a partial truth (vastvaṁśagrāhī) about an object (vastu)-as entertained by a knowing agent (jñāt?). A naya is a particular viewpoint about an object or an event, there being many other viewpoints which do not enter into, or interfere
This is the general definition (samanya laksana) of a naya. The specific feature (višeşa lakşaņa) of each particular naya will be noticed later on. To express the nature of a naya, in the words of Prabhāchandra: anirākṣtapratipakso vastvarśagrāhi jñāturabhiprāyo nayah / PKM, p. 676. There are numerous variant forms of the definition of a naya. But they all express substantially, but often more elaborately, the whole, or a part, of the connotation so briefly indicated by Prabhāchandra's definition. See, for instance, NKC, Vol. II, p. 606 f., f.n. 1, in which the editor has enumerated about as many as thirty such variant forms. In AGAM, pp. 142-3 (tippanāni), under 'naya' the same editor has made a few editions to the forms. The following, not necessarily found in the above-mentioned two places, may, however, be cited here:
arthasyānekarūpasya dhiḥ pramānam tadaṁśadhih / nayo dharmāntarāpekşi durnayas tannirākştiḥ //
AŚA on AMS, 1.47. pramāņaparicchinnasya anantadharmātmakasya vastuna ekadeśagrāhiņaḥ taditarāṁsapratiksepiņo adhyavasāyavid eșa nayaḥ/. JTBY,p. 21 (cf. PNTA, VII. 1, and SRK thereon, in SRK, p. 1044). nayantīti nayāḥ anekadharmātmakam vastu ekadharmena nityamevedam anityameveti vā nirūpayanti/" See NKC, Vol. II, p. 606 f., f.n. 1.

Page #331

CHAPTER X
311 with, the particular viewpoint under discussion. Although the other viewpoints do not enter into the perspective of the particular viewpoints under discussion they constantly, as it were, attack its frontiers, and await its reconciliation with them in the sphere of a fuller and more' valid knowledge which is the sphere.of pramāņa.
1 Cf. audāsīnyaparāyaṇās tadapare cāmse bhaveyur nayāḥ/ ABHI, p.
1853. 2. This phrase "more valid” is advisedly used here. This becomes
clear when we notice the controversy, met with in Jaina works, as to whether the partial truth conveyed by a naya is as valid as the full truth conveyed by pramāņa. Vidyānanda attempts an answer to this by employing an analogical argument, often repeated by writers since, in which he compares naya to a part of a sea which is pramāņa (TSU, p. 118, ka. 5 and the tīkā thereon). See also SRK, pp. 1044-7. Insofar as the part is identical with the whole-it is identical since it is a legitimate part of the whole-a naya shares the validity, at any rate in some measure, of pramāņa. But, insofar as it is different from the whole-it is different from the whole, in some sense, otherwise the part and the whole become indistinguishable-a naya is invalid. The conclusion implied is a simple one, viz., that a part(naya) is not eschewed by the whole (pramāņa); that the whole itself would not be but for the combination of such parts; that the part is valid (mānātmako nayah; näpyasatyo nayah) so far as it goes, and that it becomes invalid when its partial truth is taken to be the whole truth when it is called a nayābhāsa, or kunaya, or durnaya.
The above conclusion is generally agreed to in spirit if not in letter also, but most writers including Vidyānanda, Jinabhadra and his commentator Maladhāri Hemacandra, however, do not seem to accede to this conclusion whole-heartedly, although they do not eventually disagree with it (see VBJ, gā. 2277 and SHM thereon). For some of the expressions with which they describe the nature of nayas are more appropriate to the description of the nature of nayābhāsas or durnayas. For instance, nayas are said to be incapable of being vastuno gamakāḥ (pratyekāvasthāyāṁ tadagamakatvat). Further, they

Page #332

312
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Theoretically the viewpoints from which an object or an event could be perceived are not merely numerous' (anekavikalpa) but infinite' in number (anantaprakāram) because even the humblest fact of existence is infinitely manifold and therefore can be an object of various modes of analysis. But this way of looking at the subject is too broad (vyāsa or vistāra) or gross (sthula) and, therefore, does not vouchsafe to us a compact view of reality on the basis of which we can develop a practicable analytical method by means of which we may tackle reality piecemeal and obtain partial glimpses of its truth. The view of reality, conceived under the great division consisting of two inclusive categories, viz., dravyārthikanaya or the substantive view, and paryayarthikanaya or the modal (or the modificational) view, is, however, considered to be an answer to the demand. The categories are
•
are said to be heretical (mithyatmadṛṣṭitvät), contradictory (virodhato, or virodhitvät), inimical (vairivat) in their character.
Another factor which seems to confirm the attitude of Jinabhadra, more especially of his great commentator, is the quotation, by the latter, of a devotional verse, the second line of which is in tune with the view suggested by the two writers udadhaviva sarvasindhavaḥ samudīrṇāstvayi nätha dṛṣṭayaḥ/ na ca tāsu bhavan pradṛśyate pravibhaktāsu saritsvivodadhiḥ// See VBJ, gā. 2266 and SHM, on 2265-6.
1. jāvaiya vayanavahä tavaiya honti nayavāyā / STP, III. 47. javanto vayanapahā tāvanto vā nayāvi sähāvo / VBJ, gā. 2265. vyāsato'nekavikalpā iti / PNTA, VII. 4 and the SRK thereon in SRK, p. 1047.
2. nayaś canantaḥ / SM (text), p. 161.
3. See PNTA, VII. 4 and the SRK thereon.
4. Cf. dravyaparyayarūpasya sakalasyäpi vastunaḥ/ nayāvamsena netārau sakalasyapi vastunaḥ // Tattvärthasara, kā. 38. Vadideva brings out very clearly and elaborately, the

Page #333

CHAPTER X
313
also called, briefly, as dravyanaya and paryāyanaya respectively. The view of reality conceived under the division is described as the concise (sankṣepa or samāsa ') one in contrast to the other (the broad) one.
By a process of further analysis the Jaina thinkers have been led to the formulation of the methodological scheme consisting of seven ways of looking at reality. They are enumerated in the following order of decreasing denotation': naigama, sangraha, vyavahāra, ījusūtra, śabda, samabhirūdha, and evambhūta'. Generally among these the first three are considered to be dravyanayas or substantive standpoints and the other four paryāyanayas or modal standpoints. Reserve ing to a later stage the consideration of the question whether the number of these seven ways of viewpoints can be reduced to six, or five, or even less, either by elimination of any of them, or by subsumption of some of them under the one or the other of the seven viewpoints, we may now proceed to point out, with illustrations, the nature and function of these seven viewpoints.
progressive decrease in denotation, from every preceding naya to its succeeding one, in the course of as many as seven sūtras and his own comm. thereon. See ONTA, VII. 46-52 and the SRK thereon.
See PNTA, VII.5 and the SRK thereon. 2. Cf. pūrvah pūrvanayo bhūmavişayah kāraṇatmakaḥ / parah parah
punaḥ sūksmagocaro hetumāniha// Nayavivarana, kā. 98. 3. See TSUJ, I. 33. 4. dravyārtho vyavahārāntah paryāyārthas tatoparaḥ / TSV, p. 268. 5. See infra.

Page #334

314
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Naigamanaya (the teleological or the universal-particular
standpoint) Naigamanaya relates to the purpose (sankalpa)' or the end of a certain continuous series of actions which are represented by one or a few of their number. For instance, a person carrying fuel, water, and rice, when asked “What are you doing?” says "I am cooking" instead of saying "I am carrying fuel" and so forth. This means that the general purpose of cooking controls the entire series of actions which are represented by one or more of them such as carrying the materials or drawing water enabling us thereby to grasp the purpose which governs the individual factors relating to it. "This is the aim or function of the naigama standpoint.
According to another interpretation naigamanaya is described as the standpoint of the non-distinguished". By the
non-distinguished' is meant the absence of distinction or discrimination between the universal or the generic and the particular or the specific elements of the object under review. Accordingly, the meaning of the term naigama is analysed as 'not' (na) 'one' (eko) 'understanding' (gamaḥ), that is, not understanding or distinguishing either the generic element alone, or the specific element alone, but taking the object in in its concrete unity. One of the instances given in illustration of this non-distinction is that of the term 'bamboo'. When we use this term in a statement such as "Bamboo
1. arthasankalpamätragrāhi naigamaḥ / TRAG, p. 65, kā. 2.
anişpannārthasankalpamātragrāhi naigama iti nigamo hi sankalpah
tatrabhavaḥ tatprayojano vā naigamaḥ / SRK, p. 1052. 2. Cf. SRK, p. 1052 f. See also Tattvārthasāraḥ, kā. 44. 3. yadvā naikaṁ gamo yo'tra sa satāṁ naigamo mataḥ/ TSV, p. 269. 4. NKC, kā. 5.

Page #335

CHAPTER X
315
grows here in plenty”, from the ‘non-distinguished’ point of view, the distinction between the generic and the specific features of the bamboo is not within the focus of our attention, although it is undoubtedly at the back of our minds. This truth, namely, that when some aspect of concrete situation in reality is in the foreground of our attention the other aspects recede into the background, is one of the cardinal principles of the modern Gestalt, or Configurationist, school of psychology. Also, it holds good of not merely the ‘nondistinguished' standpoint, but also of all the others under the present method.
Although the two interpretations of naigamanaya, the one emphasising its teleological character and the other its ‘nondistinguished character, are mentioned to be different, the difference between them does not seem to be always sharp and material. This is evident when we notice that the principle of non-distinction between the universal and the particular is inherent in, or, at any rate, is not repugnant to, the purpose governing the actions in the relevant context such as the above-mentioned instance of cooking. It must, however, be admitted that when a 'non-distinguished'instance like "the bamboo grows here in plenty” is viewed from the angle of the first interpretation the teleological element is not so evident, although it would not be an impossible idea to think of some instances wherein the two elements could go together. Taking both sides of the argument into consideration we may safely conclude that at least in a considerable number of instances, the difference between the elements of teleology and non-distinction is a matter of difference in

Page #336

316 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE emphasis. This view does not, however, bar the possibility of even a radical difference between the two interpretations in a certain number of situations considered under the present standpoint.
The non-distinction of the naigama standpoint is not, as just indicated, absolute. It does imply distinction but in a relative sense only. If the distinction is asserted absolutely, then arises the fallacy called naigamābhāsa, of which the Nyāya-Vaišeșika' system, which maintains an absolute distinction (atyantabhinnatva) between its categories, is an illustration.
Sangrahanaya (the class view) This standpoint concerns itself with the general' or the class character of a factual situation, unlike the naigama standpoint which includes the specific character as well. Just as naigamanaya is not hostile to the intermingled character of concrete existence, so also sangrahanaya is not repugnant to the complementary feature of viseșa which is not included in it. Sangrahanaya marks a step further from naigamanaya in that it differentiates, in its analytical process, the common character from the universal-cum-particular complex which every real is. For instance, when, pointing to a solitary tree at some distance from you, you observe to a stranger asking for direction, “turn left near the tree there", it is not relevant to
1. See PNTA, VII. 12 and the SRK thereon. See also Nayapradipa,
p. 101, and Nyāyāvatāra (P. L. Vaidya's edn.), p. 82. 2. sāmānyamātragrāhī parāmarśaḥ sangraha iti/ PNTA, VII. 13. See
also the SRK thereon, as well as TSV, p. 270, kā, 51. 3. See NKV, kā. 6.

Page #337

CHAPTER X
317 the occasion to mention whether "the tree there” is mango, banyan, or any other, although "the tree" must be one of these. For there can be no universal without a particular', or a genus without species, although in a particular context the mention of the former will serve the purpose in hand. Similarly, when we state that everything is sat (being) it makes a perfectly understandable proposition, although it provisionally shuts out its necessary complement of asat (non-being).
Laying such an exaggerated emphasis on the universal as to leave no room at all for the particular leads to sangrahābhāsa, a fallacy of which the Sānkhya and the Advaita .schools of philosophy are notable instances.'
Vyavahāranaya" (the standpoint of the particular)
In contrast with the sangraha standpoint the vyavahāra standpoint specialises itself in being concerned with the speci
1. Ibid.
viśvamekaṁ sadaviśeşāditi/ PNTA, VII. 16. sangraho'pyaśeşaviseşāvišeşapratikṣepamukhena sāmānyamekam samarthayamāno durnayah.... / Nyāyāvatāra (P. L. Vaidya's
edn.), p. 85. 4. sangrahābhiprāyapravsttāḥ sarve'pyadvaitavādāḥ sānkhyadarśa
naṁ ca./ See also PNTA, VII. 17 and 18 and the SRK thereon. The reason why the Sānkhya system is instanced here is stated by Prabhācandra: vikāravikāriņoh sankhyaistādātmyābhyupa
gamāt/ NKL, Vol. II, p. 629. 5. This vyavahāranaya should be distinguished from another naya,
bearing the same name and occurring in a different classification of nayas into niscayanaya (the true viewpoint) and vyavahāranaya (the conventional or empirical viewpoint). There is nothing common between the two except the name.

Page #338

318
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
fic features of the object concerned, without, of course, losing sight of the fact that they cannot stand by themselves without the support of the generic properties in the larger setting: of concrete reality. For example, when a person is asked to bring a mango fruit he attempts to bring mango, but not any other fruit, although he is aware of the fact that mango is: only a species in the genus of fruit.'
When the generic correlative of a specific feature is: entirely ignored the resultant fallacy comes to have only the semblance of the vyavahāra standpoint (vyavahāranayābhāsa) of which there can be no better example than the materialism of Cārvāka' in Indian philosophy.
The above three standpoints, viz., naigama, sangraha and! vyavahāra, come under the first comprehensive category, viz., dravyārthikanaya. This is so because these standpoints concern themselves with the durable side (dravyasaṁsparśī) of concrete reality. The remaining four standpoints, viz.,, rjusūtra, sabda, samabhirūờha and evambhūta, engage themselves in the analysis of the fleeting side (paryāyasaṁsparsi) of concrete reality. Hence their collective designation (paryāyārthikanaya), the second of the two comprehensive categories.
Among the four paryāyanayas only the first one, viz., rjusūtranaya, which will presently be dealt with, makes a direct ontological reference to an aspect of reality, viz., the
1. višeşatmakamevārthaí vyavahāraś ca manyate/
višeşabhinna samanyam asatkharavişāņavat// NKV, kā. 8.
Ibid., kūrikās 9 and 10. 3. PNTA, VII. 26. For two other instances see LTB, V, kā. 42 and
the NKC thereon in NKC, Vol. II, pp. 631-5.

Page #339

CHAPTER X
319
aspect of flux (paryāya). The other three are concerned with the verbal questions of the meanings of the modal side of reality. On the basis of this distinction, viz., the aspect involving an ontological reference and the aspects involving: verbal references, the standpoints are also classified as. arthanayas (or arthatantra), and sabdanayas (or śabdatantra), the former class including within itself the first four, and the latter class, the last three.'
Jinabhadra, however, chooses to treat fjusūtranaya as one of the dravyanayas on the ostensible ground that it has a direct ontological reference like the other dravyanayas. But this is not widely accepted. Now the treatment of the four paryāyanayas or the modal standpoints may be resumed.
Rjusūtra (the standpoint of momentariness)
The șjusūtra standpoint relates to the momentary nature of a thing. It is narrower than the vyavahāra standpoint in that it looks at a particular thing as the thing appears at a particular moment. This standpoint is in operation
1. tatrarjusūtraparyantāḥ catvāro'rthanayāmatāḥ/trayaḥ śabdanayāḥ
śeşāḥ śabdavācyārthagocarāḥ// Nayavivaraṇam (by an unknown author, ed. Pannalal Caudhuri, Digambara Jaina Grantha Bhāndāra, Kāśi, Vira Samvat 2451), kā. 97. See also Tattvārthāsava, kā. 43. VBJ, p. 2262, kā. 77. Cf. rjusūtraḥ sa vijñeyo yena paryāyamätrakam/ vartamānaikasamayavişayam parigrhyate// Tattvārthasāraḥ (by Amộtacandrasūri, printed in the Prathamagucchaka, sri Digambara Grantha Bhāņdāra, Kāśi, Vira Saṁ. 2451), kā. 47. See also JTBY, p. 22. Siddharşi explains rjusūtranaya as follows: tatrarjupraguņamakutilam atitānāgatavakraparityāgāt vartamānakşanavivarti vastuno rūpam sūtrayati niştańkitam darśayatīti rjusūtrah/ Nyāyāvatāra (P. L. Vaidya's edn.), p. 77. See also NKV, kārikās 11 and 12.

Page #340

320
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
when, for instance, we treat an actor, who is enacting the role of a king on the stage, as the king for the moment.
While recognising the importance and the relative validity of this ‘occurrent' aspect in the life of reality we are not expected to lose sight of the continuant' character of reality.
An over-emphasis on the fleeting aspect of concrete reality has, according to nayavādin, led the Buddhist to treat this partial truth as the sole foundation of his conception of reality.
Sabdanaya (the standpoint of synonyms) Among the remaining three paryāyanayas or the modal standpoints sabdanaya is the first verbal viewpoint. Besides referring to this specific viewpoint the term 'sabdanaya” is also employed as a collective designation for all the three viewpoints, including the present one, because of the fact that all the three are mainly concerned with verbal problems. In order to distinguish the present verbal standpoint from the other two similar viewpoints we may specifically designate the present one as the viewpoint of synonyms since it is largely concerned with synonymous words'.
The present standpoint of synonyms refers to the function of synonymous words which, despite their differences in
1. For an elaborate criticism of the various schools of Buddhism,
as illustrating this nayābhāsa, see TBV, (on STP, I, gā. 5), p.317 ff. śabdaḥ samabhirūdhaivambhūtau te sabdabhedagāḥ / Tattvārthasāra, kā. 42. tasmădeka eva paryāyaśabdānāmartha iti sabdaḥ / Nyāyāvatāra (P. L. Vaidya's edn.), p. 80. See also NKV, kā. 14, TSV, p. 274, kā. 87 and Nayavivarana, kārikās 90-91.

Page #341

CHAPTER X
321
tense, case-endings, gender, number and so forth, convey the same meanings. For instance, the words kumbha, kalasa and ghața denote the same object (ekārthavācakāḥ), viz., a jar which is one of the forms taken by clay. Similarly the words Indra, Sakra and Purandara denote one and the same individual in the same manner as the words globe, orb and sphere denote, despite their several differences, the same circular entity.
A misapplication of this standpoint by treating, for instance, two synonymous words as being utterly identical in their meanings is said to lead to the fallacy called sabdanayābhāsa. The sabdadvaitavadins and a few other schools in Indian philosophy are said to have committed' this fallacy.
Samabhiruḍhanaya (the etymological standpoint)
The etymological standpoint represents an advance upon the standpoint of synonyms although it is narrower in its scope than the latter. Its advance consists in the fact that it distinguishes the meanings of synonymous words purely on their etymological grounds. The synonyms Indra, Sakra and
1. yo vartanam ca manyate ekārthe bhinnalingādināṁ/ sa sabdanayo bhanitaḥ..// Laghunayacakram, kā. 40. Also: sabdapṛṣṭhato'rthagrahaṇapravaṇaḥ śabdanayaḥ lingasankhyākālakārakapuruşopagrahavyabhicaranivṛttiparatvāt/ Dhavalaṭikā (quoted in GAM, tippaṇāni, p. 147).
21
2. See Nyāyāvatāra (P. L. Vaidya's edn.), pp. 82 and 90; and NVUS, tippaṇāni, p. 277.
3. paryayasabdabhedena bhinnarthasyadhirohanat/
nayaḥ sama
bhiruḍhaḥ syat....// TSV, p. 273, kā. 76. paryāyaśabdeṣu niruktibhedena bhinnamartham samabhirohan samabhirudha iti/ PNTA, VII. 36, and NKC, Vol. II, p. 638, f. n. 1, the extracts from Dhavalaṭika and Jayadhavala.

Page #342

322
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Purandara denote, according to the conventional approach (rudhiḥ, upacārah) of sabdanaya, the same individual whereas they do not do so if their difference in their etymological derivation is taken into consideration.' Indra, for instance, signifies one who is 'all prosperous' and the other two names signify one who is the all powerful' and the destroyer of the enemies respectively.
"Hence the difference in the roots” as a critic remarks in this connection "must mean a corresponding difference in the terms and therefore in their meanings.” Had it not been for this standpoint a jar (ghața), in the opinion of an old writer, would become indistinguishable from linen (pața).
The truth of this viewpoint is based on the following two principles in the Jaina philosophy of language : The first principle is that whatever is knowable is also expressible. That is, knowledge, or the meaning of anything in reality, is not possible except through the means of words. The second
1. sabdanayo hi paryāyabhede'pi arthabhedamabhipraiti, samabhirū
Ņhastu paryāyabhede bhinnānarthānabhimanyate/ JTBY, p. 22. Devasūri also confirms this: tannaikārthavacino dhvanayaḥ santi, rudhiḥ punaravicāritatadarthanamiti samabhirūdhah/ Nyāyāvatāra (P. L. Vaidya's edn.) This writer contrasts rudhita-sabdas (conventional words) from vyutpatti-sabdas (words based on their etymological derivations). See ibid., p. 74. śacīpatireko'pyartha indanaśakanapuradāraṇabhedāt bhidyate / indatitindrah/ saknotīti sakrah/ puram dārayatīti purandara iti/ Tattvārthasūtra (with Bhāskaranandi's Sukhabodha, ed. by A. Shantiraja Sastry, Mysore, 1944), p. 25. Cf. ye nirabhidhānā vartante arthāḥ teşāṁ śabdāt pārthakyena vastutvasiddhiriti cet na, nirabhidhanarthābhāvāt.../ tataś ca sarve'rthā vidyamānasvavācakāḥ, arthatvāt, ghațārthavaditi pramāņāt..!

Page #343

CHAPTER X
323
principle is that, strictly speaking, there can be only one word for one meaning and vice versa. Accordingly, several words which are conventionally supposed to convey one and the same meaning, have in actual fact as many meanings as the number of words found there. That is, this priniciple does not recognise any synonymous terms but maintains a determinate relation between a meaning and its word (vācyavācakaniyama). It may be contended that the non-recognition of synonymous terms under samabhirūdhanaya contradicts the recognition of such terms under sabdanaya. The nayavādin does not see any contradiction between the two viewpoints. This is so because, according to him, samabhirūụhanaya applies stricter canons of etymological derivation and grammatical propriety than is done by sabdanaya which treats words in a rough and ready manner at the level of uncritically accepted conventions or usage. Since the two principles, just referred to, are going to be dealt with at some length in the process of
Nyāyāvatāra (P. L. Vaidya's edn.), p. 80. Devabhadra also observes: pratyartham sabdanivāsäditi/ Ibid., p. 81. Referring to the interdependence (anyonyāpekṣā) of word and meaning Siddhasena Gani adds: yadi yatha vyañjanaṁ tathārtho yathā cārthaḥ tathā vyañjanam, evañ hi sati vācyavācakasambandho ghatate anyathā na../ Tattvarthādhigamasūtram (Kapadia's edn.), Vol. I, p. 24. On 'vyañjanam' and 'arthaḥ' he remarks: vyañjanam vācakaḥ śabdaḥ, artho'bhidheyo vācyan/ Ibid. See also SHM on gā. 143, VBJ, p. 90.
1. sabdārūdho'rtho'rthārūdhaḥ tathaiva punaḥ sabdahl Nayācāra
(kā. 42). tato yāvanto'rthasya svābhidhāyakā dhvanayaḥ tāvanto'rthabhedāḥ/ Devabhadra on Nyāyāvatāra (P. L. Vaidya's edn.), p. 81. See also the passages dealing with the principle of avaktavya under syädvāda.

Page #344

324
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
their application to some important problems in syādvāda, it is unnecessary to enlarge upon their further implications here.
Evambhūtanaya (the 'such-like' standpoint) Evambhūtanaya, or the “such-like' standpoint, is a further specialised form of the application of the verbal method. It calls for a different designation for each of the different attitudes which the same object assumes under different conditions. It is even more rigorous than the etymological viewpoint in that it treats the different attitudes of the object denoted by different designations as numerically different entities. Purandara, for instance, should be, according to this naya, designated as such only when he is actually engaged in the act of destroying his enemies. Similarly the designation Sakra is appropriate only when he is actually manifesting his prowess. A cow ceases to be a cow when she is not in actual motion; and the onomatopoeic designation of a ghata would no more denote the ghata when the ghata is not producing the peculiar sound 'ghat, ghat'. Consequently, because of this insistence that designations should be derived from the different functional states of what is ordinarily known as the same object, Purandara becomes as different from Sakra as a cow is different from a jar.
Before concluding this chapter we may briefly notice the difference of opinions among the writers on nayavāda on the question whether the number of nayas, viz., seven, can be
1. See PNTA, VII. 40, and NKV, kārikās 17-18.

Page #345

CHAPTER X
325
reduced. There are mainly three traditions (paramparās) which are based on the number of nayas occurring in the classification adopted by each of them within the framework of reality which is conceived to be fundamentally draryaparyāyātmaka (identity-in-difference) or sāmānyaviseșātmaka (universal-cum-particular). The first one adopts a classification of seven nayas. Our treatment of the subject has been based on this classification. The order in which the seven nayas have been treated in our account, viz., naigama, sangraha, vyavahāra Țjusūtra, śabda, samabhirūdha, and evambhūta, has also been recognised by this tradition. The second tradition adopts a classification of six nayas eliminating, from its classification, naigamanaya which is the first among the seven nayas recognised by the first tradition. The third tradition reduces the number from seven to five' by subsuming samabhirūļhanaya and evambhūtanaya, the last two standpoints within the first classification, under śabdanaya, and thus treating them as two subdivisions of the latter.
Umāsvāti himself is largely responsible for the first and the third traditions. For the concerned sūtra of his great work, Tattvārthādhigamasūtra, gives, in its Digambara version, the enunciation of the seven nayas, in their natural order, whereas the same sūtra gives, in the Śvetāmbara
naigamasangrahavyavahārarjusūtraśabdā nayāḥ / Sabhāşyatattvā. dhigamasūtrāni (ed. by Motital Laghaji, Poona, Vīra Sam.
2453), I. 34. 2. naigamasangrahavyavahărarjusūtraśabdasamabhirüąhaivambhūtā
nayāḥ/ TSUJ, I. 33. 3. See the above f. n.

Page #346

326
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
version of his work, the enunciation of only five nayas, treating the last two nayas as subdivisions of sabdanaya. All the Digambara writers and most of the Svetāmbara writers also adhere to the former tradition'. The latter tradition is confined to the relevant sūtra by Umāsvāti in the Svetāmbara version of his work, as well as to the Bhāşya which is ascribed to Umāsvāti himself by the śvetāmbara writers. The second tradition, the tradition of the six nayas, is maintained by Siddhasena Divākara' with his characteristic vigour and independent judgment.
. Besides these three traditions there are four more views according to which the number of nayas is severally one, two, three or four. A passing mention may be made of these views :
When our attention is focussed on the aspect of the generic universal (mahāsāmānya), viz., being (sattā), the entire gamut of reality, which, on a fuller analysis, is universal-cum-particular, appears as one' pure and uniform existence. This abstract way of looking at reality is described as the pure and the absolute viewpoint (śuddhaniscayanaya”).
1. See, for instance, TSV, I. 33, TRAG, I. 33, etc. The notable
instances among the works of the svetambara writers, are
PNJA, Ch. VII, SRK thereon, and SM (text), p. 161. 2. Cf. ST, Intro. pp. 141-2. Jinabhadra Gaņi also follows Siddha
sena Diväkara on this point. Ibid. 3. Cf. sāmānyādeśatastāvadeka eva nayah sthitaḥ/ TSV, I. 33, kā. 2.
This line is found in Nayavivarana also : see kā. 18. 4. No material difference seems to exist between this viewpoint
and one of the subdivisions of sangrahanaya, viz., parasangrahanaya. Cf. parasangrahastāvat sarvam saditi sangļhnāti/ TSV, p. 271. Cf. also PNTA, VII. 15.

Page #347

CHAPTER X
The nayavadins consider this standpoint as a class by itself. This is the first of the four views just referred to.
327
Reality may often be viewed either from the generic or the specific angle of vision. When it is the former we are said to be governed by the generic viewpoint or samanyanaya, and when it is the latter we are said to be governed by the specific viewpoint or viseṣanaya. This classification' is the same as the substantive (dravyarthika) and the modal (paryāyārthika) viewpoints. This classification, which consists of two members, is the second of the four views.
Siddhasena Divakara suggests a classification of three standpoints although he generally accepts a classification of six standpoints. He does so by subsuming sabda, samabhirudha and evambhuta nayas under ṛjusūtranaya. This is because he considers rjusūtranaya as the foundation of the entire modal (paryāyāstika) approach to reality and, therefore, the other three as its sub-divisions (suhumabheya)". This reduction of four nayas to one, viz., ṛjusūtranaya, coupled with the further elimination of naigamanaya, leaves only three nayas, viz., sangraha, vyavahāra, and ṛjusūtra.
Lastly, Samavāyāngaṭīkā formulates a method by which we obtain a classification of four nayas. It divides naigamanaya into two subdivisions, viz., sāmānyanaigama (that which comprehends the universal aspect in reality) and viseṣanaigama (that which comprehends the particular aspect in reality), and subsumes them under sangrahanaya and vyava
1.
2.
Cf. Syadvädamañjarī (J. C. Jain's edn.), p. 323 f.
See STP, gã, 5 and the extensive comm. (TBV) thereon.

Page #348

328
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
hāranaya, respectively. Further, it brings samabhiruḍhanaya and evambhutanaya under sabdanaya so that the resultant classification we obtain under this scheme consists of sangraha, vyavahāra, ṛjusūtra and sabda nayas.'
Thus we find that we can obtain many classifications, based on different methods, even within the framework of the substantive and modal categories and of the seven standpoints based on these categories. There are many minor classifications outside the scheme of the standpoints treated in this chapter. As a matter of fact there are several subdivisions under each of the standpoints dealt with here. Any attempt at cataloguing the numerous classifications and enumerating the more numerous subdivisions will be needlessly cumbrous. For such an attempt, even if feasible,
1. naigamanayo dvividhaḥ sāmānyagrāhi viseṣagrahi ca / tatra yaḥ samanyagrahi sa sangrahe'ntarbhutaḥ, viseṣagrāhī tu vyavahäre / tadevam sangrahavyavahārarjusūtraśabdāditrayam caika iti catvāro nayaḥ/ Samavāyāngaṭīkā (quoted in J. C. Jain's edn. of Syadvādamañjarī, p. 324, f. n. 2). See also the following observation by Maladhari Hemacandra: sangrahavyavahārarjusūtralakṣaṇāh trayo'tra nayāḥ vivakṣyante/ ekastu sabdanayaḥ paryāyāstikaḥ tada catvāro mūlanaya bhavanti/ Comm. on VBJ, gā. 2264.
2. For an account of such classifications and subdivisions (upanayas) of the various nayas see Devasena's Laghunayacakram and Nayadhikarana (both printed in Nayacakrādisangrahaḥ, ed. by Vamsidhara, Bombay, 1920): Amṛtacandra's Tattvärthasara, Devasena's Alapapaddhati, and Nayavivarana by an unknown author (all these three works published in the Prathamagucchaka, Digambara Grantha Bhandara, Kaśi, ed. by Pannalal Chaudhari, Vikram Sam. 1982); Yaśovijaya's Nayarahasya and Nayapradipa (included in a collection of works: Adhyātmasāra, etc., Nyāyācārya-Yaśovijayajikṛta Granthamālā, Bhavanagar, 1909); and the portions dealing with nayavada in the

Page #349

1. CHAPTER X
329 is not likely to give considerably more light on the nature, the significance and the function of the analytical method of nayavāda than can be done by a consideration of the most fundamental division of categories (viz. dravyārthikanaya and paryāyārthikanaya) and of the seven viewpoints based thereon. Hence the present chapter has confined itself to the treatment of only the essential aspects of the subject.
The various standpoints outlined in course of this chapter offer an analysis of the manifold reality from their respective angles of vision. Such an analysis results in a wealth of partial truths which will be harmonised into a coherent scheme of knowledge by the employment of the synthetical method of syādvāda' which will be dealt with in the next chapter. The complementary functions of the two methods, viz., nayavāda and syādvāda, remind us of the oft-quoted parable of the elephant and the blind men. To express the same truth after Siddhasena Divākara's analogy nayas offer the discrete (visañjutta) or individual jewels (mani) which are strung together, by means of syödvāda, into a necklace (rayaņāvali).'
standard works like UBJ and its comm., SRK, TSV, STP and its comm., and NKC. The mutual necessity, or the complementary character of the two methods, viz., nayavāda and syādvāda, as well as the corrective character of nayavāda, in relation to the dogmatic (ekānta) character of the 'closed' systems of philosophy (this aspect of the problem will be presently touched upon in the next paragraph) is suggestively expressed by Devasena as follows: yasmānnayena vinā bhavati narasya syādvādapratipattiḥ// tamät sa boddhavya ekāntañ hantukāmena/l Laghunayacakram,
kā. 3. 2. See STP, I, gāthas 22-25.

Page #350

330 JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Further, the philosophy of standpoints is also a warning against, as well as a corrective to, the closed' or the architectonic'systems. Describing nayavāda as a 'philosophy of standpoints' a critic observes: “It is a revolt against the tendency in philosophers to build closed systems of philosophy. According to Jainism, the universe in which we live is an active universe, plastic and full of possibilities and no particular current of thought can fully comprehend it. In order to do justice to the complexity and variety of such a universe, thought must not be hurried to any easy terminus but must be allowed to follow its course freely and meander through the whole field of experience, crossing and recrossing it, so as to create a great confluence of standpoints rather than a closed system. The tendency ingrained in the philosophers to build architectonic systems is inimical to the adventure of thought...... Each philosopher approaching reality from a particular and a partial standpoint, looks upon the one he adopts as the only true standpoint. Jainism rejects the idea of the absolute which is playing havoc in the field of philosophy by creating absolute monisms, absolute pluralisms, and absolute nihilisms. By thus rejecting the absolute and the one-sided, it claims to save philosophy from the chaos of conflicting opinions. Without partiality to any one it promises to give us a theory of relativity which harmonises all standpoints.” 1
1. G. H. Rao : The Half-Yearly Journal of the Mysore University,
March, 1942, pp. 79-80,

Page #351

CHAPTER XI
Syadvada
The Dialectic of Conditional Predication

Page #352


Page #353

CHAPTER XI
SYADVĀDA (The Conditional Dialectic)
or SAPTABHANGI (The Theory of Sevenfold Predication)
In the course of our treatment of nayavāda or the theory of standpoints, it has already been observed that syādvāda is a method which is complementary to that of nayavāda, and that while nayavāda is analytical in character, syādvāda functions as a synthetical method. That is, nayavāda analyses one of the standpoints under the aspect of identity (dravyārthikanaya) or of difference (paryāyārthikanaya); and syādvāda further investigates the various strands of the truth delivered by a naya, and integrates them into a consistent and comprehensive synthesis. Each such strand is called a bhanga which is referred to, variously, as a mode, or a predication or an alternative or a possible truth. Describing the relation between the two methods Dasgupta observes: “There is no universal or absolute position or negation, and all judgments are valid only conditionally. The relation of the naya doctrine with the syādvāda doctrine is therefore this, that for any judgment according to any and every naya there are as many alternatives as are indicated by Syādvāda." The indeterminate or anekānta reality is
1. Supra, p. 303 ff. 2. HIP, Vol. I, p. 181.

Page #354

334
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
thus analysed into various standpoints and each standpoint in turn is examined with respect to its various strands of truth and, finally, all the strands are woven together into the synthesis of the conditional dialectic. Owing to their function of analysis and synthesis the methods of nayavāda and syädvāda may also be described as the disjunctive dialectic and the conjunctive dialectic, respectively.
Further, saptabhangī, or the theory of sevenfold predication, is treated as synonymous with syödväda owing to the fact that the number of possible or alternative truths under the conditional method of syādvāda are, as will be noticed hereafter, seven only.
The fact that the term 'syädvāda' is often treated as standing for the entire Jaina philosophy is due to the great importance attached to the method of the conditional dialectic with which it (the term) is most intimately connected. The controversy as to whether syādvāda' is a synonym of 'saptabhangi' or of the entire Jaina philosophy is, therefore, a needlessly scholastic one', at any rate from the philosophical standpoint.
1. Cf. "The doctrine of the Indefiniteness of Being is upheld by a
very strange dialectical method called Syādvāda, to which the Jains attach so much importance that this name frequently is used as a synonym for the Jaina system itself.” Studies in Jm., p. 16. In his introduction to AJP, Vol. I, p. X, Kapadia states that the term syādvāda is synonymous with the term anekāntavāda, and, therefore, is wider in its scope than the term saptabhangi which is only a part of it. He is, however, not sure of his position although he had adduced a few authorities in his support. But as Jacobi suggests, as seen in the above f.n., syādvāda could

Page #355

CHAPTER XI
335
Before we set forth the modes of syādvāda and their principal features, and, at the end, a few relevant criticisms against the method as a whole, it would be helpful to remember here what has already been stated' with regard to the two groups of factors which, together, determine the nature of a real. The first group of such factors is the positive one referring to the material (dravya) of the make, the spatiotemporal setting (kşetra and kāla) and the state (bhāva), like black or red, or big or small and so forth, of a jar (ghata) which may be cited here as an example. The second group of factors is a negative one referring to the material, and so on, of things like linen (pata) which form the negative counterpart (nişedha-pratiyogi) of the jarness (ghațatva) of the jar. The negative counterpart (pațatva, etc.) is, as has already been noticed, as much constitutive of the full-fledged nature of the jar as the positive one. These groups of factors are briefly described in Sanskrit as svadravyādicatusțaya and
be used in an inclusive sense of anekantavāda owing to the paramount importance attached to saptabhangī with which it (syādvāda) is primarily synonymous. Moreover, none of the authorities adduced by Kapadia decisively supports his thesis. There is at least one great and old authoritative writer, viz., Prabhācandra, who contradicts Kapadia's thesis. (Interpreting Akalanka's phrase 'syadvādekşanasaptakam', Prabhācandra writes: syādastītyādi saptabhangamayo vādah/ See the Comm. on LTP, kā. 51, in NKC, Vol. II, p. 655). But over and above all these considerations the reason why syādvāda is generally and rightly treated as synonymous with saptabhangi is that the particle syāt invariably accompanies every bhanga (or mode) in saptabhangi. It would, therefore, be perfectly natural to describe saptabhangi alternatively as syādvāda or the doctrine of syāt. It is rather strange that this obvious reason has not even suggested itself to Kapadia. Supra, pp. 154-155 etc.
1.

Page #356

336
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
paradravyädicatuştaya, respectively. They may be referred to, briefly, in English, as self-quaternary and other-quaternary. After these few preliminary observations we may now proceed to elucidate the nature and the modes of the method of the sevenfold predication.
Syādvāda' (The Conditional Dialectic) or Saptabhangi
(The Theory of Sevenfold Predication)
Syädväda or Saptabhangī is that conditional method in in which the modes, or predications (bhangāḥ) affirm (vidhi), negate (nişedha) or both affirm and negate, severally (p?thagbhūta) or jointly (samudita), in seven different ways, a certain attribute (dharma) of a thing (vastu) without incompatibility (avirodhena) in a certain context (praśnavaśāt).'
1. • Although 'syādvāda' is the most popular name it has various
synonyms like samhāravāda, sarvavastuśabalavada, akulavada sankirņavāda, tadatattvavāda, and vibhajyavāda. See AJP, Vol.
I, Intro. p. IX and f. n. 5 thereon. 2. Incompatibility includes not merely consistency with the other
modes, in the method, but also with the valid knowledge, per
ceptual (pratyakşa) or otherwise (parokşa). 3. Cf. Mallisena's definition: ekatra jīvādau vastuni ekaikasattvādi
dharmavişayapraśnavaśāt avirodhena pratyakşādibâdhāparihāreņa pộthagbhutayoḥ samuditayoś ca vidhinişedhayoḥ paryālocanayā kļtvā syacchabdalāñchito vakşyamāṇaḥ saptabhiḥ prakāraiḥ vacanavinyasah saptabhangiti giyate/ SM, pp. 142-3. Akalanka puts the same, cryptically, as follows: praśnavaśāt ekatra vastuni avirodhena vidhipratişedhakalpanā saptabhangi/ TRAG, p. 24.
The following two definitions are by Vādideva and Vimaladāsa, respectively: Ekatra vastuni ekaikadharmaparyanuyogavaśāt avirodhena vyastayoḥ samastayoś ca vidhinişedhayoḥ kalpanayā syātkārāńkitah saptadhā vākyaprayogah saptabhangi/ PNTA, EV 14 in SRK, p. 716. tallaksanaṁ tu prāśnikapraśnajñāna-prayojyatve sati ekavastuvišeşyaka-aviruddhavidhipratişedhātmaka-dharmaprakāraka-bodhajanaka-saptavākyaparyāpta-samudāyatvam/ SBT, p. 3.

Page #357

CHAPTER XI
337
That is, no modal assertion, or proposition,-simple or complex; affirmative, negative or both,-can, at once, express anything other than an aspect (prakāra) of the truth of a thing. The full truth, or rather the synthesis of truths, can result only from a well-ordered scheme of propositions (vacanavinyāsa). Each proposition is, therefore, relative to, or alternative with, the other propositions which, in their totality, present the full of the thing with respect to the particular attribute predicated of it. The Jaina maintains that saptabhangī offers such a well-ordered scheme in which the modes (bhangas) are exclusive of one another, but are at the same time, in their totality, exhaustive of the many-sided truth of the indeterminate real under discussion.
It has just been noted that the term 'syādvāda' means conditional or relativistic dialectic and is synonymous with * saptabhangi'. We may examine, somewhat more closely, the meaning of this term owing to its well-merited importance in the system : The name 'syädvāda' is due to the prefix'syāt' which is an invariable accompaniment of every predication. This particle 'syāt' which is treated by most of the Jaina writers as an indeclinable' (avyaya) although, generally, modern writers—some of them perhaps unknowingly—consider it in its obvious sense of being a form derived from the Sanskrit root 'as' (to be) in the potential mood, third form, singular.' Another term equi
1. See infra, p. 338, f.n. 3. See also Nyāyakusumāñjali by Muni
Nyāyavijaya, ed. H. R. Kapadia, Bombay, 1922, p. 177. For the other several meanings 'of' syāt' as an indeclinable, see
AJP, Vol. II, Intro. p. CXV, f.n.2. 2. OIP, p. 163.
22

Page #358

338
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
valent to syāt' is 'kathañcit” and no word or phrase in English is adequate to bring out precisely the significance of either word. Some of the suggested English equivalents like 'probably', ‘may be', 'perhaps', 'indefinitely' and so forth are inadequate, if not somewhat misleading. Its main significance lies in its emphasis on the indeterminate or manifold nature of the real which-like all other reals—comes within its purview. Indeterminateness or manifoldness means that the “reals cannot be determined as possessing only such and such attributes and not the rest”. Discussing the spirit of syādvāda a modern critic observes: “It signifies that the universe can be looked at from many points of view, and that each viewpoint yields a different conclusion (anekānta). The nature of reality is expressed completely by none of them for in its concrete richness it admits all predicates. Every proposition is therefore in strictness only conditional. Absolute affirmation and absolute negation are both erroneous”.' It is this conception of reality as extremely indeterminate in nature that is suggested or 'illumined by the term 'syāt'. A phrase which will approximately bring out this indeterministic significance of 'syāt’ would be ‘from a certain point of view', or 'in a certain sense', or some other equivalent form.
Another Sanskrit word which is used to suggest that each of the conclusions signified by the seven modes is exclusive -that is, does not encroach upon the province of the conclu
1. SM, p. 151 (text). 2. OIP, p. 163. 3. Syādityavyayamanekāntadyotakam / SM, p. 151 (text).

Page #359

CHAPTER XI
339
sions pointed out by the other modes—is 'eva' which may be translated as 'only' or 'certainly' (or in some equivalent form such as there is no doubt', or without doubt'). For instance, the first mode, syādastyeva ghataḥ, means: "In a certain sense, the jar exists without doubt." This sense of exclusion' (vyāvștyartham) seems to be more prominent than that of definiteness' (avadhāraṇārtham) although the one implies the other and both the functions—which may also be described as restrictive force and the definitive (or deterministic) force, respectively—are inherent in the word.
The syādvādins warn us against allowing 'eva' to proceed beyond its prescribed limits of exercising the restrictive and deterministically articulating influence on the mode within which it functions. That is, its force (sāmarthya) is confined to the avoidance of intrusions from the other modes and to the bringing of a definitive articulation into the mode with which it is connected. If, on the contrary, it leads to the extreme position of setting up the particular mode or aspect, with which it is connected, as the sole manifestation of the truth of the object concerned, then it
1. In the words of Vidyānanda 'eva' is 'vyavacchedaprayojanaḥ,
TSV, p. 137. Contrast the difference in the emphasis of the two functions of the word in JPN, p. 147, and Nyāyakusumāñjali, p. 178. Cf. avadhāranaṁ ca atra bhangenabhimatarthavyāvștyartham upáttam / itarathā anabhihitatulyataivāsya vākyasya prasajyeta, pratiniyatasvārthānabhidhānāt taduktam vākye'vadhāranam tāvad aniştārthanivịttayel kartavyo'yam anyathānuktasamatvāt tasya kutracit // SRK, p. 717. For further elucidation of the idea contained in this passage as well as for the three distinctions of 'evakāra' viz., ayogabodhakatva, anyayogabodhakatva, and atyantāyogabodhakatva, see SBT, pp. 21-29.

Page #360

340
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
gives rise to an absolutism which does not recognise the fact that there are other aspects (apekṣaḥ) of truth, in the object, than the one reflected by it.
Schools which build up their systems on the foundation of some single concept or the other, which represents only one facet of the many-sided truth in reality, illustrate this narrow and dogmatic approach.' They are called nirapekṣavādas in contrast to sāpekṣavada which is another name for syādvāda.
Thus whatever the aspect represented by a mode, under the conditional method of sevenfold predication the term 'syat' is an invariable accompaniment of the mode for the very reason that it suggests that the determinate context of the mode is carved out as it were from the indeterminate richness of reality, and the term 'eva' holds forth the determinate context in its clear outline. But it is necessary to note here that the two terms 'syat' and 'eva' need not necessarily be stated explicitly in a modal proposition. They are always logically inherent in the nature of a modal judgment whether or not they are verbally specified."
1. Cf. kartsnyaikadesena ca tattvārthādhigamānupapatteḥ/TSV, p. 142. 2. sarvatra syātkāro'bhyupagantavyaḥ/ NKC, Vol. II, p. 692. 3. Cf. syacchabdaprayoge sarvathaikäntavyavacchedena anekāntapratipatterasambhavat, evakāravacane vivakṣitärthapratipattivat / SBT, p. 30. Cf. also the following ka. by Vidyananda: syācchabdadapyanekāntasämanyasyavabodhane / sabdantaraprayogo'tra visesapratipattaye// TSV, p. 136, kā. 55.
4. samarthyāc ca aprayoge'rtho gamyaḥ syadevakarayoḥ/ Quoted from Siddhiviniścaya Tika in NKC, Vol. II, p. 961, f.n. 6. nanvaprayukto'pi syäcchabdo vastuno'nekāntasvarupatvasamarthyāt pratiyate, sarvatraivakäravat, iti cet satyam / SBT, p. 31. Also: aprayukto'pi sarvatra syatkaro'rthāt pratiyate/ vidhau nişedhe'pyanyatra kusalas cet prayojakaḥ // LTB and NKC thereon, in NKC, Vol. II, p. 692. See also SM (text) p. 143 f. and TSV, p. 137, ka. 56 and the comm. thereon.

Page #361

CHAPTER XI
341
Now the seven modes, or predications, and their characteristics may be treated with reference to the stock example of a jar (ghața) and its negative counterpart (nişedha-pratiyogi) linen (pața). In doing so we may first enumerate the seven modes, then explain the three primary concepts, viz., the being (astitva), non-being (năstitva) and the inexpressible (avaktavyatva), together with the elementary or simple propositions given rise to by them; and, lastly, point out the remaining complex' propositions which result from combining two or more simple ones.
The seven modes are :
(1) In a certain sense, the jar is (syādasti' ghataḥ). (2) In a certain sense, the jar is not (syānnasti ghataḥ). (3) In a certain sense, the jar is and is not (syādasti násti ca
ghataḥ").
si
1. A slight departure from the procedure laid down here will be
made in the case of the third mode (syādastināsti) which, complex proposition, will be treated jointly with the fourth simple proposition (syādavaktavya). This will be done in order to bring out the important difference between the concepts of 'consecutive presentation' (kramārpaņa) and co-presentation (sahārpaņa) involved in the two modes, respectively. For brevity. the adverb 'eva' is dropped in all the modal statements here, but the indeclinable 'syāt' is retained. Some writers interchange the sequence between the third and the fourth modes, but this does not make any material difference. While dealing with the fourth mode, Vādideva observes, in this connection :-ayam ca bhangaḥ kaiścit tặtīyabhangasthāne pathyate, trtiyascaitasya sthānel na caivamapi kaściddosaḥ, arthavišeşasyābhāvāt/ SRK, p. 719.
As a matter of fact the same ancient author, Kundakunda, states these two modes in a different order in his two works. Cf. PrSKU, II. 23, and PSKC, gā. 14.

Page #362

342
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
(4) In a certain sense, the jar is inexpressible (syādavak
tavyo ghataḥ). (5) In a certain sense, the jar is and is inexpressible (syād
astyavaktavyaśca ghataḥ). (6) In a certain sense, the jar is not and is inexpressible
(syānnástyavaktavyaśca ghațaḥ). (7) In a certain sense, the jar is, is not and is inexpressible
(syädastināsti căvaktavyaśca ghataḥ). • The three fundamental concepts making up the seven predicates, in the seven modes, singly, in twos, or all together, are 'is' (astį), is not' (năsti) and 'inexpressible' (avaktavya). A predicate containing any one of them involves a simple judgment, and a predicate containing any two or all the three of them involves a complex judgment. Consequently, the first two modes, and the fourth mode, are assertions of simple judgments and the remaining four of complex judgments. These judgments, whether simple or complex, are always made against the background of the indeterminate reality which is suggested by the qualifying term 'syāt'.
Not being absolute or independent the concepts of the being' (astitva) and the ‘not-being' (năstitva) cannot be fully explained except in their mutual relation. Mere being' is fictitious without the co-ordinate element of ‘non-being' and vice versa. Each can, however, be described as an isolated aspect of, or abstraction from, a concrete real.
1. vastuno'stitvam năstitvenāvinābhūtam nāstītvaṁ ca teneti/ SM, P.
144 (text). This idea that a real is a positive-negative complex is expressed by Candraprabhasūri as follows: svaparātmanopādānäpohanavyavasthāpanādyaṁ hi vastutvam | Candraprabhasūri's Prameya-Ratna-Kośa, ed. L. Suali, Bhavanagar, 1912.

Page #363

CHAPTER XI
343
The first mode, represented by the proposition, "In a certain sense the jar is", asserts the existent or positive aspect of the jar. By virtue of the fact that the existence of the jar is inseparably bound up with the non-existence of linen (pața) etc. in it, what the proposition signifies is that for some reason at the moment of our making the assertion, our attention is being focussed primarily' (pradhānatayā) on the existent aspect of the jar. As already explained earlier, the existent aspect of the jar is to be understood in terms of its self-quaternary, and the non-existent aspect, in terms of the other-quaternary. If, on the contrary, the jar is understood to be capable of being the linen as well (itararūpāpattyāpi), then it will surely lose its very nature (svarūpahāniprasangah) as a distinctive existent”, viz., a jar. This claim for a distinctive existence is guaranteed by the implicitly understood term 'eva' in the proposition.'
1. vivakşāvasāc cānayoḥ pradhānopasarjanabhāvah/ SM, p. 144
(text). prathame bhange sattvasya pradhānabhāvena pratītiḥ, etc. SBT, p. 9. This idea is beautifully expressed by Amộtacandra
in the following stanza: ekenākarşanti........ 2. See supra, pp. 335-336; see also pp. 154-155. 3. syātkathañcit svadravyakşetrakālabhāvarūpeṇa astyeva sarvar
kumbhādi, na punaḥ paradravyakşetrakālabhāvarūpeṇa/ tathā hi kumbho dravyataḥ pārthivattvenāsti, na jalădirūpatvena, kşetrataḥ pāțaliputrakatvena, na kanyakubjāditvena, kalataḥ saisiratvena, na vasantāditvena, bhāvataḥ śyāmatvena, na raktatvādinā/ anyathā itararūpāpattyā svarūpahāniprasanga iti / SRK, p. 717. For a discussion on svadravyādicatuștaya and its negative counterpart see supra. tatra svarūpādibhiḥ astitvamiva nāstitvamapi syādityanişțārthasya nivsttaye syādastyevetyevakāraḥ/ tena ca svarūpädibhirastitvameva na nāstitvamityavadhāryate/ SBT, p. 21.

Page #364

344
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
The second fundamental concept is 'non-being' (asat). It is embodied in the second predication, viz., “the jar is not'. This concept is easier to understand after recognising the nature and function of its positive counterpart (vidhipratigogi), viz., 'being' (sat). It is the negative (nişedha) element in the determinate context of the concrete nature of the jar in the example. That is, despite its name “negative element' this concept is a co-ordinate and constituent element in the full make-up of the jar. The fact that negation constitutes a necessary element in reality has already been dealt with, at some length, in an earlier chapter' and, therefore, nothing more than the mere mention of it is called for here. This important fact warrants the formulation of a distinctive conditional predication which is provided for in the second mode. The main significance of the second mode lies not in the false statement that the jar does not exist as the jar but in the irrefutable statement that the jar does not exist as linen or anything else. When we focus our attention exclusively (pradhānatayā) on this negative aspect of the jar, as we do under certain conditions, we are said to be viewing the jar in the perspective of the second mode. Nonexistence in the second predication is not, therefore, a vacuous predicate but is the obverse of the existent side of the object. In other words, non-existence or ‘non-being' is a determinate fact with a content and not a void. This is so because under the category of the 'non-being' all that should not figure within the 'being' of the jar is sought to be ruled out.
1. For a discussion on negation see supra, pp. 153 ff.

Page #365

CHAPTER XI
345
An objection to treating the present mode as a logical complement to the previous mode is that the two modes being mutually opposed, are self-contradictory. A refutation of this objection forms the subject of a specific account in an earlier chapter' and, indeed, runs as an undercurrent throughout the body of this work. It is, therefore, sufficient to remember here that the two elements, constituting the two modes, are not merely non-contradictory—because, if they were, the qualification 'without incompatibility”? (avirodhena) in the definition of syādvāda, would be meaningless—but are mutually necessary complements in the real. Contradiction would arise if the opposition were between the two absolute assertions “the jar exists" and "the jar does not exist”. The source of such a fault lies in the objector's mistake in construing the latter assertion, viz., “the jar does not exist”, as being equivalent to "the jar does not exist as a jar”. The true interpretation of it should be that “the jar does not exist as linen, or water etc.” There is surely no contradiction in the latter interpretation because of the fact that it is based on the assumption that the assertion is a relative (kathañcit) and determinate (niyata) abstraction from a complex and concrete real.
The third and the fourth modes may be treated jointly
3.
1. See supra, pp. 142-144 and pp. 163-169 (with f. notes). 2. See supra, p. 336.
For a refutation of a further charge that syādvāda brings about a situation of doubt (samsayavişayatvasambhava) owing to the co-existence of the relative concept of the non-existence (kathañcidasattvam ) with that of the existence(kathañcitsattvam), see SBT, pp. 6-7 and TRAG, p. 26.

Page #366

346
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
in order to bring out their difference more clearly. They are enunciated as : "In a certain sense the jar is and is not”, and "In a certain sense, the jar is inexpressible”, respectively. These two modes present the 'being' (astitva) and the 'nonbeing' (năstitva) together. But there is a great difference in the presentation (arpaņabheda) they make of the togetherness of the two modes. The third mode offers successive presentation (kramārpaņa) and the fourth one offers a simultaneous presentation (sahārpaņa) of the two concepts. These two kinds of presentation are also translated as “consecutive presentation" or "differenced togetherness", and "co-presentation" or "undifferenced togetherness”.! Although the third mode appears to be one proposition, it entails, in actual fact, two propositions which are expressed as one owing to a certain verbal facility. But the verbal togetherness does not signify a logical compresence of the propositions, or the concepts they embody.
The fourth mode introduces the third primary concept, viz., the inexpressible' (avaktavya) in its predicate. Before dealing with the Jaina conception of the inexpressible and its difference from the consecutive predicate, in the third mode, it would be of some interest to trace the dialectical stages
1. See JTA, pp. 45 and 47. 2. avaktavya is often translated as “the unspeakable” or “the un
describable". Commenting on the eminent suitability of this term'avaktavya', in an attempt to express the two primary aspects of a real (ghața) Akalanka remarks: na cānyaḥ śabdaḥ tadubhayātmāvasthātattvābhidhāyī vidyate/ ato'sau ghataḥ vacanagocarātītatvāt syādavaktavya ityucyate/ TRAG, p. 25. The nature and the importance of this concept, viz., avaktavya, will be hereafter clarified.

Page #367

CHAPTER XI
347
through which the concept of the inexpressible has evolved in Indian philosophy. An account of the evolution will not merely give us an estimate of the general significance of the concept, but also will indicate the relation in which the concept stands to similar concepts in other Indian schools. A brief account of it may, therefore, be attempted here.
We may distinguish four stages through which the concept of the inexpressible has passed in its evolutionary process. These stages, it should be noted, at the outset, do not necessarily represent a chronological order of development but a logical one.
In the first place, we meet with a tendency in the Rgveda which is suggestive of a negative attitude to the problem. The seer, confronted with the mystery of the universe which reveals both sat (being) and asat (non-being), tends to feel that the universe is neither being nor non-being (cf. the primal state of reality, he says. “Then was not non-existent nor existent...." Rgveda, the "Song of Creation", Bk. X, Hymn 129, E. T. by R. T. H. Griffith). This somewhat naïve and negative attitude that the real is neither being nor non-being may be described as one of anubhaya.
The next tendency is a positive one, and is represented by certain Upanişadic utterances like : "sadasadvarenyam" ("The great Being'as“being and not being', Mundakopanişad, II. 2.1; tathākṣāt dvividhāḥ somya bhāvāḥ prajāyante.... Ibid., II. 1. 1) and “samyuktametat kşaramakşaram ca vyaktāvyaktam bharate viśvamāśaḥ” (That which is joined together as perishable and imperishable, as manifest and unmanifest—the Lord ... supports it all. Svetāśvataro

Page #368

348
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
paniṣad, I. 8). It conceives both being and non-being as inherent in reality. Owing to the positive character this tendency may be described as the ubhaya phase (in which both are real) of the concept.
Before touching upon the third phase in the evolution. of the concept it is necessary to note two significant features in the above two tendencies. First, although both attitudes refer to the elements of being and non-being they suggest the two elements as being merely together. As yet there does. not seem to be any attempt to weld the elements into a single complex mode. Nor has any definite awareness of the impossibility of expressing the two elements, simultaneously, in a single concept dawned upon these poet-philosophers. Secondly, the two elements are conceived to be mutually opposed rather than complementary.
The third phase is met with, again, in certain other Upanisadic utterances like "sa eșa neti neti" (Bṛhadaranyakopaniṣad, IV. 5. 15); "yato vaco nivartante aprāpya manasā saha" (Taittiriyopaniṣad, II. 4); or "naiva vāca na manasa praptum sakyah" (Kathopanisad, II. 6. 12). In this phase there is a clear awareness of the unutterableness of the ultimate owing to the fact that an attempt at utterance is beset with contradictoriness. Hence, although this phase is also negative' like that of the Rgveda it marks an
1. Cf. "This world, O Kaccana,....generally proceeds on a duality, on the 'it is' and the 'it is not'. But O Kaccana, whoever perceives in truth and wisdom how things originate in the world, in his eyes there is no 'it is not' in this world. Whoever, Kaccana, perceives in truth and wisdom how things pass away in this world, in his eyes there is no 'it is' in this world...." Quoted in H. Oldenberg's Buddha, (E. T. by W. Koey, 1882, London), p. 249.

Page #369

CHAPTER XI
349
advance upon the naïvete of the latter in so far as it is distinctly aware of the inexpressibility of the ultimate. In order to distinguish this logically sophisticated phase from the simple negative tendency of the Rgveda we may call this the stage of avaktavya, or anirvacaniyată, after the Vedantic usage. Not merely the modes (kotis) of sat and asat but also the mode of sadasat are associated with anirvacaniyatā. Although anirvacaniyatā signifies unutterableness like the Jaina notion of avaktavyatva it differs from the latter by insisting upon absolute (sarvatha) unutterableness. The specific term by which the Jaina refers to this absolute type of avaktavyatva is avyapadesya which is in contrast with his own relativistic notion according to which sat and asat are jointly or consecutively (kramārpaṇayā) expressible (kathañcidvyapadesya). Incidentally, one is reminded, here, of the fact that the Buddha's 'avyākṛtas' and Nāgārjuna's conception of the ultimate as being 'catuskoṭivinirmukta are, after making allowance for the respective differences in the metaphysical tenets and, consequently, in the modes
31
1. The paradoxical situation involved in the absolute unutterableness (anabhilapyatva) of the position of catuşkotivinirmuktatvam comes in for a sharp polemic by Samantabhadra and his two commentators, Vasunandi and Akalanka. Samantabhadra contends that a strict insistence on the principle of "anabhilapyatvam' should prevent its advocates from indulging in the description of what cannot, ex hypothesi, be described (avaktavyacatuşkoṭivikalpopi na kathyatām/ AMS, kā. 46). Consequently, referring to the distinctions (kotis) like sat, asat, etc. in relation to 'the indescribable' (or possibly the Void or Śūnya) is like introducing an adjective or a qualification where there is no substantive or the qualified (asarvāntamavastu syāt aviśeşyaviseṣaṇam/ Ibid). For the entire argument, see ibid., kärikäs 45-50 and the comms. VVas and ASA thereon.

Page #370

350
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
of expressing the concept of the inexpressible, cognate with the concept of anirvacaniyată, or avyapadesya, as the Jaina. would call them.
Another important difference of this anirvacaniya view from that of the relativistic inexpressible of the Jaina, is that the former assumes sat and asat, singly or jointly, to be abso-lutely independent and contradictory while the latter assumes them to be relative and complementary. On the basis of this. difference the former view is designated as nirapekṣavāda and the latter sāpekṣavāda. The attribution of absolute. independence to sat and asat in their combination as sadasat paves the way for the development of the conception of the ultimate absolute (brahman) which utterly transcends words: and eventually constitutes itself into the transcendental realm of truth (parasatya or paramarthasat). In other words, the verbal and logical transcendentalism becomes the metaphy-sical transcendentalism which relegates the antinomies of sat,, asat and sadasat to the intrinsically unreal empirical realm.
The last phase in the dialectical evolution of the idea of the inexpressible is represented by the relativistic (sāpekṣa) view of syādvadin. The distinctive features of relativism and complementariness in the Jaina view of the inexpressible have already been brought out while contrasting them with the absolutistic view of the anirvacaniyavādin. Instead of fighting: shy of their supposed contradictoriness and other difficulties the Jania treats the two elements of sat and asat, in their combination, as a necessary, inevitable and distinctive feature of our objective experience and, consequently, tries to assign them a place in the framework of his dialectical

Page #371

CHAPTER XI
351
scheme of modal propositions.
In the above account of the four stages in the evolution of the notion of the inexpressible, in Indian philosophy, an attempt has been made to show the relation in which the Jaina notion of the inexpressible stands to the views of certain. other schools about the same notion. Incidentally, certain general features like the relativism (sāpekșatva) and the complementariness of the combining concepts of being and non-being, in the same predication, have also been brought. out in the account. Now, the status and the significance of this notion, in the scheme of the conditional dialectic (syädvāda), as well as the manner in which this notion is to be differentiated from the consecutive concept involved in the third predication of the dialectic, are yet to be further elucidated. But such an elucidatory attempt presupposes: a knowledge of the Jaina view of the relation between a word and its meaning, since the development of the concept. of the inexpressible is directly based on that view. Hence a brief reference may be made to show how the Jaina treats language as a medium of the meaning of reality.
It is a well-known fact, in Indian philosophy, that Bhartịhari, the author of the great classic on the philosophy of grammar, the Vākyapadīya, puts forth a well-finished, elaborate, and powerful thesis that “the whole order of reality, subjective and objective, is but the manifestation of word”."
1. JPN, p. 111; also cf. Vākyapadīya, with Punyarāja's Comm. (Ed.
by Gangadhara Sastri Manavalli, Benares, 1887), 1.119. The relevant kā. in Vakyapadīya is prefaced by Punyarāja as follows: idānīm sabdasyaiva jaganmūlatvar prapañcayati. Then

Page #372

352
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Expression, according to him, is "the very essence of consciousness and, hence, all that exists. Therefore, whatever exists and whatever is thought of, is completely expressible." This thesis represents an extreme viewpoint.
An antithesis to Bhartphari's viewpoint is presented by certain utterances of the Upanişads which, as noticed during the treatment of the third phase in the development of the indefinable, were, later on, developed into the well-articulated theories of anirvacanīyatā in Advaitism, and similar ideas in certain trends of Buddhism. This antithetical view maintains that the ultimate is absolutely beyond the reach of words, and, when any attempt is made to 'reach' the ultimate through words they are found utterly to conceal, nay, even distort it.
follows the kā, beginning with: śabdesvevāśritā saktirviśvasyāsya nibandhani/ Commenting on this Punyarāja further ob
serves: sarvā apyarthajātayaḥ sūkşmarūpeṇa sabdadhişthānāḥ / 2. According to Bhartshari "There is no cognition which is not
interpenetrated with word. Thought is impossible without verbal expression. It is language that makes cognition illuminative of its objects." This item is beautifully expressed by the following celebrated kā. of Bhartphari: na so'sti pratyayo loke yah sabdānugamādstel anuviddhamiva jñānam sarvan śabdena bhāsatel/ Vākyapadiya, I. 124, and for its E. T. see JPN, p. 111. For a similar importance attached to sabda by the author of Kāvyādarśa see The Philosophy of Sanskrit Grammar (P. C. Chakravarti, Calcutta University, 1936), p. 39, especially n. 2 thereon. This Philosophy of Grammar as well as his "Linguistic Speculations of the Hindus" in the Journal of the Department of Letters, Vol. XII, University of Calcutta, 1925, give an exposition of Bhartshari's general posi
tion in relation to the Mimamsakas, the Naiyāyikas and others. 3. See supra, pp. 348-350.

Page #373

CHAPTER XI
353
Here again the Jaina strikes the balance between the two extremes and maintains that reality is both expressible and inexpressible, and, that there is no contradiction in holding this position since reality is so from different points of view.' It is in defence of this position that the Jaina view of the relation between a word and its meaning comes into the picture.
According to syādvādin one word expresses one meaning only. The relationship between a word and its meaning is designated by the Jaina as vācyavācakaniyama or ekārthatvaniyama", and, by some non-Jaina writers, on the subject, as nănāśabdavāda'. Both these designations affirm their common essential conviction that a word, which appears to convey more meanings than one, is to be treated, not as one word, but as as many words as the number of meanings it appears
1.
Expressibility is a consecutive possibility and inexpressibility is an attempt at a co-presentation and, therefore, is a verbal
impossibility. 2. Commenting on his own kā, viz., arpaņabhedādavirodhaḥ pitr
putrādisambandhavat, Akalanka writes : tadyathā ekasya devadattasya jātikularūpasamjñāvyapadeśavisistasya pitā putro bhrātā bhāgineya ityevamprakārāḥ sambandha janyajanakatvādiśaktyarpanabhedāt na virudhyantel na hyekāpekṣayā piteti seşāpekṣayāpi pitā bhavati/ śeşāpekṣayā tu putrādivyapadeśabhäk/ na ca pitāputrādikȚtam sambandhabahutvam devadattaikasya na/ virudhyatetadvad astitvādayo na yānti virodham ekatra/ TRAG, p. 26.
3. See SBT, p. 61. 4. Although their actual designation is not used Vidyānanda ex
presses its meaning in the following statement : sabdasya ca prativişayaṁ mānatvāt sarvaguņānām ekaśabdavācyatāyāṁ sarvärthānām ekaśabdavācyatāpatteḥ sabdāntaravaiphalyāt/ TSV, p. 136.

Page #374

3
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
to convey.' We have already met with an expression of this attitude towards the present question under the etymological standpoint (samabhirūờhanaya”) in the chapter on Nayavāda. For instance, the word 'gauh'-we say the word' in the singular in conformity to popular usage, we should say, in strictness, a multitude of words—is said to convey a cow (pašu), a vähika, earth (pthivī), heaven (svarga), a point of compass, a word (pada), and 'a ray of light' (kirana). Similarly the English words like play, pound, file, etc. stand for more than one meaning. But the Jaina does not agree with the popular view that the very same word, among such words, can convey all the meanings associated with it by commonsense and listed against it by lexicographers. He believes',
1. Besides indicating this idea Vimaladāsa also points out the
consequences of its violation : nanu sarveşāṁ padänām ekārthaniyame nānārthapadocchedāpattiriti cenna, gavādipadasyāpi svargadyanekārthavişayatayā prasiddhasya tattvato'nekatvāt, sāděšyopacārädeva tasyaikatvena vyavaharaṇāt/anyathā sakalārthasyāpi ekaśabdavācyatvāpatteh arthabhedena anekaśabdaprayoga
vaiphalyāt/ SBT, p. 61. 2. See supra, pp. 321-324, and SBT, p. 61, where the author writes :
yathaiva hi samabhirūdhanayāpekṣayā sabdabhedād dhruvo'rthabhedaḥ tathā arthabhedādapi sabdabhedaḥ siddha eva/ anyathā vācyavācakaniyamavyavahāravilopāt/ Four of these meanings are given in the Hindi comm. on SBT, p. 61, and five of them (with the addition of the meaning, a 'word') are given in JPN, p. 117. Vāhika, though not given in either work, is widely referred to in Väkyapadiya and other works. Prabhācandra puts forth this idea of one word for one meaning in a somewhat different form (substituting that simultaneous inexpressibility of the positive and the negative meaning of a word for a similar inexpressibility of more than one meaning of a so-called synonymous word) in a polemic against a particular theory of the import of words (apohavāda). Although the theory controverted is not specifically mentioned

Page #375

CHAPTER XI
355
with Bhāmaha', that in spite of the common structural and phonetic pattern the word 'gauh', when uttered or written against any one of the several meanings, is a specific symbol different from what appears to be-and structurally and phonologically is—the same symbol against another meaning connected with it. In other words, the word 'gauh' as meaning a cow' is different from the word 'gauḥ' as meaning a 'vähika'. The fact that two or more
by him it is evidently the theory, sponsored by Ratnākaraśānti, which propounds "that a word denotes something positive, and at the same time differentiates it from all others. The two acts, one positive and the other negative, are”, according to this theory, "simultaneous. It is not a positive action followed by negation nor is it a negative act followed by assertion.' (SBNT, preface, p. 1). To quote the words of Ratnākaraśānti himself: nāsmābhirapohaśabdena vidhireva kevalo'bhipretaḥ/ nāpyanyavyāvsttimātram, kintvanyāpohavisişto vidhiḥ śabdānāmarthaḥ/ Ibid., p. 3. This view is opposed to the widely accepted view of apoha which consists in mutual negation' (parasparaparihara or anyavyāvrtti, as referred to by Ratnākaraśānti in the above quotation) between point-instants (see Stcherbatsky's The Conception of Buddhist Nirvana, p. 157, f. n. 3). Criticising the above view, of Ratnākaraśānti, that one word (dhvani) may generate in us two cognitions (vijñānadvaya), one positive and the other negative, at once, Prabhācandra writes: athaikenaiva gośabdena buddhidvayasya utpādāt na paro dhvanir mrgyaḥ; na ekasya vidhikariņo nişedhakāriņo vă dhvaner yugapat vijñānadvayalakṣaṇaphalānupalambhāt/ vidhinişedhajñānayoś ca anyonyam virodhāt katham ekasmāt sambhavaḥ/ PKM, pp. 431-2. Bhāmaha is at one with Prabhācandra on this question. See the following f. n. Bhāmaha, like syādvādin, holds that "no single word can have two fruits" or meanings, as is evidenced by the following kā. quoted with approval by Prabhācandra : nanu jñānaphalāḥ śabda na caikasya phaladvayam/ apavāda vidhijñānam phalamekasya vaḥ katham // Ibid., p. 432. Commenting on this kā., quoted also by śāntarakṣita, Kamalaśīla observes: na hyekasya vidhikariņaḥ nişedhakariņo va sabdasya yugapadvijñā nadvayalaksanaṁ phalam/ TSS., kā. 913, and the P. thereon.

Page #376

356
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
meanings have the same linguistic symbol (samjñā) is, according to the Jaina, simply a matter of linguistic coincidence just as in the case of two persons, who are entirely different from each other in many respects, having the same name, say Devadatta. The farthest that the Jaina could go concerning the question of the occurrence of the same symbol against several meanings is that he can conceive every instance of its occurrence as being only similar (sadṛśyopacārādeva)', linguistically, to the other instances.
In the general position taken up by the Jaina on the problems of the philosophy of language our concern here is with the specific problems of the relation between word and
1.
See supra, p. 354, f. n. 1.
2. The following works deserve attention for their treatment of the problems concerning the philosophy of language from the Jaina point of view: PKM, ch. III, pp. 391-465; NKC, Vol. II, ch. IV, pp. 530-604, ch. V, pp. 636-54, ch. VI, pp. 690-766:
3. Closely allied to this problem of word-meaning relation is the question whether the meaning of a word resides in the word as a natural power (svabhava) or is associated with it as a mere convention. In the debate on this question the Mimāṁsaka takes the former view and the Naiyayika takes the latter view. In conformity with his reconciliatory attitude the Jaina takes the middle position between these two extremes. Accordingly, he believes that although meaning is natural potency of a word it needs the aid of convention for its discovery as well as its expressive use. "The power," it is said, "is natural, but is made effective only by convention. We have to learn the relation of words to facts and this shows that knowledge of convention is necessary for understanding the meanings of words. But the knowledge of convention is only a means to the discovery of the power of the word and does not make the postulation of power unnecessary or redundant." (JPN, p. 119). But whatever the relative proportions of the role played by power and convention, the stand taken by the Jaina with regard to the problem of word-meaning relation is consistently maintained (cf. ekapa

Page #377

CHAPTER XI
357
meaning (samjñāsaṁjñi-sambandha). Having noticed that he favours the view that every distinctive meaning needs a distinctive word (pratiniyatavācyavācakabhāva) for its medium, we may now resume our treatment of the copresentative predicate of the inexpressible (avaktavya) and of its differentiation from the consecutive-presentative, in their respective modes, under the method of seven-fold predication.
If the above principle of one word for one meaning is granted, then the concept of the inexpressible in syādvāda lends itself to an easy grasp. The fourth mode, viz., "The jar is inexpressible", is an attempt to present the aspects of 'being' and 'non-being' in the jar, at once (yugapat), and, as primary meanings.
Although both these aspects are the inalienable features of the jar a simultaneous attention to both aspects is a psychological and logical impossibility. Moreover 'being' conveys the meaning of one aspect and 'non-being' of the other. A conveyance of both meanings at once is incompatible with the established rule, viz., vācyavācakaniyama. To say that one word, like avaktavya in the present
dasya pradhanataya anekadharmavacchinnabodhakatvam nāstīti niyamasyoktatvāt / SBT, p. 66. See also supra, pp. 42, 354 (f. ns. 1, 2 and 4) and 374 (f. n. 1), as well as pp. 42, 43 (f. n. 3), 44 (f. n. 1). For a further discussion on how collective terms like army (sena), forest (vana) etc., and how terms expressing plural number, like trees (vṛkṣaḥ) etc., can be explained in terms of the Jaina conception of word-meaning relation, see SBT, pp. 63-67. The relevant grammatical points, bearing on the explanation of these terms, especially the terms involving the plural number, are also mentioned by the way, often in opposition to Panini's view on the matter (ibid.).

Page #378

358
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
context, can convey both the meanings at once would not be correct, according to the Jaina, because of two reasons : first that no word can convey more than one meaning at a time, and secondly, even if it can, our mind can attend to them only in a successive order. A further mention of these difficulties incident to the concept will presently be made.
No such difficulties arise in the case of the third predication which is concerned with presenting, consecutively (kramārpaņayā), the two aspects of being' and 'nonbeing', although it is expressed in the shortened form of a single proposition. It is because of this consecutive element that this mode is aptly called differenced togetherness' (or distinguishable togetherness) in contrast to the phrase
undifferenced togetherness' (or undistinguishable togetherness) which signifies avaktavya. Both aspects are 'primitive', co-ordinate and mutually irreducible. Our mental (perceptual and other) as well as expressive (bodhanasāmarthyam and vacanasāmarthyam) faculties being ill-adapted for comprehending and asserting both of them at once in their primary togetherness (ubhayaprādhānyam) we can grasp and assert them either successively or confess to our inability to do if asked to do it at a single stroke. This is precisely what is done under the third and the fourth modes, respectively.
It is contended that the third mode is redundant, or
1. iti sakalavācakarahitatvādavaktavyar vastu yugapatsattvāsat
tvābhyām pradhānabhāvārpitābhyām akrāntañ vyavatişthate/ SM,
p. 145. 2. See SBT, p. 62, PNTA, IV. 15, and SRK thereon in SRK, pp.
718-719.

Page #379

CHAPTER XI
359
superfluous, and, therefore, is unjustifiable' as a distinctive alternative in the dialectical scheme of conditional predications. The reason pleaded for this contention is that it does not exhibit any unique or novel feature of objective reality, being almost a mechanical conjunction of the two simple predicates contained, severally, in the first and second modes. While not denying the fact that it is a conjunctive predication, the Jaina does not agree with the contention that it is redundant. A conjunctive proposition embodies a judgment of consecutive togetherness which is no less a unique or distinctive moment of factual significance than any other, and, cannot, therefore, be expunged from a methodological scheme which pretends to synthesise, exhaustively, all possible moments, or alternatives, within its fold.
A similar consideration applies to the concept of the inexpressible. This concept confronts us with a logical, psychological, and verbal failure to embody, within any one symbol (sanketa), the two fundamental aspects of reality, with equal prominence. This is indeed an inconvenient predicament inevitable in any effort to take in, in one sweep, the whole range of truth. . But the inconvenient or the impossible is not necessarily illogical or untrue. Limitations in the range of human powers of thinking and expression entail such a failure. But even this failure is a necessary step to be reckoned with in the dialectical method of syādväda. Being at once an inescapable and unique fact in our grappling with reality it cannot but be provided for as a dialectically
1. See SBT, p. 69 f.

Page #380

360
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
possible or alternative position. K. C. Bhattacharya clearly expresses this position in the following words: "It (the inexpressible) is objective as given : it cannot be said to be not a particular position nor to be non-existent. At the same time it is not the definite distinction of position and existence : it represents a category by itself. The commonsense principle implied in its recognition is that what is given cannot be rejected simply because it is not expressible by a single positive concept. A truth has to be admitted if it cannot be got rid of even if it is not understood."
The remaining three' modes are derived from combining the three primary concepts in such a way that these three, combined with the four modes hitherto expounded, exhaust all the possible or alternative aspects of truth concerning the object in question (the jar in the present instance).
The fifth mode, viz., “In a certain sense, the jar is, and is inexpressible”, asserts the truth of the 'being' of the jar conjointly with the inexpressible truth of the compresence (or co-presentation) of the being and the non-being of the same object. This is a combined mode derived from
1. JTA, p. 48. 2. After mentioning the four ways'or'steps' of the formula'
(syādvāda) Hiriyanna observes : "It may seem that the formula might stop here. But there are still other ways in which the alternatives can be combined. To avoid the impression that those predicates are excluded, three more steps are added. The resulting description becomes exhaustive, leaving no room
for the charge of dogma in any form.” OIP, p. 165. 3. Cf. yugapad asān ketikenaikenaiva śabdena vaktum vivaksitah
kumbhah samś ca vaktavyaś ca bhavati, ghato'vaktavyas ca bhavatītyarthaḥ deśe tasya ghațatvät, deśe căvaktavyatvād iti/ SHM in VBJ, gā. 2232.

Page #381

CHAPTER XI
361
bringing together the first and the fourth predicates in a complex expressed judgment.
The sixth mode, viz., "In a certain sense, the jar is not, and is inexpressible”, asserts the truth of non-being of the jar conjointly with the inexpressible truth of the compresence of the being' and the non-being' of the same object.' This, again, is a combined mode resulting from bringing together the second and the fourth predicates in a complex expressed judgment.
The seventh and last mode, viz., “In a certain sense, the jar is, is not, and is inexpressible", combines the consecutive presentation of the being' and the 'non-being', conjointly with the co-presentation or compresence, of the 'being' and the ‘non-being' of the jar. This mode is evidently a resultant of bringing together, within its fold, the third and the fourth predicates of the conditional dialectic.
Unlike the first two and the fourth predications, each of which contains a simple predicate involving one of the three primary concepts, the fifth, the sixth and the seventh predications are, severally, complex in structure, the last one being the most complex among them. This is so because they are assertions of complex judgments.
These are the seven modes each of which contains one
1.
Cf. tathā, ekadese paraparyāyaiḥ asadbhāvenārpito višeşito'nyasmit:s tu dese svaparaparyāyaiḥ śadbhāvāsadbhāvābhyām sattvāsattrabhyām yugapad asanketikenaikena śabdena vaktum rivakşitch kumbho'sannavaktaryaś ca bhavati / Ibid. Ibid.
2.

Page #382

362
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
alternative truth while all together contain the total truth of a situation in which any feature predicated of a real is investigated. The reason why the number of modes is neither more nor less than seven is because, it is believed, any complex situation is amenable to treatment by this seven-fold technique if one is an adept in using it. It means every conceivable problem' regarding a factual situation can be reduced to the terms of these seven angles from which it can be viewed. Any attempt to add or subtract a mode will be found to be impossible since addition finds the mode already there, among one of the existing seven modes, and subtraction will mutilate an essential limb from the scheme. In the event of a fresh situation arising with regard
1. Jinabhadragani sums up the complex position of Syādvāda in
the following gathā: sabbhāvā sabbhāvobhayappio saparapajjaobhayao/ kumbhākumbhāvattavvobhayarūväibheo so// VBJ., gā. 2232. Explaining this gā. Maladhāri observes :.. tathā hi-svaparyāyaiḥ, paraparyāyaiḥ, ubhayaparyāyaiś ca sadbhävena, asadbhāvena, ubhayena, cărpito višeşitaḥ kumbhaḥ kumbhākumbhāvaktavyobhayarūpādibhedo bhavati--saptabhangī pratipadyata ityarthaḥ / SHM in VBJ, p. 910. In a similar manner Vidyananda and Samantabhadra sum up the entire position in two and four kārikās, respectively. See AMS, 14 and 16; and
TSV, p. 128, 49-52. 2. For instance, applying syādvāda to the postulation that reality
is one we get the following conclusions: the reality is one (syādekah); the reality is non-one or many (syädanekah); the reality is both one and many (syādekaścānekaśca); the reality is inexpressible (syadavaktavyaḥ); the reality is one and also inexpressible (syādekaścāvaktavyaḥ); the reality is many and also inexpressible (syādanekaścāvaktavyah); and, the reality is one, many and also inexpressible (syädekaścānekaścăvaktavyaśca). Cf. bhangăssattvādayassapta samśayāssapta tadgatäh/ jijñāsāssapta sapta syuh praśnāssaptottarāņi ca// quoted in SBT, p.8. This refutes objections such as the one by Kumārila who feels that "When

Page #383

CHAPTER XI
363
to the same problem under a different setting it can again be dealt with by the application of this method. All the conclusions accumulating from the varied application of this method will, eventually, give us a conspectus of the complex truth with regard to a problem. The whole method, therefore, may be said to be one which helps a patient inquiring mind in its adventure of mapping out the winding paths running into the faintly known or unknown regions of reality and bringing them within the bounds of human knowledge.
Now we may consider some important criticisms directed against syādvāda.
A few criticisms, considered by the critics directing them to be fatal to syādvāda, come from the vedāntic quarters, especially advaitic absolutism. This is inevitable since advaitic absolutism and syādvādic relativism are diametrically opposed to each other in their fundamental presuppositions. Although these criticisms originated with the founders of the vedāntic schools it would be better to see them (the criticisms) through the eyes of the modern exponents of vedānta. An elaborate refutation of them lies outside the limits of this work. A few remarks may, however, be made in answer to them inserting, here and there, some observations of the critics themselves who, to some extent, answer, perhaps somewhat unwittingly, their fellow-critics.
seven principles are admitted then there may also be a hundred" (saptabhangi prasadena śatabhangyapi jāyate) PSKC, p. 14. Chakravarti observes in this connection : "The complex nature of a real object or dravya is amenable to description by the above seven and only seven propositions.” Ibid., p. 12.

Page #384

364
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Hiriyanna, by no means an unsympathetic exponent even of Jainism, observes : “The half-hearted character of the Jaina enquiry is reflected in the seven-fold mode of predication (sapta-bhangi), which stops at giving us the several partial views together, without attempting to overcome the opposition in them by a proper synthesis. It is all right so far as it cautions us against one-sided conclusions but it leaves us in the end....with little more than one-sided solutions. The reason for it, if it is not prejudice against absolutism, is the desire to keep close to common beliefs." In another work of his also the same criticism is made with some more incisive touches on one or two points. One additional point mentioned there, on the authority of Bādarayaņa, Sankara, and other absolutists, is that "If all our knowledge concerning reality is relative, they say (the old Indian critics like Sankara, Rāmānuja etc.), the Jaina view must also be relative. To deny this conclusion would be to admit, at least, one absolute truth; and to admit it would leave the doctrine with no settled view of reality, and thus turn it into a variety of scepticism."
From these observations we may elicit two points of criticism : The first one is that syādvāda is a form of "electicism” because it is "a mere putting together of the several partial truths without "a proper synthesis”. This is expressed even more trenchantly by a follower of Hiriyanna who, after characterising “The Jaina Philosophy of Relativity" as
1. OIP, p. 172 f. 2. EIP, p. 69. 3. Ibid., p. 68.

Page #385

CHAPTER XI
365
"refreshingly modern"" and as "a happy blend of naturalistic and spiritualistic, realistic and idealistic tendencies", observes: "Just the philosophy' is perhaps what many contemporary philosophers would say. But on close scrutiny, it fails to satisfy some of the deepest metaphysical and religious aspirations of mankind. Its fascination is the fascination of an eclecticism-a philosophy of compromise." ." This is said to be "the central defect" arising from the relativism of syādvāda.
The second criticism of syādvāda, made by Hiriyanna, is that it (syādvāda) is "variety of scepticism". "Prejudice against absolutism", the reason imputed by Hiriyanna for such "scepticism", is even more conclusively advanced by Radhakrishnan, who, after mentioning "the strong points of the theory of knowledge of the Jainas and defending it against the attacks of the Vedantins" remarks: "Yet in our opinion the Jaina logic leads to a monistic idealism (by which he means 'the hypothesis of the absolute') and so far as the Jainas shrink from it they are untrue to their own logic."
After casually complementing syädvāda as the "most searching dialectic" Belvalkar gives such a twist to his statement of syadvāda that it is made to sound like scepticism,
1. "Anekāntavāda or The Jaina Philosophy of Relativity", G. Hanumantha Rao, The Half-yearly Journal of the Mysore University, March, 1942, p. 79.
2. Ibid., p. 87 f.
3. IP, Vol. I, p. 305.
4.
"The Undercurrents of Jainism" (an article in the Indian Philosophical Review, Vol. I, No. 1, 1917, edited by A. C. Widgery and R. D. Ranade, Bombay), p. 33.

Page #386

366
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
or rather, the even more non-committal attitude of "agnosticism". He writes : "As is well-known, this theory denies the possibility of any predication : S may be, or may not be, or may both be and not be, P. With such a purely negative or agnostic attitude one cannot have any dogma; and Sankarācārya lays his finger accurately on the weakest point in the system when he says— As thus the means of knowledge, the knowing subject, and the act of knowledge, are all alike, indefinite, how can the Tirthankara (Jaina) teach with any claim to authority, and how can his followers act on a doctrine the matter of which is altogether indeterminate?'"
Besides this charge of agnosticism Belvalkar manages to raise a fresh issue which, however, he links up with agnosticism. He remarks that “the dialectic (of syādvāda) could not have sprung up from the same teacher or one and the same philosophical background”.? This means that, according to him, syādvāda is incompatible with, or at any rate, does not naturally emerge from, the Jaina philosophy of identityin-difference. Connecting this issue with his favourite charge of agnosticism he writes in his notes on Brahmasūtrabhāsya, “Śankarācārya, no less than the Sūtrakara,.... succeeds in proving that, as a mere ‘anaikāntika' (sic) theory of predication, the Syādvāda must return upon itself and end in doubting the doubter himself”: Rao strengthens him by placing in his hands a further weapon in the form of charging syādväda with "self-contradiction". To quote Rao's own
1. Ibid., p. 32. 2. Ibid. 3. BBSB, p. 181 (Notes).

Page #387

CHAPTER XI
367
words: “We see the tendency to please everybody and to compromise and in trying to compromise it involves itself in self-contradiction; the saviour of all systems is committing suicide".! From this joint attack of Belvalkar and Rao emerges the third charge that syidvāda is contradictory to the Jaina philosophical position in general as well as that it is self-contradictory.
A systematically elaborate answer to each of these three charges, viz., eclecticism, agnosticism and contradiction including self-contradiction, lies, as already mentioned, outside the scope of this work. Moreover, if a glance is cast over the various chapters of this work, especially these last three parts, it will be seen that these criticisms have been met in spirit, if not in letter, according to the lights vouchsafed to the Jaina thinkers. We may, therefore, confine ourselves to a few remarks against each charge drawing upon, wherever possible, the remarks by the critics themselves who, on certain points, answer one another.
We may begin with the first criticism : Is syādvāda an eclecticism? Eclecticism is a "term applied to a system of philosophy or theology that strives to incorporate the truth of all systems, or the method by which it is made”. “Since an eclectic system is a loose piece of mosaic work, rather than an organised body of original thought", it is said, “the term in philosophy has come to be one of reproach”.?
1. "The Jaina Instrumental Theory of Knowledge" (Proceedings of
the First Indian Philosophical Congress, 1925, Calcutta University, Calcutta, 1927), p. 135. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge, ed. by S. M. Jackson, New York and London, 1909, Vol. IV, p. 71.
2.

Page #388

368
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
We may examine syādvāda in the light of the definition of eclecticism as given here. So far as the first statement in the definition of eclecticism is concerned, there is nothing objectionable to syādváda. For syādvāda is a “system of philosophy" which, "strives to incorporate the truth of all systems” as well as a "method by which it (that is, 'incorporating the truth of all systems ') is made.” The critics also do not grudge this claim on the part of Jainism but they are doubtful whether Jainism can provide an adequate answer to the charge that it is a loose piece of mosaic work rather than an organised body of original thought". Further, even as regards this charge they are keen not so much on the point of syödvāda being a product of "an original thought” as on that of its being “a loose piece” in which the parts do not hang together in an organised or systematic closeness. This emphasis on the question of closeness should be the leading factor in our refutation of the present charge.
That the seven modes of syādvāda express "partial truths” which do not firmly hang together, as a logical necessity, is only the prima facie view of syādvāda. That
1. The types of the absolute (nirapeksa) doctrines repudiated by
each of the seven modes may be gathered from the following passage: samkhyena yat sattvaikantyam upāgatam tannivȚttaya adyo bhangah/ śūnyatvavädyupāgata-asattvaikāntyanivsttaye dvitiyo bhangaḥ/ kālābhedena sattväsattve tärkikopāgate tadanaikān. tyāya tstiyo bhangah/ vedāntinā anirvacanīyatvam upāgamyate tadanaikāntyāya caturtho bhangah/ sattvavadinam prati sattvenāni. rvacanīyatvaṁ pūrvapakșiņodbhāvitam, asattvavādinań prati asattvenānirvacanīyatvar pūrvapakşiņodbhāvitam, sadasattvavădinaṁ prati tābhyāmanirvacaniyatvaṁ pūrvapakşavādinodbhāvitam, tadanaikāntyadyotanāya avasiştāstrayo bhangāḥ/ Quoted in BBSB (Notes), p. 183.

Page #389

6
CHAPTER XI
their truths are severally partial is true. But from this it does not necessarily follow that they are an odd collection of arbitrary half truths' lacking in proper synthesis, or system. The fact that the truths presented by them are alternative truths which individually touch every aspect, and, together, all the aspects, of a situation in a systematic way has been borne in upon us, in some measure, in the course of the present chapter. A certain actuality, like the jar, an example with which the modes have been illustrated, is looked at from the possible seven angles and the deliverance of these modal judgments does represent a synthesis which is neither 'loose' nor unsystematic. Unfortunately no nonabsolutistic system can provide the sort of idealistic synthesis' which "can satisfy the deepest metaphysical and religious aspirations of mankind". Under the absolutistic prescription a' proper synthesis' can proceed from the sole real, viz., the absolute. But one fails to understand where the need for a synthesis' arises in the case of a secondless absolute. A 'synthesis' of any description is possible when there are more alternatives, loose or firm, than one. If it is so, it is impossible to understand the protests of the absolutists against any lack of synthesis when no synthesis at all is possible with a unitary absolute. By 'synthesis', therefore, the absolutist critics mean an obliteration of alternative truths in favour of the one asserted by the fourth mode in syadvāda. It is not a mere 'prejudice against absolutism'1
369
24
1. Ascribing this 'prejudice' to the syādvädin has elicited a counter-charge of a 'speculative bias' from a critic in rather strong terms: "...And it would be the height of sacrilege to the system of Jaina speculation to attempt an unnecessary twisting

Page #390

370
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
but a deep difference in the approach of philosophical analysis that prevents syādvädin from throwing in his lot with a despotic absolute which brooks no rivalry from coexistent truths and, therefore, should raise no issue of synthesis. It is the love of a superficial reconciliation that lies at the back of the claim that syādvāda is a "halfway house to absolutism”. Thus the synthesis achieved by syādvāda is one of discriminative unity rather than of a secondless unit which cannot be approached either by synthesis or by analysis. The conception of a unitary absolute has been, no doubt, a constant lure for mysticism and poetry. But the sphere of reality is often less lofty and very much less ethereal. Absolutism escapes from the harrowing problems of existence under the master excuse of the absolute. But it is through a tortuous process of analysis and synthesis that the secrets of elusive reality grudgingly yield themselves. This is provided for by nayavāda and syādvāda respectively.
If by lack of proper synthesis' syādvādin does not instal an absolute at the centre as well as on the periphery of his philosophy and logic syādvāda pleads guilty to the charge and will be satisfied to remain an unrepentent sinner. The threat of its modes not hanging together does not baffle him since he is not unwilling to retain to some extent distinctive
of facts, to impose an absolutist or monist interpretation on their conception of truth and reality, as has been done in some quarters, on the plea of pseudo-simplicity, or perhaps owing to speculative bias". Narimohana Bhattacharya's paper on "The Jaina Conception of Truth and Reality" (Proceedings of the First Indian Philosophical Congress, 1925, Calcutta University, Calcutta, 1927), p. 165.

Page #391

CHAPTER XI
371
ness or even exclusiveness in the modal conclusions. He feels perhaps that the distinctions of the modal truths look to an absolutist eye grossly exaggerated. But they are bound together also by the unity of the dialectical principle under which the aspects of a factual situation are investigated and synthesised. Syādvāda may be an eclectic synthesis from the point of view of absolutism which demands a 'block' universe or a 'seamless coat' but is not unfaithful to the genius of its own philosophical position which demands a discriminative synthesis which it undoubtedly is. The next charge against syādvāda, viz., that it is "a variety of scepticism” or “agnosticism”, may now be examined. A sceptical or agnostic philosophy or method is based on "the opinion that real knowledge of any kind is unattainable”.' More particularly agnosticism is an attitude of "knownothingness”. Therefore a sceptic is defined as "One who, like Pyrrho and his followers in Greek antiquity, doubts the possibility of knowledge of any kind, who holds that there are no adequate grounds for certainty as to the truth of any proposition whatever”?
It is not possible to see how syādvāda could be called sceptical or agnostic while it firmly repudiates any such association and has its genesis, at least partially, in an attempt to fight, as will be presently shown, the agnosticism (ajñānavāda) of Sañjaya. According to syādvāda each modal truth is valid so far as it goes, and, instead of being annulled, it is supplemented and transfigured, by the other six
1. 2.
O. E. D. under "scepticism". Ibid. under "sceptic".

Page #392

372
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
modal truths, all the seven truths together giving us a full range of the complex truth concerning a particular problem of a fact in reality. Each truth is as it were a single note in the full scale of seven notes which are severally distinctive, in respect of place and function, and, in their totality, interdependent and exhaustive. The aim of syādvāda being to achieve such a comprehensive synthesis which includes the specific cognitive manifestations it is not correct to describe the doctrine-either as a theory or as a method—as sceptical or agnostic. Often it is true that a doctrine leads to results contrary to those it intends to achieve. But syādvāda seems to be such a one to a superficial observer. Speaking of anekāntavāda in general, a writer makes the following statement which is fully applicable to syadvāda which is an essential method of anekāntavāda. “Unfortunately”, he observes, "it has been a neglected branch of study; it is often misunderstood or half-understood; that is why it is often adversely criticised”. It is of paramount importance that a philosophical theory or method must be first understood in terms of its own canons or motives before it is subjected to any critical examination by alien criteria. From the exposition of syädvāda in the present chapter, as well as from the few remarks specifically made here, in answer to the present charge, one will find, at least in some measure, that the charge of scepticism is not well-founded. Because nowhere do we come across, in the accounts of syādvāda, the expression of the attitude of "know-nothingness" or of
"References to Syādvāda in the Ardhamāgadhi Canon", Proceedings and Transactions of the Ninth All India Oriental Conference, Trivandrum, Dec. 1937, Trivandrum 1940, p. 668.

Page #393

CHAPTER XI
1.
373
"the opinion that real knowledge of any kind is unattainable". In the light of these few observations on the non-sceptical attitude of syādvāda we find that Belvalkar gives a rather misleading twist to the nature of the method as a whole by stating the doctrine in such form as he has done.' As has already been remarked, even historically syādvāda arose in an appreciable degree, 'as a happy way leading out of the maze of the ajñānavāda' (agnosticism). This is expressed by Jacobi in the following passage: "Would any philosopher have enunciated such truisms, unless they served to silence
An attempt to assess the historical claims of the different opinions on the development of syädväda and its modes will take us far afield. However, for some information on these opinions, see SM, Intro. pp. LXXIV-LXXVIII; Syādvādamañjarī (by Mallişeṇa, Ed. with Hindi Tr. by Jagadiśacandra, Bombay, 1935) 26-29; NVVS, Prastāvanā, pp. 35-50; AJP, Vol. II, Intro. pp. CX-CXII; PrSKU, pp. LXXXVI-LXXXVIII: A. N. Upadhye's paper on "References to Syādvāda in the Ardhamāgadhi Canon", Proceedings and Transactions of the Ninth All India Oriental Conference, Trivandrum, Dec. 1937, Trivandrum, 1940 pp. 669-672, and The Canonical Literature of the Jainas (H. R. Kapadia, 1941, Bombay), pp. 218-220.
Whatever might be the value of the opinions as to the nature, the extent and the sources of influence on the development of syādvāda and its modes, we may safely assert that, philosophically speaking, syādvāda was an inherent necessity in the system of anekantavāda. This fact of its having been an inherent philosophical necessity need not invalidate the equally important fact that syādvāda enlarged its range in answer to a varied external demand. No doctrine or method, particularly the latter, can, after all, arise from an atmosphere of a philosophical vacuum. The great critical philosophy and the critical method, of Kant, if it could possibly arise at all, would be little more than an idle speculation were it not for the rationalistic dogmatism of Descartes, Spinoza, and Leibniz as well as for the empiristic scepticism of Locke, Berkeley, and Hume. Any genuine growth in philosophical thinking is thus a story of action and reaction between vital ideas.

Page #394

374
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
some dangerous opponents? The subtle discussion of the agnostics had probably bewildered and misled many of their contemporaries. Consequently the syādvāda must have appeared to them as a happy way leading out of the maze of the ajñānavāda. It was the weapon with which the agnostics assailed the enemy, turned against themselves. Who knows how many of their followers went over to Mahāvira's creed convinced by the truth of saptabhanginaya?"
As regards the third charge, directed by Belvalkar, that syadvāda cannot spring from "one and the same philosophical background", and the supplementary charge, directed by Rao, that syadvada itself suffers from "self-contradiction", we may allow the charges to be answered by three of their fellow critics themselves. Answering Rao and Belvalkar in order, of course unwittingly, Radhakrishnan observes: "Sankara and Rāmānuja criticise the Saptabhangi view on the ground of the impossibility of contradictory attributes co-existing in the same thing". After quoting the relevant passage from Rāmānuja he proceeds to say: "The Jains admit that a thing cannot have self-contradictory attributes at the same time and in the same sense. All that they say is that everything is of a complex nature, and identity in difference. The real comprehends and reconciles differences in itself. Attributes which are contradictory in the abstract co-exist in life and experience. The tree is moving in that its branches are moving and it is not moving since it is fixed to its place in the ground"." Then incidentally dis
1. JSJ, Pt. II, Intro. p. XXVIII.
2. IP, Vol. I, p. 304.

Page #395

CHAPTER XI
375
missing another point of criticism that “the Saptabhangi doctrine is of no practical utility” or “an expression of personal opinion over which we need not linger", the same critic proceeds to answer the specific charge by Belvalkar: “Nor can it be contended” he observes, “that the Saptabhangī doctrine is inconsistent with the other views of the Jaina philosophy. It is a logical corollary of the anekāntavāda, the doctrine of the manyness of reality. Since reality is "multiform' and ever changing, nothing can be considered to be existing everywhere and at all times and in all ways and places, and it is impossible to pledge ourselves to an inflexible creed".! Confirming Radhakrishnan on the second point of criticism, which is the main charge of Belvalkar, Hiriyanna briefly observes : “The thought underlying it (saptabhangī) is inherent in the doctrine, although its clear enunciation seems to belong to the present period.” The same opinion is suggestively expressed by R. G. Bhandarkar also.
Incidentally Belvalkar's misleading interpretation of anekāntavāda' as an 'indefinite' doctrine-which in turn means a shifting or evasive doctrine—is corrected by Hiriyanna's correct description of it : Interpreting 'anekānta' as meaning 'indeterminate in nature' Hiriyanna remarks: “This does not, however, mean that it is altogether indefinite but only that it cannot be defined absolutely. It is this idea that is conveyed by the sevenfold statement as a whole and it expresses the nature of reality in several steps, because no single mode of doing so is adequate to it.”
1.
Ibid., EIP, p. 67.

Page #396

376
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
We gather from a consideration of the present charge, as well as of the other two charges, that the critics advance contrary criticisms even on the same point, as well as from the same viewpoint, viz., monistic absolutism. The irony of the situation is particularly evident in the fact that contradictory arguments are presented on the very issue of alleged contradiction and self-contradiction in syādvāda. Among others there seem to be two important reasons underlying the misconceived criticisms of the critics on syädvāda : The first is that they do not note an explicit reference in the very definition of syödvāda to the important condition that the modal judgments should not be 'incompatible' (avirodha) not merely with the other modal judgments within the sphere of syādvāda, but also with 'valid knowledge, perceptual, or otherwise', in the entire sphere of experience. Had this been fully recognised Rao's criticism on ‘self-contradiction’ would perhaps be not as strong as it is now. Then, 'the Saviour of all systems' would be found not committing suicide' but performing its benevolent mission of saving the absolutisms from their excessive dogmatism.
The second reason is their failure to realize the true significance, place and function of negation in Jaina philosophy, in general, and in syādvāda in particular. Since this subject has been dealt with, at several places, it is needless to enlarge upon it any further.
In concluding this chapter it would not be out of place to quote a passage by R. B. Perry which bears a striking resemblance to syādvāda in suggesting a procedure which, as in syädvāda, is at once a critique on 'vicious intellectualism'

Page #397

CHAPTER XI
377 (which brings in its train errors like 'exclusive particularity') and a positive programme of dealing with reality. Perry observes ".... 'vicious intellectualismo proceeds as though a conceptual truth about a thing were the exclusive truth about the thing; whereas it is true only so far as it goes. Thus the world may be truly conceived as permanent and unified, since it is such in a certain respect. But this should not lead us, as it has led certain intellectualists, to suppose that the world is therefore not changing and plural. We must not identify our world with one conception of it. In its concrete richness it lends itself to many conceptions. And the same is true of the least thing in the world. It has many aspects, none of which is exhaustive of it. It may be taken in many relations or orders, and be given different names accordingly. As it is immediately presented it contains all these aspects as potentialities for the discriminating and abstracting operations of thought. “Vicious intellectualism' thus rests on the errors that I have already referred to as 'exclusive particularity' and 'definition by initial predication': the false supposition that because a thing has one definable character, it cannot also have others and that because it has been named first for one of its aspects, the others must be reduced to it or deduced from it.”
Continuing further, he writes: “Now the fault of 'vicious intellectualism 'evidently lies in the misuse of concepts, and not in the nature of the concepts themselves. There is nothing to prevent our supposing that the abstractness of
1. “Vicious intellectualism' is explained as follows: "To conceive
a thing as a, and then assume that it is only a, is to be 'viciously'intellectual.” (p. 234).

Page #398

378
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
single concepts can be compensated for by the addition of further concepts, or by some conceptual system in which the presence and interrelation of many concepts is specially provided for. In this case the remedy for the shortcomings of concepts would be more concepts. ...."
Syādvāda gives, in its own way, such a "conceptual system in which the presence and interrelation of many concepts is specially provided for”. Or, rather, the “concepts”, or to put the matter in terms of syädvāda, “the modes of truth” are "not merely many truths, but alternative truths" under the “conceptual system” of syādvāda.

Page #399

CONCLUSION
This study commenced with a search for a balanced view of reality in which the elements of identity and difference would find their due place. The search led us to the formulation of a scheme involving five possible approaches to the problem. The first four approaches were examined and found wanting. Mere identity was recognised to be as inadequate as mere difference as an explanation of the total experience of reality. Nor did the other two possibilities, viz., identity-in-difference in which identity subordinates difference and identity-in-difference in which difference subordinates identity, prove to be any more satisfactory. Only a co-ordinate view of identity-in-difference, it was discovered, could serve as a satisfactory basis for the totality of our ontological experience. Confirmation for this view was sought from the schools of Kumārila, Kant and Whitehead.
Next, certain flaws or fallacies (dosas) alleged to vitiate the Jaina view-the most important being that of contradiction-was examined and refuted from the Jaina. viewpoint. The analysis revealed that some critics who claimed to discern these fallacies were labouring under a misapprehension as to the nature and importance of the idea of significant or determinate negation which forms the pivot of the Jaina viewpoint. Others, it was pointed out, confused the externalistic view of identity and difference (designated

Page #400

380
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
as ubhayavāda or miśravāda) with the integral view of identity-in-difference which is the Jaina view of reality. It was found that in order to expose this confusion the Jaina thinkers had to emphasise the necessity of treating everything real as not merely a co-ordinate and integral synthesis, but also as a unique (jātyantara) one.
A further pursuit of our inquiry into some aspects of reality brought out the truth that only the principle of a co-ordinate synthesis could form an adequate basis for their existence and function. It was noticed, for example, that outside the framework of identity-in-difference the solution to the problem of relation (sambandha) would have to take the form either of crude realism or of subjectivism. Similarly, it was found that the principle of causal efficiency (arthakriyākāritvam) could not function in a reality which was not a co-ordinate synthesis of identity-in-difference.
After discussing two controversies which shed some light on the notions of substance (dravya) and attribute (paryāya as well as guņa) the ontological part of the present study was concluded.
The second part of the work concerned itself with some problems of epistemology with particular emphasis on anekāntavāda, nayavāda and syödväda. It was not possible to treat other questions of epistemology, e. g., the ways of knowing and the nature of validity.
Anekāntavāda—the doctrine of manifoldness (or 'indeterminateness')—was shown to be not so much a method as the source or presupposition of the other two methods. When viewed in the light of this doctrine reality was seen to reveal

Page #401

CONCLUSION
381
itself not merely as many (anantātmakam) but also as infinitely manifold (anantadharmātmakam) or indeterminate in every detail. The principle of distinction, the motive force of realism in any form, was observed to have reached its logical terminus in this doctrine. Hence the claim that anekāntavāda is the most consistent form of realism in Indian philosophy. In the process of substantiating this claim the several logical phases in the evolution of anekāntavāda (from a simple state of distinction to that of infinite diversification, encompassing the physical and the mental realms) were traced and illustrated.
It was next pointed out that Nayavāda, the doctrine of standpoints (the analytical method or methods), and Syādvāda, the dialectic of conditional predication, or simply the conditional dialectic (the synthetical method), stemmed from Anekāntavāda. The first was observed to be a scheme of analytical methods and the second a synthetical method involving seven progressive steps. Together the two methods were looked upon as forming a comprehensive scheme of correlative instruments designed to aid an apprehension of the complex structure of reality. Each method, or each step involved in it, was individually treated and its significance and implications were duly noted.
The work has aimed throughout at a comparative treatment of the problems under discussion. It was endeavoured to avoid strained and far-fetched comparisons or contrasts. Further, the treatment in this study of criticisms and controversies has been undertaken not from the citadel of sectarian dogmas but from the standpoint of a certain system of logic, a system deserving of betterattention than ithas hitherto received.

Page #402


Page #403

ABHI
AGAM
with
AGAV
AGAV
AJP
with
AJPV
AMS
with
VVas
and
ASA
AR
ASA
AVD
with
SM
AVV
BBSB
Bib. Ind.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbreviations, in alphabetical order, of the works consulted or quoted
Abhidhanarajendra (a lexicon of Jaina Prakrit, explained in Sanskrit) by Vijayarajendra, 7 vols., etd. by Dīpavijaya and others, Ratlam, 1910-1925.
Akalanka-Granthatrayam by Akalanka, with his own Comm. Vivṛti (AGAV), etd. by Mahendra Kumar Sastri, Singhi Jaina Granthamala, Ahmedabad - Calcutta, 1939. See AGAM with AGAV. Anekantajayapatākā by Haribhadra, 2 vols., with Haribhadra's own Comm., and with Vivarana (AJPV)- Supercomm. by Municandra, etd. by H. R. Kapadia, Baroda, 1940 (vol. I) and 1947 (vol. II).
Apta-Mimāmsă by Samantabhadra, with Vṛitti (VVas) by Vasunandi and Aṣṭasati (ASA) by Akalanka, etd. by Gajadharalal Jain, Sanatana Jaina Granthamala, Kāśī, 1914.
Appearance and Reality, by F. H. Bradley, Oxford, 1940, (10th impression).
See AMS.
Anyayogavyavacchedadvātrimśika by Hemacandra, with Mallisena's Comm. Syadvādamañjarī, etd. by A. B. Dhruva, Bom. Sans. and Prak. Ser., Bombay 1933.
Aṣṭasahasri by Vidyananda, etd. by Vamsidhara, Nirnayasagar Press, Bombay, 1915.
The Brahmasutra of Badarayana with Sankara's Bhāṣya, 2nd edn., etd. by S. K. Belvalkar with E.T. and Notes, Poona, 1931. Bibliotheca Indica.

Page #404

384
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
BP
Bom. Sans. Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series.
and Prak. Ser.
Bhāṣāpariccheda with Siddhānta-Muktavali of with Viśvanātha Pañcānana, etd. by E. Roer, Bib. SMV Ind., Calcutta, 1850. BPV Bhāṣapariccheda by Viśvanātha, etd. with E. T.
by J. R. Ballantyne, Calcutta, 1851. BPVK Bhāṣāpariccheda (or Kārikāvali) by Viśvanātha
Pañcānana, with Comms. Muktāvali, Dinakarīya and Rāmarudrīya, etd. by Laksmana Sastry,
Kāśi Sans. Ser., Benares, Samvat 1890. BSB
The Brahmasūtra Śänkara Bhäsya, with Comms. Bhāmatī, Kalpataru and Parimala, etd. by Anantakrisna Sastry, Nirnayasagar Press,
Bombay 1938. Bud. Log. Buddhist Logic by Th. Stcherbatsky, 2 vols.,
Leningrad, 1930 (vol. II) and 1932 (vol. I). CCBS The Central Conception of Buddhism, by Th.
Stcherbatsky, Price Publication Fund, London,
1923. СЕ Collected Essays, by F. H. Bradley, 2 vols.,
Oxford, 1935. Chow. Sans. Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series.
Ser.
CKCPR
CP
A Commentary to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason by Norman Kemp Smith, Macmillan & Co., London, 1930. Compendium of Philosophy (Abhidhammātthasangaha), PTS edn., London, 1910. This work contains "A Compendium of Relations" in Pt. VIII. The Critical Philosophy of Kant, 2nd. edn., by Edward Caird, 2 vols., James Madehose & Sons, Glasgow, 1909. Critique of Pure Reason by Kant, E. T. by J. M. D. Meiklejohn, George Bell & Sons, London, 1887.
CPKE
CPRM

Page #405

CPRMax
EIP
EJNG
ELB
ERE
GOS
HBT
with
HBTA
HBTA
HIP
ILE
IP
IPC
IT
JAOS JPN
JPPSM
25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
385
Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, E. T. by F. Max Muller, Macmillan & Co., London, 1881.
The Essentials of Indian Philosophy, by M. Hiriyanna, George Allen and Unwin, London, 1949. An Epitome of Jainism, by P. C. Nahar and K. C. Ghosh, Calcutta, 1917.
The Essentials of Logic, by Bernard Bosanquet, London, 1903.
Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics, etd. by James Hastings, Edinburgh, 1918. Gaekwad's Oriental Series.
Hetubinduṭikā of Arcata, with Aloka by Durveka, etd. by Sukhlalji Sanghavi and Muni Shree Jinavijayaji, GOS, Baroda, 1949.
See HBT.
A History of Indian Philosophy, by S. N. Dasgupta, 4 vols., Cambridge, 1922, 1932, 1940, and 1949.
Indian Logic in Early Schools, by H. N. Randle, London, 1930.
Indian Philosophy, by S. Radhakrishnan, 2nd edn., 2 vols., George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1931.
Proceedings of the Indian Philosophical Congress, 1927, Calcutta Univ., 1929, pp. 159-166 ("What is Samavāya", by M. Hiriyanna).
Indian Thought, a Quarterly Journal devoted to Sanskrit Literature, etd. by G. Thibaut and Ganganatha Jha, Allahabad (not continuing now). Journal of the American Oriental Society. The Jaina Philosophy of Non-Absolutism, by Satkari Mookerjee, Bharati Mahavidyalaya Publications, Jaina Series, No. 2, Calcutta, 1944. The Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods, etd. by Frederick J. D. Woodbridge, 2 vols.

Page #406

386
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
JPTS JSJ
JTA
JTBY
JTVS
Vol. I, Jan.-Dec., 1904. (This contains two articles by William James on "A World of Pure Experience”: (i) pp. 533-543 and (ii) pp. 561570.) Vol. II, Jan.-Dec., 1905. (This contains an article by William James entitled "The Thing and Its Relations", pp. 29-41. This article and the two articles in Vol. I deal with the problem of relations.) Journal of the Pali Text Society. Jaina Sūtras, Pt. I and Pt. II, E. T. by H. Jacobi, Oxford, 1895. (The Sacred Books of the East, Vols. XXII and XLV respectively.) - The Jaina Theory of Anekāntavāda, by K. C. Bhattacharya. An article in the Philosophical Quarterly, the Indian Institute of Philosophy, Amalner, April, 1925. Jaina Tarkabhāṣā by Yasovijaya, etd. by Sukhalalji Sanghavi, Ahmedabad-Calcutta, 1938. Jainatarkavārtikam with the Vștti by Santyācārya, etd. by Vitthal Shastri, Benares, 1917. Kārikā. Immanuel Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, by Norman Kemp Smith, Macmillan & Co., London. 1950. Khandanakhandakhadya by Śrī Harșa (with extracts from the Comms.of Anandapūrņa, Citsukha, Sankaramiśra and Raghunātha), etd. by Lakshmana Sastri Dravida, Chow. Sans. Ser., Benares, 1914. Kant's Metaphysic of Experience, by H. J. Paton. 2 vols., George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1936. See PBTS. Kant's Theory of Knowledge, by H. A. Prichard, Oxford, 1909. See SPS. H. T. Colebrooke's Miscellaneous Essays, etd. by T. E. Colebrooke, 2 vols., London, 1873.
Ka. KCPR
KKS
KMEP
KR KTKP
M Mis. Es.

Page #407

BIBLIOGRAPHY
387
Mon.
MSV with NR MV NB NBD NBTD with NBD NBV ND with NBV NEMC
The Monadology and the other Philosophical Writings by Leibniz, E. T. by Robert Latta, O. U.P., London, 1951. Mīmāṁsa-śloka-vārtika of Kumārila with Nyāyaratnākara of Parthasarathi Miśra, etd. by Rama Sastry Tailanga, Chow. Sans. Ser., Kāśī, 1898. See PVD. See TS with TD and NB. See NBTD. The Nyāyabindu-tīkā with the Nyāyabindu, both by Dharmottara, etd. by P. Peterson, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1929. See ND. The Nyāya-Darśana with the Nyāya-Bhāsya of Vātsāyana, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1865.
NK NKB
NKC Comm. on LTB
NKV
The Nature of Existence, by J. M. E. McTaggart, 2 vols., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1921. See PDS. Nyāyakośa, by Bhimacarya Jhalakikar, 3rd edn., Bom. Sans. and Prak. Ser., Poona, 1928. Nyāya-kumuda-candra, by Prabhācandra, a Comm. on Laghīyastraya of Bhattākalanka, etd. by Mahendra Kumar Shastri, Manik Chandra Digambar Jain Series, Bombay, 1938. The Naya-Karņikā by Vinaya Vijaya, etd. with E. T. by M. D. Desai, The Library of Jaina Literature, Vol. III, Arrah, 1915. Nyāyamañjarī by Jayanta Bhatta, etd. by G. Sastri Tailanga, Viz. Sans. Ser., Benares, 1895. Materials for the Study of Navya-Nyāya Logic, by D. H. Ingalls, Harvard Oriental Series, Cambridge (Mass.), 1951. See MSV. The Nyāya Theory of Knowledge, by S. C. Chatterjee, Calcutta University, 1939.
NM
NNLI
NR NTN

Page #408

388
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
NVTT
NVVS
OIP
OKEW
PB
PBTS with KR
PC PDS with NK PKEW
Nyāyavārtikatātparyațīkā by Vācaspati Miśra, etd. by Rajeshwara Sastri Dravid, Kāśi Sans. Ser., Benares, 1925. Nyāyāvatāravārtika-vștti by śānti Sūri, etd. by Dalsukh Malvania, Singhi Jain Series, Bombay, 1949. Outlines of Indian Philosophy, by M. Hiriyanna, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1931. Our Knowledge of the External World, by Bertrand Russell, reprinted, George Allen & Unwin Ltd., London, 1949. Prasastapädabhāsyam, with Sūkti, Setu and Vyomavati, etd. by Gopinath Kaviraj and Dhundiraj Sastri, Chow. Sans. Ser., Benares, 1924. Prasastapādabhāsyațīkāsangraha, with Kāņādarahasya, by Sankara Miśra, etd. by Vindhyesvari Prasada Dvivedin, Chow. Sans. Ser., Benares, 1917. See SP. The Padārthadharmasangraha of Prasastapāda, with the Nyāyakandali of Śrīdhara, E. T. by G. Jha, reprint from the Pandit, Benares, 1916. The Philosophy of Kant Explained, by John Watson, James Madehose & Sons, Glasgow, 1908. See TSS with PK. See TSS with PKJha. Prameya-Kamala-Mārtanda by Prabhācandra, 2nd edn., a Comm. on Pariksāmukha-Sūtra of Māņikyanandi, etd. by Mahendra Kumar Shastri, Bombay, 1941. Principles of Logic by F. H. Bradley, 2nd edn., 2 vols., Oxford, 1940. Pramāņa-Mimāṁsā by Hemacandra, etd. with Bhāṣā-tippaņa, by Pt. Sukhlalji Sanghavi, Singhi Jaina Granthamala, Ahmedabad-Calcutta, 1939. Pūrva-Mīmāṁsā in its Sources by Ganganatha Jha, etd. with a Critical Bibliography, by Umesha Mishra, Benares Hindu University, Benares, 1942.
PK
PKJha PKM
PL
PMHS
PMS

Page #409

Problems
PrSKU
PSKC
PVD
with
MV
RML
RRS
SBE
SBNT
SBT
SCKCE
SDS
with
TRD
SDSC
SHM
SJJ
BIBLIOGRAPHY
389
The Problems of Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, Reprinted, Home University Library, London, 1951.
Pravacanasara by Kundakundācārya, with the Sk. Comms. of Amṛtacandra and Jayasena and the Hindi Comm. of Pande Hemaraja, etd. with Eng. Intro. and E. T. by A. N. Upadhye, Bombay, 1935.
Pañcāstikāyasăra by Kundakunda, etd. with Eng. Intro. and E. T. by A. Chakravarti, The Sacred Books of the Jaina Series, Arrah, 1920. Pramāṇavārtika by Dharmakirti, with a Vṛtti by Manorathanandin, etd. by Rahula Sankrityayana, published as Appendixes to BORSJ, Vols. XXIV XXXI, 1938-40.
Relations in Modern Logic, by Rasvihari Das, in Calcutta Review, Nov.-Dec. 1932.
Reign of Realism in Indian Philosophy, by R. Naga Raja Sarma, Madras, 1937. Sacred Books of the East.
Six Buddhist Nyaya Tracts, etd. by Haraprasad Shastri, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1910. Saptabhangitarangini by Vimaladāsa, Rayacandra Granthamala, Nirnayasagar Press, Bombay, Vira Samvat 2431.
A Short Commentary on Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, by A. C. Ewing, Methuen & Co. Ltd., London, 1938.
Saddarśana-samuccaya, by Haribhadra, with Tarkarahasyadipika by Gunaratna, etd. by L. Suali, Calcutta, 1905.
The Sarva-darśana-samgraha
by Madhava Acarya, E. T. by E. B. Cowell and A. G. Gough, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., Ltd., London, 1914.
See VBJ with SHM.
Studies in Jainism, containing three articles by H. Jacobi, Jaina Sahitya Samsodhaka Studies, No. 1, etd. by Jina Vijaya Muni, Ahmedabad, 1946.

Page #410

390
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
SJPT
SKIS
SKL SM SMV SNDeW
SP with PC SPD
SPS with
Studies in Jaina Philosophy, by Nathmal Tatia, pubd. by the Jaina Cultural Research Society, Benares, 1951. The Sankhyakārikā of iśvarakrsna, etd. with E. T. by S. S. Suryanarayana Sastri, Univ. of Madras, 1948. See SVS. See AVD with SM. See BP. The Self and Nature (containing "The Theory of Relations”, ch. IX, pp. 212-273), by DeWitt H. Parker, Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1917. Saptapadārthi by śivāditya, with Padārthacandrikā by Seșānanta, etd. by V. S. Ghate, 2nd edn., Bombay, 1919. Sambandha-pariksā by Dharmakīrti. Kārikās from this work have been quoted in PKM, p. 504 ff. Saptapadārthi by Sivāditya, with Mitabhāsiņi by Madhava, and two other Comms., etd. by Amarendra Mohan and Narendra Chandra, Calcutta Sans. Ser., Calcutta, 1934. Syādvāda-ratnākara, 5 parts, by Vādidevasūri, a Comm. on Pramānanayatattvālokālaňkāra by the same author, Ārhata-mata-prabhākara Ser., etd. by Motilal Laghaji, Poona, Vira Sam. 2452-2457. The Sānkhya System, by A. B. Keith, 2nd edn., The Heritage of India, Calcutta, 1924. Sanmati-Tarka by Siddhasena Divākara, etd. by Sukhalal Sanghavi and Bechardas Doshi, E. T. from Gujarati, Dalsukh Malvania, Bombay, 1939. The Soul Theory of the Buddhists (The Appendix to the Abhidharmakośa of Vasubandu), E. T. with Intro. and Notes by Stcherbatsky, Petrograd, 1920.
SRK Comm. on PTNA
SSKH
ST
STBS

Page #411

STP
SV Jha
SVS
with
SKL
SVTJ
SWK
TB
TD TPSJ
TRAG
TRD
TS
with
TD and
NB
TSS
with PK
BIBLIOGRAPHY
391
Sanmati-tarka-prakaraṇa, 5 pts., by Siddhasena Diväkara, with the Comm. Tattvabodha-vidhäyini (also known as Vada-maharnava) by Abhayadeva Sūri, etd. by Sukhlal Sanghavi and Bechardas Doshi, Gujarat Puratattva Mandira Granthavali, Ahmedabad, Sam. 1980. Ślokavārtika, E. T. by Ganganatha Jha, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1901.
Śāstra-vārtā-samuccaya of Haribhadra, with the țikā Syadvādakalpalata by Yaśovijaya, etd. by Pt. Hargovinddas Trikamchand Shaw, Sethi Devchand Lalbhai Jain Pustakoddhar Series, No. 16, Bombay, 1914. Ślokavārtikaṭīkā (Śārkarikā) by Bhaṭṭiputrajayamiśra, etd. by C. Kunhan Raja, University of Madras, Madras Univ. Sans. Ser., Madras, 1946.
Six Ways of Knowing, by D. M. Datta, George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1932. Tarkabhāṣa of Kesavamiśra, Pts. I and II, etd. by A. B. Gajendragadkar and R. D. Karmarkar, Poona, 1934.
See TS with TD and ND.
Tattvopaplavasimha by Jayaraśi Bhaṭṭa, etd. by Sukhlalji Sanghavi and R. C. Parikh, GOS, Baroda, 1940.
Tattvärtharajavārtika, a Comm. on Umāsvāti's Tattvärthadhigamasutra by Akalanka, etd. by Gajadharalal Jain, Sanatana Jaina Granthamala, Kāśī, 1915.
See SDS.
Tarka-Sangraha and Dipikā, by Annambhaṭṭa, with Nyaya-bodhini by Govardhana, etd. by Y. V. Athalye and M. R. Bodas, 2nd edn., reimpression, Bombay Sans. and Prak. Ser., Bombay, 1930.
Tattvasangraha by Santarakṣita, with Pañcikā by Kamalasila, 2 vols., etd. by Embar Krishnamacharya, GOS, Baroda, 1929.

Page #412

392
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
TSS with PKJha TSUJ
TSS with PK, E. T. by Ganganatha Jha, 2 vols., GOS, Baroda, 1937 and 1939.
TSV (Comm. on TSU)
UV VBJ with SHM
Tattvärthadhigamasūtra by Umāsvāti, etd. with E. T. by J. L. Jaini, Sacred Books of the Jainas, Arrah, 1920. Tattvārtha-śloka-vārtika by Vidyānanda, a Comm. on Tattvārthādhigamasūtra by Umāsvāti, etd. by Manoharlal Sastry, Nirnayasagar Press, Bombay, Vira Sam. 2444. See VD with UV. The Viseşāvaśyaka Bhäsya by Jinabhadra Gani Kşamāśramaņa, with the Vivști Sisyahitā by Maladhāri Hemacandra, etd. by Haragovinda, Benares, Vira Sam. 2437. The Vaiseșika Darśana of Kaņāda with the Comm. Upaskāra by Sankara Miśra, etd. with his own Vivști by J. Tarka Panchanana, Bib. Ind., Calcutta, 1891. Vizianagaram Sanskrit Series.
VD with UV
Viz. Sans. Ser. VND
VPSN
Vädanyāya by Dharmakirti, with Śantarakṣita's Comm. Vipañcitārtha, etd. by Rahula Sankrityayana, Appendix to JBORS, Vol. XXI, Pt. IV, Patna, 1935. Vedānta-Pārijāta-Saurabha of Nimbārka and Vedānta-Kaustubha of Śrīnivāsa (Comms. on the Brahmasūtras), 3 Pts., E. T. by Roma Bose, Calcutta, 1940, 1941, and 1943. See AMS.
VVas
Some works, which have not been widely used, have been referred to, with full particulars in the course of the text itself.

Page #413

INDEXES
I (A). INDEX TO WORKS MENTIONED IN THE
BIBLIOGRAPHY (in abbreviated form)
CPP 245 CPRM 134 CPRMax 134
DNB 209
ABHI 311 AGAM 174, 290, 310 AGAV 141, 146, 174, 196 AJP 48, 49, 143, 144, 155, 156,
188, 190, 195, 196, 286, 334,
336, 337, 373 AJPV 190 AMS 133, 141, 309, 310, 349,
362 AR 207, 253, 254, 255 ASA 133, 310, 349 AVD 188, 243 AVP 173 AVV 174, 196
EIP 66, 84, 88, 112, 114, 117,
118, 191, 364, 375 EJNG 250, 256 ELB 228 EPI 97 ERE 62, 101, 108, 211, 253
FrBH ("Fragments of Bharts
prapanca" by Hiriyanna in Proceedings and Transactions of the Third Oriental Conference, Madras, 1924, pp. 439-450) 68, 69
GAM 321
BBSB 15, 141, 222, 223, 224,
225, 366, 368 Bib. Ind. 15, 48 BM 146 BOV (“Bhartsprapanca: An
Old Vedantin”-an article contributed to the Indian Antiquary, 1924, pp. 77-78)
68, 69, 70, 71 BP 207 BPV 206 BPVK 240 BSB 15, 223, 241, 242 Bud. Log. 19, 20, 21, 38, 43,
44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 56, 239
HBT 56, 144, 173, 175, 187, 190,
196, 197, 289 HBTA 196, 197 HIL 24, 48 HIP 17, 33, 36, 62, 78, 81, 113,
115, 170, 175, 333 HML 211
CCBS 38, 39 CE 208, 244 CKCPR 134 CPKE 136, 286
ILA 108, 110 ILE 206 IP 21, 69, 74, 76, 80, 84, 108,
114, 208, 223, 365, 374, 375 IPC 206, 208, 238, 240 IT 242

Page #414

394
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
NTN 237, 238 NV 208 NVTT 174 NVVS 48, 49, 174, 196, 197,
288, 289, 321, 373
JAOS 16, 17 JPN 20, 151, 167, 195, 237, 239,
339, 351, 352, 354, 356 JPNM 275 JPPSM 212, 230, 241, 245 JPTS 211 JRAS 62, 116 JSJ 260, 288, 374 JTA 316, 360 JTBY 310, 319, 322 JTVS 196
OIP 21, 43, 44, 62, 63, 72, 84,
88, 108, 112, 150, 157, 187, 191, 192, 208, 276, 337, 338,
360, 364 OKEW 45, 46, 160, 161, 245
KCPR 285, 286 KKS 222, 237 KMEP 135 KR 210 KTKP 136, 286
LTB 318, 340 LTP 335
Mis. Es. 207 MML 239 Mon. 198 MSV 36, 48, 49, 133,
141, 153, 154, 208 MV 56, 212, 214, 289
134,
PB 109, 110, 209, 210 PBTS 210 PDS 103, 207 PHO 223 PK 21, 23, 49, 53, 140, 141, 144,
174, 196, 211 PKEW 134, 135 PKM 48, 141, 146, 147, 168,
169, 174, 196, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 218, 219, 220, . 221, 222, 225, 226, 227, 229, 230, 231, 232, 277, 307, 310,
355, 356 PL 208, 209, 250, 251 PMHS 129, 139, 141, 145, 146,
168, 169, 171, 173, 174, 177, 178, 180, 188, 190, 193, 195,
259, 288, 289 PMS 240 PNTA 310, 312, 313, 316, 317,
318, 321, 324, 326, 336, 358 Problems 206, 244, 295 PrR 131, 132 PrSKU 63, 260, 261, 262, 263,
282, 304, 341, 373 PSKC 256, 262, 341, 363 PTS 211 PVD 50, 56, 173, 211, 212, 214,
222, 289
NBD 38, 173 NBT 51 NBTD 19, 39, 173 NBV 206 NEEP 169 NEMC 232 NK 207 NKB 191, 192, 213 NKC 48, 49, 169, 175, 196, 197,
211, 212, 215, 216, 218, 220, 283, 307, 310, 314, 318, 321,
329, 335, 340, 356 NKL 317 NKV 304, 316, 317, 318, 319,
320, 324 NM 174, 177, 206 NNLI 237, 240 NR 133
RML 210, 237, 238, 239 RRS 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117,
118, 119
SBE 15, 16, 17, 73

Page #415

SBNT 49, 50, 56, 187, 355 SBT 144, 145, 146, 165, 339, 340, 343, 345, 353, 357, 358, 359, 362
SCKCE 136
SJJ 126, 304
SJPT 196
SKIS 223
SKL 146, 308
SKR 214
SDA 207
SDAC 112
SDS 243
SDSC 65, 85, 116, 143
SHM 129, 308, 311, 312, 323,
360, 361, 362
INDEXES
SNdeW 230, 245
SP 108, 109, 110, 210
SPS with M 210
336,
354,
SM 133, 141, 142, 146, 150, 151, 157, 158, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 180, 188, 196, 200, 210, 238, 240, 242, 243, 290, 312, 326, 336, 338, 340, 342, 343, 358, 373
SMV 207
SN 239
SVS 146 SVTJ 133
SRK 141, 142, 146, 147, 174, 211, 212, 215, 216, 220, 221, 222, 241, 242, 266, 283, 307, 310, 311, 312, 313, 314, 316, 317, 326, 329, 336, 339, 340, 341, 343, 358
SSKH 223
ST 259, 283, 289, 326
STBD 42
STBS 38, 40
STP 129, 187, 188, 237, 258, 259, 290, 312, 320, 327, 329
STSU 264, 265
SVJha 36, 47, 132, 133, 154, 171
SWK 206
TB 191, 207, 283
TBV 48, 142, 146, 147, 169, 173, 174, 189, 190, 240, 241, 258, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282, 286, 320, 327
TKD 151
TP 62 TPSJ 196
TRAG 129, 170, 195, 265, 278, 279, 281, 282, 283, 314, 326, 336, 345, 346, 353
395
TRD 109, 142, 144, 146, 147, 149, 152, 154, 169, 170, 171, 172, 187, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 207, 243, 290
TS 187, 209, 210, 213, 278, 280 TSS 20, 21, 23, 39, 41, 48, 49,
53, 140, 141, 144, 174, 189, 196, 211, 240, 289, 355 TSU 311
TSUJ 127, 313, 325
TSV 129, 196, 211, 212, 214, 215, 216, 220, 221, 222, 313, 314, 316, 320, 321, 326, 329, 339, 340, 353, 362
TSVJ 282
UBJ 329
U on VD 210, 240 UV 213
V 240
VBJ 129, 308, 311, 312, 319, 323, 328, 360, 361, 362
VD 213
VM 211
VND 56
V on U, VD 210
V on VD in VD 108
VPSN 77, 79, 81
VVas 133
VVas on AMS 141, 349

Page #416

I (B). INDEX TO OTHER WORKS
Brahmavādin, The 76, 83, 91,
116 Bșhadāraṇyakopanişad 16, 348 Buddha 348 Buddhism in Translations 40 Buddhist Philosophy 49 Buddhist Philosophy of Uni
versal Flux, The 20, 39, 46,
52
A. B. C. of Relativity, The 297 Abhidhammakosavyākhyā 41 Abhidhamma Pițaka 211 Abhidhammattha-sangaha 211 Abhidhānarājendra 3 Abhidharmakośa 19 Abhidharmakośavyākhyā 42 Adhyātmasāra 328 Advaitasiddhi 292, 295 Āhnika 289 Ālāpapaddhati 328 Albert Einstein: Philosopher
Scientist 297, 298 Āloka (on HBT) 187 Anekāntavāda-Nirāsaḥ 22, 23 Anuvyākhyāna 116 Aphorisms of the Vedanta 15 Apohasiddhi 50 Ardha-Māgadhi Dictionary 3 Arthaśāstra 61-62 Aspects of Advaita 36, 294, 296 Avassaya and Its Nijjutti 127 Avatārikā 83
Canonical Literature of the
Jainas, The 127, 373 Carakasamhitā 62 Central Conception of Bud
dhism, The 20 Chāndogya 31, 73 Compendium of Philosophy,
The 211 Conception of Buddhist Nir
vāņa, The 39, 45, 355 Concept of Nature, The 159 Critical Exposition of the
Theory of Leibniz, A 198 Critic of Pure Reason 136
Basic Conception of Buddhism,
The 41, 43, 44, 57, 63 Basis of Realism, The 254 B.C. Law Volume 86 Bhagavadgitā 61 Bhāmati 15, 223, 242 Bhāşātippaņi (N) 129 Bhāşyabhāvaprakāśikā 15 Bhattamīmāmsā 289 Bibliotheca Buddhica 47 Brahmasūtrabhāşya 366 Brahmasūtras 17, 77, 78, 116,
119, 142, 289 Brahmasūtra with the Comm.
of Bhaskarācārya 72, 73, 74, 77
Darśanodaya 77, 96 Davvasamgaha 282 Dhavalaţikā 321 Dictionary of Philosophy and
Psychology 159 Die Lehre der Jainas 3 Dinkarī 239 Dravyasangrahavștti 282
Early Greek Philosophy 276 Early History of Indian Philo
sophy, The 62 Early Sankhya 62 Encyclopædia Britannica 159,
297

Page #417

INDEXES
397
Epitome of Jainism, An 255 Essays on Truth and Reality
254 Examination of Sir William Hamilton's Philosophy, An 158, 159
Khandanakhandakhādya
242 Laghunayacakram 321, 328, 329 Logic 129, 237 Logic of Hegel, The 253, 255
First Principles 158 First Principles of the Jaina
Philosophy, The 304 Fragments from Dinnāga 51
Gaudabrahmānandi 292
Half-Yearly Journal of the
Mysore University, The 303,
330, 365 Handbook of Psychology 159 Hegel 98 Hindu Chemistry 62 Hindu Philosophy 66 History of Buddhist Thought
63 History of Pre-Buddhistic In
dian Philosophy, A 288
Madhva's Philosophie des
Vişņu-Glaubens 116 Mādhyamakāvatāra 57 Madhyamapratipada 288 Madhyamika-Kārikā 150 Mādhyamika Sūtra 32 Mahābhārata, The 65 Mahā Sudassana Suttanta, The | Digha Nikāya 52 Majjhima-Nikāya 288 Manimekhalai 64 Mind 162, 250 Mūlamādhyamikakārikā 289 Mundakopanişad 347 Mysticism and Logic 43, 45, 46
Idealistic Thought in India 92,
96 Identity-in-difference 92 Indian Antiquary 3, 61, 62, 68,
78
Indian Historical Quarterly 63 Indian Idealism 18 Indian Logic in the Early
Schools 48 Indian Philosophical Review
365, 366 Introduction to the Kalpasūtra
of Bhadrabāhu 126 iśa 15, 18
Nature 297 Nature of Physical Reality, The
298 Nature of the Physical World,
The 160, 161, 162 Nayacakrādisangrahah 328 Nayācāra 323 Nayādhikaraņa 328 Nayapradīpa 316, 328 Nayarahasya 328 Nayavivarana 319, 320, 326, 328 New Indian Antiquary, The 80,
92, 96 New Schaff-Herzog Encyclo
pædia of Religious Know
ledge, The 367 Nyāyabindu with Nyāyabindu
tīkā 47 Nyāyakusumāñjali 337, 339 Nyāyālokah 260 Nyāyamañjari 48 Nyāyapraveśa 39 Nyāyapraveśavptti 39 Nyāyasūtras 289
Jayadhavalā 321 Journal of the Department of
Letters, The 352
Kathopanişad 31, 348 Kävyādarśa 352

Page #418

398
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Nyāyavārtika 48 Nyāyavārtikatātparyaţikā,
Apohavāda 48 Nyāyāvatāra 48, 304, 308, 316,
317, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323
of the Oriental Conference
(Third) 68; (Ninth) 372, 373 Proceedings of the First Indian
Philosophical Congress 367, 370
Outlines of Jainism 3 Outlines of Psychology 159
Rāmānuja and Vaisnavism 84 Ratnaprabhā 15 Reign of Relativity, The 160, , 161, 162 Rgveda 347, 348, 349 Romanes Lecture on the
Theory of Relativity and Its Influence on Scientific Thought, The 160
Sabhāșyatattvādhigamasutrāņi
325 Sacred Books of the Buddhists
40, 52 Sacred Literature of the Jainas
Sahityadarpaņa 143 Sakalācāryamatasangraha
85,
86
Pañcadaśī 32 Pañcāstikāyasāra 3 Pañjikā 39 Parapakşagirivajra 78, 81 Patañjali-Sūtra 133 Patthanuddesa Dipani, The 211 Pensees 168 Philosophical Quarterly 297 Philosophical Studies 296 Philosophy of Bhedābheda, The
73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 82 Philosophy of Hegel, The 250,
252, 253, 254 Philosophy of Religions, On the
211 Philosophy of Sanskrit Gram
mar, The 352 Philosophy of Visiştādvaita,
The 84, 85, 87, 89 Positive Sciences of the An
cient Hindus 62 Pottapāda Sutta 40 Prabhāvali 91 Prabhāvilāsa 91 Pradīpah 15 Prakațārthavivaranam 15 Pramāņamīmāṁsā 188, 259 Pramāṇasamuccaya 48 Prameya-ratna-kośa 342 Prathamagucchaka 319, 328 Pravacanasāra 260 Principle of Individuality and
Value, The 250, 251 Principle of Relativity, The 159 Principles of Human Know
ledge, Of the 295 Proceedings and Transactions
Samavāyāngaţikā 327, 328 Sambandhaparīksā 211 Sankalpasūryodaya 91 Sāńkhyakārikās 62, 63, 64, 65 Sānkhyapravacanabhāșya 61 Sānkhya System, The 62 Saptapadārthi 108, 109 Sarvadarśanasangraha 288 śāstravārtāsamuccaya 259 Science of Logic 99 Siddhāntabindu 295 Siddhāntajāhnavi 78, 79, 81 Siddhāntamuktāvali 208, 295 Siddhāntasetukā 78, 79 Siddhiviniscaya Țikā 340 Six Systems of Indian Philo
sophy, The 63 Space, Time and Deity 198,
251 Space, Time and Gravitation
162

Page #419

INDEXES
399
Three Tattvas, The 84 Tippaņa 308 Twelve Principal Upanişads,
The 15, 18, 31
Srībhāşya 84, 89, 90, 91, 95 śrībhāşyam (N) 91 Śrībhāşyavārtika 86, 91 śri Brahmasūtrartha Sangraha
119 śrīmadbhagavadgitā with
Rāmānuja's Bhāşya 85 Śrutyantasuradruma 78 Studies in Jaina Philosophy 3 Studies in Jainism 334 Studies in Nyāya-Vaišeşika
Metaphysics 110 Studies in Post-śankara Dia
lectics 36 Studies in Vedāntism 68, 70 Study in Realism, A 297 Sukhabodha 322 śvetāśvatara 15, 62, 347-8 Syādvādamañjarī 327, 328, 373 System of Vedāntic Thought
and Culture, The 294
Vādasthāna 22 Vādāvali 114 Vaišeşika Philosophy, The 108 Vaišeşika System, The 110 Vaişnavism, śaivism and Mi
nor Religious Systems 17 Vākyapadīya 48, 351, 352, 354 Vārtika 132 Vārtikam 15 Vedānta, The 78, 116 Vedāntadīpa 33 Vedāntakāvali 84 Vedānta-pārijāta-saurabha 77,
81, 82 Vedāntaratnamālā 77, 78, 79,
81, 82 Vedāntaratnamañjūşā 78, 79 Vedāntasāra 33, 35, 36, 83, 85,
95 Vedāntasūtras 119; - with Com.
of Madhva 119; - with Com. of Rāmānuja 84, 85, 86, 87,
88, 89, 90, 93, 94 Vedārthasangrahah 85, 89, 90 Vienna Oriental Journal 17,
50, 86, 89, 97 Vipañcitārtha 56 Visuddhimagga (N) 40 Vivști 49, 261, 283, 308 Volume of Eastern and Indian
Studies, A 117 Vyāsa-Bhāşya 133 Vyomavati 110
Taittiriyopanişad 348 Tantravārtika 307 Tarkabhāsā 22 Tarkadīpikā 278 Tātparyadīpikā 76, 85, 90 Tattva-kaumudi 65 Tattvamuktāvali, The 116 Tattvārthādhigamasūtra 129,
196, 260, 323, 325 Tattvārthasāra 312, 314, 319,
320, 328 Tattvārthasūtra 322 Tattvārthatīkā 259 Tattvasamāsa 63 Tattva-siddhānta-bindu 77, 78,
81 Tattvatrayam and the Bhāşya
85, 86 Theory of Knowledge, The 296 Theory of Relations, The 230,
245 Thing and Its Relations, The
230, 245 Thought and Reality 251
Way to Nirvāṇa, The 40, 41 What is Living and what is
Dead of the Philosophy of
Hegel 100 Works of George Berkeley, The
295
Yatīndramatadīpikā 86, 95

Page #420

II. INDEX TO NAMES OF AUTHORS, ETC. [N=footnotes. References that follow N are to the footnotes.]
Bhadanta Yogasena (N) 174 Bhaduri, S. (N) 110 Bhagavatacharya (N) 83, 85 Bhāmaha 355 ; (N) 48, 355 Bhandarkar, R. G. 375 (N) 16,
31
Abhayadeva 174, 187, 276, 277, 281, 282, 286; (N) 48, 141, 147, 188, 189, 240, 258, 259,
279 Abhyankar, V. S. (N) 89, 90,
95, 288 Ainslie, Douglas (N) 100 Aiyangar, M. B. Varadarāja
(N) 89 Akalanka 200, 265, 266, 280 ;
(N) 129, 141, 174, 195, 200, 265, 278, 279, 281, 335, 336,
346, 349, 353 Alexander, Samuel 197, 293 ;
(N) 198, 250, 251, 253, 254,
294 Amrtacandra 261 ; (N) 261, 262,
319, 328, 343 Apte, V. G. (N) 85 Arcața 187, 189; (N) 144, 187,
190, 289 Aristotle (N) 142 Athalye 209 Athavale (N) 259 Aung, S. L. (N) 211
Bhartshari 308, 351, 352 ; (N)
18, 34, 48, 352 Bhartsprapañca 26, 59, 61, 67,
68, 69, 70, 71, 72 ; (N) 18, 68,
71, 289 Bhāskara 26, 59, 61, 71, 74, 75,
76, 77, 79, 84, 90, 91, 92 ; (N)
18, 72, 73, 77, 78 Bhāskaranandi (N) 322 Bhattacharya, A. (N) 36 Bhattacharya, A. M. (N) 108,
109 Bhattacharya, K. C. 360; (N)
68, 70 Bhattacharya, Narimohan (N)
370 Bhattacharya, N. C. B. (N) 108,
109 Bhattacharya, Vidushekhara,
(N) 41, 43, 57, 63 Bhattanathaswamy (N) 83 Bhattaputra Jayamiśra (N) 133 Black, Adam and Charles (N)
276 Bodhisattva (N) 51 Born, Max (N) 162, 297 Bosanquet 250; (N) 250, 251,
253, 296 Bradley, F. H. 2, 250 ; (N) 207,
244, 250, 251, 253, 254, 255 Brahmadeva (N) 282 Broad (N) 162
Bādarāyaṇa 15, 21, 94, 364;
(N) 62, 119, 289 Bailie, J. B. (N) 101 Bain, Alexander (N) 159 Baldwin, J. M. (N) 159 Barmenides (N) 33 Barua, B. M. (N) 288 Beattie (N) 296 Belvalkar 365, 366, 367, 373,
374, 375 Bergson (N) 19, 43 Berkeley 295; (N) 296, 373

Page #421

Buddha 42, 57, 349; (N) 40, 41, 51, 288
Burnet (N) 276 Burrow, Prof. T. 4
Caird, Edward 96, 286; (N) 98, 136
Candrakirti (N) 57, 150, 151 Candraprabhasūri (N) 342 Caraka (N) 62
Cārvāka 318
Chakravarti (N) 256, 363 Chakravarti, A. 3, 256 Chakravarti, Nemicandra (N) 282
Chintamani, T. R. (N) 15 Citsukhamunim (N) 15
INDEXES
Chakravarti, P. C. (N) 352 Chatterjee (N) 237
Chaudhari, Pannalal (N) 319,
328
Citsukhi (N) 36
Cowell (N) 143
Cowell, E. B. (N) 116 Croce, B. (N) 100
S.
Dasgupta, S. N. 115, 333; (N) 18, 62, 170, 175
Da Tin Tin (N) 211
Davies, John (N) 65 Descartes 114; (N) 373 Deva, Anantarama (N) 77 Devabhadra 307; (N) 308, 323 Devācārya (N) 78
Devasena (N) 328, 329
Devasuri (N) 322
Dharmakirti 166, 212, 213, 214, 218, 219, 220, 222, 223, 225, 227, 229; (N) 56, 211, 212, 214, 220, 222, 244, 289 Dharmottara (N) 50, 51 Dhruva, A. B. (N) 39, 133, 150, 240
26
Dingle, H. (N) 161, 162, 297, 298
Dinnaga (N) 39, 48, 49, 50, 212
401
Diväkara (see Siddhasena Diväkara)
Divan, P. E. (N) 295 Durveka 187; (N) 196 Dvivedin, Vindhyesvari Prasad (N) 72, 77
Eddington, Sir A. (N) 160, 161,
162
Einstein, Albert (N) 158, 159, 160, 161, 298 Empedocles (N) 276
Faddegon, B. (N) 110 Fraser, A. C. (N) 295 Frauwallner, Von E. (N) 50
Garbe, R. (N) 61, 63, 108 Gauḍapada (N) 17 Gauḍa-pūrṇānanda-cakra
vartin (N) 116 Gautama (N) 289
Ghate, V. S. 78; (N) 78, 116 Ghosal, S. C. (N) 282 Ghosh 249, 257
Glasenapp, Helmuth von 116
Gopani (N) 259 Govindānanda (N) 15 Green, T. H. (N) 296 Griffith, R. T. H. 347 Gunaratna 169, 187; (N) 142, 146, 151, 152, 170, 194, 290
(N)
Haldane, Viscount (N) 160, 161 Hamilton, Sir William (N) 65, 158 Haribhadra 188, 259, 286; (N) 48, 127, 144, 188, 190, 259 Hegel 2, 98, 101, 102, 250, 254,
257; (N) 49, 99, 100, 250, 251, 253, 256, 292 Hemacandra 174, 176, 177, 180, 181, 188, 193, 194, 259; (N) 139, 141, 146, 177, 188, 190, 193, 195, 242, 259

Page #422

402
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Heraclitus (N) 19, 99, 131 Hiriyanna, M. 71, 275, 364, 365,
375; (N) 33, 35, 44, 63, 66, 68, 76, 87, 150, 206, 208, 238,
360
Hobbes, Thomas (N) 159 Hobhouse, L. T. (N) 296 Hodges (N) 97 Hoffding, H. (N) 159 Hopkins, E. W. (N) 16 Hume 286; (N) 212, 296, 373
Kant, Immanuel 5, 131, 134,
136, 284, 285, 286, 379; (N)
134, 158, 285, 373 Kapadia, H. R. (N) 127, 196,
259, 323, 334, 335, 337, 373 Kapila (N) 41 Kautilya (N) 61 Keith (N) 49, 62 Keśavamiśra (N) 191 Knox, T. M. (N) 297 Koey, W. (N) 348 Krishnamacharya, V. (N) 84, 91 Kumārila Bhatta 2, 5, 36, 131,
132, 133, 136, 171, 239, 379; (N) 48, 141, 153, 154, 171,
208, 307, 362 Kundakunda 3, 259, 261, 262,
264 ; (N) 260, 262, 341
Indrabhūti (N) 127 Ingalls (N) 237 īśvarakṛṣṇa 63; (N) 63 Iyengar, H. Rangaswamy (N)
22
Laird, John (N) 297 Leibniz 51, 152, 198, 286 ; (N)
198, 245, 373 Locke 42; (N) 373 Lokācārya (N) 85 Lowndes, M. E. (N) 159
Jacobi, Hermann 125, 126, 259,
373; (N) 17, 31, 61, 63, 259,
260, 304, 334 Jackson, S. M. (N) 367 Jagadisacandra (N) 373 Jain, J. C. (N) 327, 328 Jaini, J. L. 3 James, William (N) 230, 241,
244, 245 Jayanta 177; (N) 48, 170, 177 Jayantabhatta (N) 174 Jayasena (N) 261, 262 Jayatirtha (N) 114 Jha, Ganganatha (N) 65, 289 Jhaveri, H. L. (N) 304 Jinabhadra 319; (N) 311, 312,
326, 362 Jinavardhanasūri (N) 109, 110 Jitári 22, 23 Jitāripāda (N) 22 Jñānaśrī (N) 50 Johnson, W. E. (N) 129 Johnson, W. H. (N) 99 Johnston, E. H. (N) 62
Madhava-Mukunda (N) 78 Madhusudana (N) 295 Madhusudanasarasvati (N)
292 Madhva 25, 26, 105, 112, 113,
114, 116, 118, 119; (N) 65,
78, 113, 116, 118, 119 Mahāvīra 259, 374 ; (N) 126,
127 Majmudar, S. 78 Maladhāri Hemacandra 308 ;
(N) 311, 328, 362 Mallişeņa 174, 176, 188; (N)
133, 141, 146, 158, 188, 200,
238, 290, 336, 373 Manavalli, Gangadhar Sastri
(N) 48, 351 Margenau, Henry (N) 162, 298 Max Müller 94 ; (N) 63
Kaiyyața (N) 90 Kamalaśila 21 ; (N) 23, 49, 141,
211, 355

Page #423

INDEXES
403
McTaggart 276; (N) 230, 232,
244, 245 Milinda, King (N) 40 Mill, J. S. (N) 158, 159 Mokşākaragupta (N) 22 Mookerji, s. (N) 20, 39, 46,
150, 163 Moore, G. E. 296 Motilal Laghaji (N) 325 Municandra (N) 190
Prabhākara (N) 240 Prakāśānanda 291, 294 Prasastapāda 110, 115 Pritchard 285 Protagoras (N) 158 Pūjyapāda 261, 264 Punyarāja (N) 351, 352 Purushottama Prasada (N) 78 Puruśottama (N) 78, 295 Pyrrho 371
Nāgārjuna 349 ; (N) 143, 150,
151, 288 Nāgasena (N) 40 Nahar 249, 257 Nimbārka 26, 59, 61, 77, 78, 79,
81, 82, 83, 84; (N) 77, 78, 80 Nyana, S. V. (N) 211 Nyāyāmsitakāra (N) 292 Nyāyavijaya, Muni (N) 337
Oldenberg (N) 63, 348
Padmarajiah, Y. J. (N) 282 Paņini (N) 90, 357 Parker, De Witt (N) 230, 244,
245 Parmenides (N) 99 Parthasarathimiśra (N) 133 Pascal (N) 168 Patañjali (N) 90, 133 Paton 135 Paul, Kegan (N) 168 Perry, R. B. 376, 377 Pickering, William (N) 136 Pischel (N) 63 Planck, Max (N) 297 Plato (N) 251 Poussin, La Vallee (N) 40, 41,
289 Prabhācandra 174, 226, 227,
228, 229, 276, 277; (N) 48, 141, 175, 211, 212, 214, 218, 222, 229, 230, 231, 232, 283, 307, 310, 317, 335, 354, 355
Radhakrishnan, Prof. S. 4, 365,
374, 375 Raghunatha Siromani (N) 110 Rāju, P. T. 96; (N) 80, 92, 96,
251 Rāmānuja 25, 26, 59, 61, 83, 85,
86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 364, 374 ; (N) 18, 75, 78, 79, 80, 83, 84, 85,
86, 87, 88, 91, 97 Ramanujachari, V. K. (N) 84 Ranade, R. D. (N) 365 Randle (N) 47, 51 Rangachari (N) 89, 90 Rangacharya (N) 84 Rao 366, 367, 374, 376 ; (N) 303 Rao, G. Hanumantha (N) 330,
365 Ratnacandra 3 Ratna Gopal Bhatta (N) 85, 86 Ratnākaraśānti (N) 355 Ratnakīrti (N) 49, 50, 187 Ray, P. C. (N) 62 Raywood, Francis (N) 136 Rhys Davids, G. A. F. (N) 211 Rhys Davids, Mrs. Caroline
42; (N) 211 Rhys Davids, T. W. (N) 40 Routledge (N) 168 Row, P. Ramchandra (N) 119 Russell, Bertrand 2, 236 ; (N)
43, 45, 46, 47, 160, 162, 177, 198, 206, 244, 245, 295, 297
Sadānanda 33; (N) 33

Page #424

404
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Śrīnivāsācārya 96 ; (N) 86, 96 Srinivasachar, L. (N) 77 Srinivasachari, P. N. 76; (N)
36, 73, 74, 75, 76, 78, 82, 84,
85, 294, 296 Stace (N) 250, 252, 253, 254 Stcherbatsky 42; (N) 18, 19,
20, 38, 39, 40, 43, 45, 46, 47,
56, 63, 150, 237 Stewart, H: F. (N) 168 Struthers (N) 99 Suali, L. (N) 342 Subba Rau, S. (N) 119 Sudarsanācārya (N) 76 Sudarśanasūri (N) 85 Sukthankar (N) 17, 31, 32,
86, 89, 97 Sundarabhatta (N) 78 Sureśvara 67
Sadaw, Ledi (N) 211 Sakalācārya (N) 85, 86 Samantabhadra (N) 133, 349,
362 Sanjaya 371 ; (N) 288 Śankara 2, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21,
26, 31, 33, 34, 35, 37, 67, 70, 71, 84, 85, 91, 92, 166, 222, 223, 224, 225, 241, 292, 364, 366, 374 ; (N) 15, 16, 18, 31, 33, 34, 35, 73, 77, 78, 84,
141, 221, 222, 289 sankaramiśra (N) 210 śāntarakṣita 21 ; (N) 21, 41, 49,
56, 141, 211, 289, 355 śāntyācārya (N) 48 Sastry, Shantiraja (N) 322 Sastry, S. S. S. (N) 64 Sayadaw, Ledi (N) 211 Schilpp, P. A. (N) 297 Schübring, W. 3 Seal, B. N. (N) 62 Senart (N) 63 Shastri, Anant Krishna (N)
292 Siddharşi 308 ; (N) 48, 304,
308, 319 Siddhasena 187, 264, 265 ; (N)
187, 190, 265 Siddhasena Divãkara 249, 258,
259, 260, 261, 267, 326, 327,
329; (N) 259, 290, 308, 326 Siddhasena Gani 259; (N) 129,
196, 259, 323 Sircar, M. N. (N) 294 śivāditya (N) 108 Smith, H. W. 3 Smith, Norman Kemp 134 ;
(N) 250 Sogen (N) 150 Spencer, H. (N) 158 Spinoza (N) 373 Sridharanidhar Sastry (N) 85 śrīharşa (N) 33, 55, 143, 222
237 Sriniväsa (N) 86, 95
Tailanga, Gangadhar Sastri
(N) 48 Tatia, (N) 3 Thah, U. Ba (N) 211 Thibaut, G. (N) 16, 17, 31, 84 Thomas, Dr. F. W. 4; (N) 108,
117 Thomas, E. J. (N) 63
Udayana (N) 41 Uddyotakara (N) 39, 47, 48, 51 Ui, H. (N) 108 Umāsvāti 127, 129, 136, 151, 169,
185, 259, 261, 264, 325, 326 ;
(N) 151, 260, 265, 283 Umeśvara (N) 197 Upadhye, A. N. 304 ; (N) 260.
263, 373 Ushenko, A. P. (N) 162, 297
Vācaspati Miśra (N) 15, 39, 48,
65, 174, 242 Vādideva 265, 266, 267, 268,
283; (N) 141, 211, 216, 266, 307, 312, 336, 341

Page #425

INDEXES
Vaidya, P. L. (N) 48, 304, 308, 316, 317, 319, 320, 321, 322, 323
Vajira (N) 40
Vallabha 26; (N) 34, 35, 78 Vamsidhara (N) 328
Varavaramuni (N) 85 Vardhamāna (N) 41 Vasubandhu (N) 19 Vasunandi (N) 141, 349 Vedantadeśika (N) 91 Venis, Arthur (N) 295 Venkatacharya, Bucci (N) 84 Venkatanatha (N) 85 Vidyananda 261, 264; (N) 214, 216, 221, 311, 339, 340, 353, 362
Vidyanandin (N) 211 Vidyaratna, R. N. (N) 15 Vimaladāsa (N) 145, 336, 354
Vijayarajendra 3
Vijñānabhiksu (N) 61
405
Vyomasiva 110
Wallace, W. (N) 253 Ward, James (N) 159 Warren, H. C. (N) 40 Watson 134; (N) 135 Weber, A. 3 Whitehead, A. N. 5, 131, 136, 379; (N) 159, 160, 162 Widgery, A. C. (N) 365 Wogihara, Unrai (N) 41 Wundt, W. (N) 159
Yadava 26, 71, 74, 75, 76, 77, 84, 90, 91, 92; (N) 18, 77 Yadavaprakāśa 59, 71 Yaśomitra (N) 41 Yasovijaya 259, 260, 268, 308; (N) 260, 262, 328
Zeno (N) 33, 55

Page #426

III. INDEX TO THE PHILOSOPHICAL SECTS
AND TENETS &C.
[N=footnotes. References that follow N are to the footnotes.]
Abhidhārmika 41 Abhidhārmikas (N) 55 Absolute Mentalist (N) 253 Advaita 24, 290, 291, 317; (N)
78, 79, 194 Advaitic 76, 89, 93, 167, 199,
284, 291, 298, 363; (N) 85 Advaitin 115, 152, 209, 212, 217;
(N) 216 Advaitism 18, 24, 26, 32, 34, 37, 61, 67, 90, 291, 352; (N) 33,
34, 35, 67 Aristotelian (N) 142
175, 179, 188, 194, 211, 212, 213, 214, 216, 222, 230, 232; non-Buddhist (N) 39 Buddhistic 4, 11, 21, 23, 39, 40,
94, 111, 199, 200, 225; (N) 19, 43, 44, 85; semi-Buddhi
stic 110 Buddhists 54, 126, 240 ; (N) 19,
24, 46, 63
Digambara 325, 326 Dvaita 25, 26, 105 Dvaitic 113 Dvaitin 115 Dvaitins 114 Dvaitism 107, 112, 113, 114, 115,
116, 117, 118, 119; (N) 112
Bauddha (N) 22 Bergsonian (N) 19, 46 Berkeleyan 291, 295; (N) 158,
159 Bhaskariya 79, 92 Brahmanas 126 Brahmavādin (N) 91 Brahminical 1, 17; (N) 48 Brahminism 1 Buddhism 1, 4, 18, 24, 26, 27, 37,
38, 41, 42, 44, 51, 55, 57, 61, 213, 226, 242, 286, 352; (N) 19, 20, 21, 38, 39, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 51, 63, 84, 99, 212 Buddhist 14, 21, 22, 23, 25, 42, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 101, 111, 129, 130, 167, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 186, 187, 192, 193, 211, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 225, 226, 227, 235, 236, 320 ; (N) 19, 20, 21, 22, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 53, 54, 56, 174,
Einsteinian (N) 158, 297 Eleatics (N) 99 Hegelian 100, 102, 249, 250, 251,
253, 254, 257, 291 ; (N) 250, 252, 256 ; neo-Hegelian 250 ;
(N) 250; neo-Hegelians 254; Hegelianisation (N) 250 Hegelianism 26, 59, 61, 98, 103,
107, 249, 255, 257; (N) 256 ;
neo-Hegelianism 249 Humean (N) 158, 159
Jaina 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 13, 14,
15, 21, 24, 26, 27, 61, 83, 91 (-like), 94, 100, 101, 102, 103, 119, 121, 123, 124, 125, 126, 129, 130, 131, 132, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 142, 145, 148, 149, 151, 152, 155, 156, 157,

Page #427

INDEXES
407
Mādhyamika 32, 35; (N) 32,
150,288 Madhyamikas (N) 55 Mādhyamika Buddhism (N) 17 Mimāṁsā 299; (N) 289 Mimāṁsaka (N) 356 Mimāmsakas 240 ; (N) 240, 290,
352
163,164,165, 166,167, 168, 169, 10, 11, 12, 173 174, 175,176, 17, 178, 180, 185, 186,187,190, 192, 193, 194, 195, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 225,227, 229, 233, 235,236, 237,239,240, 242,244,_249, 253,254,255,257,264,267, 268,273,274,275,277,278, 279,280,282,283, 284,286, 287,290,291,299,303,306, 308,322,334,337, 346,349, 350,351,353,354,356,358, 364,365,366,367,376,379, 380 ; (N) 20, 21, 22, 24, 36, 48, 49, 52, 63, 66, 129 136, 139, 141,143,147,150,151,158, 159, 160, 162, 163,168, 170, 174,187,188,190, 194, 198, 200,211, 222, 223, 230, 231, 232,238,243, 245,252, 256, 259,260,263,278,282,287, 288,311,334,356,357,359, 366,369,370 ; non-Jaina_13, 167,353, ; (N) 141, 174,196,
211, 288,289 Jainas 91, 148,174,240,365 ;
(N) 20, 23, 24, 53, 141,150,
256, 299 Jainism 1, 2, 3, 25, 26, 92, 94,
98, 103, 136, 166, 242, 274, 275, 276,283,285,286,287,289, 330,364, 368 ; (N) 20, 21, 66, 91, 128, 135,142, 159, 160,
161, 250,260, 289,303 Jains 374 ; (N) 304,334
ខ្ញុំន្នន័ឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪ ខ្ញុំងឪ ខ្ញុំ៖ អ៊ីន៏៖ ខ្ញុំ ឪឪឪឪឪ គឺ ឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪឪគឺឪឪឪឪឪន៏ន៖ ឪឪឪឪ នី ឌី
Naiyāyika 53, 151, 152, 205, 209,
211, 213,215, 216, 217, 218, 220, 221, 225, 233, 236,242, 243,277,278, 279, 280 ; (N) 19,142,187, 205, 206,212, 213,216, 237, 238, 241,243,
278,356 Naiyāyikas_209, 240 ; (N) 141,
240,244, 290,352 ; neoNaiyāyikas 236 Nayavāda_269,273,301,303,
310,354_381 Negationist (N) 49 Non-Nimbārka (N) 78 Nyāya_208, 209, 225, 236, 239,
242,280,281,282 ; (N) 110,
208, 223, 237, 282 Nyāya-Vaiseșika 65, 88, 151,
235,236,316 ; (N) 54,66, 112,187, 208, 234,_260,263
Pali Canons 39 Paryāyavāda 261 Pragmatists (N) 143 Prakrāntavādins (N) 290
Realist (N) 232
Kantian 136, 286 ; (N) 135 Kantianism 286 Kāpila (N) 289 Kāpila Darśana (N) 188 Kevalādvaita 26
Sammatiyas (N) 41 šānkara 32,69, 79,244 ; post
sankara (N) 33; pre-sankara 32 Sānkhya_26,59, 61, 63, 64,65,
66,67, 11, 103, 194, 299, 317 ; (N) 19, 25, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66,
71, 188,223, 234, 289 Sankhyas (N) 63,86, 290
Leibnizian 283 ; (N) 198
Mādhva 107, 116

Page #428

408
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
Saptabhangi 273, 333, 336, 374,
375 sauddhodana Darśana (N) 188 Saugata 244 Sautrāntikas (N) 290 śuddhādvaita 26 śūnyavādin 150, 152 ; (N) 150,
151 Sutrakāra 366 Svāyambhuvas (N) 290 svetambara 325, 326; (N) 326
Tirthańkara 366
Vaiseşikas 114; (N) 86, 290 Vätsiputrīyas 19; (N) 20, 41,
55 Vedānta 24, 26, 32, 57, 209, 225,
226, 363 ; (N) 16, 95, 97 Vedāntānām (N) 95 Vedāntic 11, 14, 27, 57, 81, 94,
223, 225, 349, 363 ; (N) 67,
89 Vedāntin 25, 101, 129, 130, 209,
224, 233, 236; (N) 22, 25 Vedāntins 91, 240, 365 Vedāntism 242 Vedāntist (N) 20 Vedic 31, 32 Vijñānavāda 41 Visiştādvaita 17, 25, 83, 84, 91,
97; (N) 79, 80, 95 Visiştādvaitam (N) 84 Višiştadvaitavāda 26 Višiştādvaitic (N) 81, 85 Visiştādvaitism 83, 85, 89, 94,
95; (N) 88, 90, 97 Višiştayor advaitam (N) 84 Voidist 150 ; (N) 151
Upanişadic 15, 31, 32, 40, 57,
347, 348; (N) 17, 31, 41, 62 Upanişads 16, 31, 41, 276, 352;
(N) 16, 33, 62
Vaibhāşika 41 Vaibhāşikas (N) 55 Vaiśesika 26, 105, 107, 108, 110,
111, 112, 113, 119, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 200, 201, 241, 299; (N) 19, 25, 108, 112, 187, 188, 191, 192, 193, 194, 205, 206, 208, 210, 212, 299
Yadaviya 92 Yoga (N) 61 Yogācāra 41

Page #429

IV. INDEX TO SANSKRIT AND PRAKRIT WORDS References that follow N are to the footnotes.]
[N=footnotes.
abhāva 35, 108, 148, 151, 155, 156, 169, 170, 171; (N) 108, 113, 128, 141, 142, 146, 147, 156, 172, 216
abhāvarūpa eva (N) 53 abheda 5, 34, 37, 61, 69, 71, 73, 76, 78, 93, 103, 134, 144, 189, 266, 267; (N) 77, 78, 265 abhedatva 140; (N) 147 abhedavāda 173, 258, 259, 261; (N) 190, 256
abhedavādin 73, 138, 172, 267,
268
abhimata 310
abhinna 93
abhinna brahman (N) 80 abhinnaḥ 221
abhinnasvabhāvatvam 140
abhiprāya 310
acetana (N) 112
acidaṁśa 75
acit 75, 76, 85, 87, 89, 90, 95; (N) 79, 80, 81
ādhāra 85, 88; (N) 222
ädhärādheyabhāva (N) 207 ādhārādheyaniyamāt (N) 210 adharma 274; (N) 282, 283 adhikarana 144
adhişṭhāna (N) 73
adhityasamutpāda (N) 44, 45
adhyāropa (N) 278
adhyāya (N) 17
adrḍhapratīti 171
advaita 37, 70, 78
agama (N) 258 ǎgamācca (N) 258 agauņa 21
agonivṛttiḥ (N) 47
27
ahi 81, 163
aikāntikam 134, 261
aikātmatā 21 aikya 215
ajñāna (N) 35
ajñānavāda 371, 373, 374; (N) 288
ajīva (N) 63
akāraṇatva (N) 209
ākāśa 193, 274, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 282; (N) 193, 263, 278, 282
ākāśas (N) 278
akiñcitkara 55 akrama 176
akṣaṇikatva (N) 187 ākulavāda (N) 336 alokākāśa (N) 282 amiśra 212
amśa 155, 276 aṁśatva (N) 231 amulaksatikāri (N) 170 amurtatva (N) 263 anabhilāpya (N) 51 anabhilapyatva (N) 349 anabhilapyatvam (N) 349 anaikantika 366; (N) 175 anala (N) 147 ananda 40
anantabhāvas 283
anantadharmātmakam 381 anantadharmatmakatva
231
anantāḥ 109
anantaprakāram 312 anantatmakam 381
anantya (N) 170 ananya 82, 86, 134
(N)

Page #430

410
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
ananyatya 76 anārabdha (N) 277 anarthāntaram 221 anātmabhūtāh 178 anatta 40, 43, 56 anavasthā 110, 141, 145, 169,
170, 222; (N) 170, 209, 232 aneka 275 anekadharmātmakavāda (N)
151 anekānta 24, 123, 124, 130, 151,
156, 164, 199, 201, 249, 274, 275, 282, 285, 287, 288, 298, 299, 333, 338, 375; (N) 20, 158, 159, 230, 289; non-anekānta 288 anekāntasvarūpatva 198, 199,
201 anekāntatva (N) 170; otve
(N) 147 anekāntavāda 2, 6, 13, 24, 123,
125, 126, 149, 151, 199, 200, 269, 271, 273, 274, 275, 287, 288, 291, 300, 303, 372, 375, 380, 381; (N) 141, 151, 161,
199, 289, 334, 335, 373 anekāntavādin 22, 23, 156, 172,
285; (N) 23 anekasvabhāvatyam (N) 147 anekatva 240; (N) 147, 161,
171 anekatvavāda (N) 141 anekavāda (N) 299 anekavikalpa 312 angulyādivākya (N) 307 anicca 39, 40, 43, 56 anirvacaniya 36, 73, 350; (N)
annonnaniravekkha (N) 188 antarabhāvarūpam 216 antaryāmin 85, 88 aņu 109 anubhaya 347 anubhūyamāna sambandha (N)
237 anugama (N) 22 anugatātmakāḥ 21 aņumātrah 217 aņūnām pindah 217 anusthiti (N) 175 anuttaram (N) 230 anvaya (N) 127 anvayi 229; (N) 262 anya 134 anyanyatva (N) 171 anyāpoha (N) 47 anyāpohavāda (N) 48 anyāpohavādin (N) 49 anyatyam (N) 87 anyavyāvștti (N) 355 anyayogabodhakatva (N) 339 anyonyābhāva (N) 143 anyonyāpekşā (N) 323 anyonyātmakatva 286 anyonyavyāptibhāva 286 apara 69 aparāvidyā 70; (N) 16, 143 apavarga (N) 64 apekşā 219, 310 apekşāḥ 340 apoha 6; (N) 47, 48, 49, 50 apohavāda (N) 48, 49, 50, 354 apratibhāsatve (N) 147 apratipatti 141, 146, 171 ; (N)
172 aprthaksiddha (N) 207 aprthaksiddhi (N) 88 aprthaksiddhisambandha 87 ārambhavāda 65, 233; (N) 65,
234 ardhavaināśika 110 arpanabheda 346 artha 308; (N) 84 arthaḥ (N) 323
36
anirvacanīyatā 306, 349, 350,
352 anirvacanīyavādin 350 anişpanna 228, 229; (N) 214 anişpannayoh 213, 214, 228 anitya 192 anityatva 240 anityavāda 174

Page #431

INDEXES
411
arthakriyākāri 286 arthakriyākāritva 173, 175, 180,
186, 193, 226; (N) 56, 174,
175, 222 arthakriyākāritvam 2, 6, 380;
(N) 52, 299 arthakriyākāritvavāda 172;
(N) 53, 286 arthakriyāsāmarthya 180 arthakriyāsāmarthyam 52 ; (N)
52
arthakriyāsāmarthyāt 180 arthakriyāvāda 125 arthanayas 319 arthanirapekşam (N) 39 arthāntaram 221 arthapratibimbakam (N) 49 arthatantra 319 arthāt notpadyate (N) 39 arūpa 31 as 337 asādhāraṇākāra 146 asādhāraṇarūpa 180 asadvāda (N) 200 asākşāt 309 aśakta (N) 170 asāmarthya 53 asambaddha (N) 213 asambhava (N) 142, 146, 147,
172 asat 35, 36, 37, 148, 149, 164,
317, 344, 347, 349, 350 ; (N)
32, 35, 128, 349 asatkāryavāda 65; (N) 65 asattva 169, 170 asatya 79 asatyam (N) 73 asiddha (N) 175, 214 āspada (N) 73 āśraya 139, 187, 219, 280 asvatantra 112 asti 342 astitva 165, 341, 342, 346 astitvanāstitvarūpātmaka 165 astitvanāstitvasvarūpatva 165 atättvika 216 ; (N) 216
atiprasanga 222 atīva bheda 242 ātmā 192 ātmabhūta 242 atmabhūtah 217 ātmabhūtāḥ 178 ātmadşștau (N) 41 atman 40, 277, 283, 284 ; (N)
41, 57, 241, 243 ātmarūpa (N) 207 ātmāśraya (N) 110 ātmatattvaviveka (N) 41 ātmavāda 41 attho 261 atyantābhāva (N) 142 atyantabhedavāda (N) 78 atyantabhede (N) 232 atyantabhinnatva 316 atyanta(kevala) bhedavāda
(N) 78 atyantavilakşaņa (N) 86 atyantavilakṣaṇatvam (N) 87 atyantāyogabodhakatva (N)
339 aupacāriki (N) 278 aupādhika 79; (N) 77, 116 aupādhika bhedābhedavāda 79;
(N) 78 avacchedakas (N) 210 avadhāraņārtham 339 avakāśasthānayogyatvam (N)
263 avaktavya 305, 306, 307, 342,
346, 349, 357, 358; (N) 36,
323, 346 avaktavyam 7 avaktavyatva 341, 349 avasthās 73, 77 avastu 34, 213; (N) 238 avayavas 279, 280 avidyā 72, 115; (N) 35, 72 avikrtam 140 ävirbhāva 66; (N) 34 avirodha 376 avirodhena 336, 345 aviseşasvarūpaḥ 110

Page #432

412
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
aviveki (N) 64 avyākṛtas 349 avyakta 81
avyapadeśya 349, 350 avyāpyavṛtti 279, 280 avyāpyavṛttitvam 279 avyatiriktam 140 avyaya 337
ayata (N) 262
ayathābhāṣaṇacaturāḥ 91; raih (N) 91
ayogabodhakatva (N) 339 ayutasiddha 111, 207; (N) 108,
207
bahya 224
bāhyārthadhyavasayi (N) 49 bhanga 132, 333; (N) 335 bhangāḥ 336
bhangas 337
bhāva 148, 151, 154, 155, 169, 170, 171, 202, 335; (N) 113, 128, 156, 172, 206
bhāvābhāvasvarūpatva 153 bhāvābhāvātmaka 168 bhāvābhāvayoḥ 238
bhāvalakṣaṇapṛthakvāt (N) 38
bhāvarūpa 35
bhāvāntaram 265
bhāvāntarau (N) 262
bheda 5, 31, 37, 61, 69, 71, 74, 76, 77, 78, 79, 93, 103, 113, 116, 134, 144, 153, 189, 267; (N) 35, 72, 77, 78, 127, 265 bhedabheda 17, 59, 61, 67, 69, 71, 72, 74, 77, 78, 82, 83, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 148; (N) 91, 92, 93, 139, 147, 256 bhedabhedātmakavastutva (N)
147
bhedabhedavāda 26, 68, 93, 141, 200, 258, 265, 267, 268; (N) 266, 289 bhedabhedavādins 71, 73, 84, 91, 92, 93; (N) 87 bhedaikānta 178
bhedatattva 35 bhedatva (N) 147 bhedavāda 173, 186, 258, 261,
264; (N) 190
bhedavādin 138, 173, 267, 268 bhinna 92, 93
bhinnābhinna 72, 74, 92, 93 bhinnābhinnavada 84
bhinnah 221
bhinnatvam 94
bhinnatvāt brahman (N) 80-81
bhoga (N) 64
bhogya 79
bhoktr 79
bhūṣaṇa (N) 170
bodhanasāmarthyam 358 bodhi 42
brahmabhāṣitam 281 brahman 18, 26, 31, 32, 37, 68, 69, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 79, 81, 82, 83, 88, 89, 90, 93, 95, 96, 199, 276, 281, 284, 350; (N) 16, 17, 33, 34, 73, 79, 80, 81, 85, 95, 117
brahman-ridden 94 brahmapariņāma 71, 82 brahmapariṇāmavāda 18, 26, 32, 68, 71, 77, 83; (N) 34, 35, 78, 80
brahmapariņāmavādin 91 brahmātmaka 26; (N) 34 brahmavivartavāda 18
caitanya (N) 243 candrakantamani 165 catuşkoți (N) 32, 288 catuşkoțivinirmukta 349 catuşkoțivinirmuktam (N) 33 catuşkoțivinirmuktatvam 306;
(N) 349
cetana (N) 112, 263 chāyātapavat 144 chidramadhyaviraha (N) 216 cidacidviśişṭaparameśvaravāda
(N) 78 cidamśa 75

Page #433

INDEXES
413
cit 75, 85, 87, 89, 90, 95; (N)
79, 80, 81 citra 232; (N) 197 citrapata 170
daiśikavišeşaņatā 239 darśana (N) 188 davvātthiyanaya (N) 188 deśanā 258 deśānanugata 51 dharma 219, 274, 336 ; (N) 133,
242, 243, 282, 283 dharmanairātmya (N) 41 dharmas (N) 63 dharmi 267; (N) 133, 242, 243 dharmiņaḥ (N) 133 dharmisvarūpa 113 dharmyapekṣayā 266, 267 dhrauvya 127, 129, 261, 263,
267; (N) 100, 127, 129 dhrauvyam (N) 129 dhruvah (N) 129 dhruvatva 127; (N) 127 dhvani (N) 355 dik 193 ; (N) 193, 237, 278 diţti (N) 32 doşa 148, 162; (N) 142, 146,
147 doşān 197 doşas 5, 139, 141, 148, 162, 163,
168, 169, 172, 379; (N) 141,
142, 146, 147, 172, 175 dravya 6, 21, 22, 23, 107, 111,
139, 140, 154, 173, 174, 187, 189, 190, 191, 193, 202, 229, 241, 247, 249, 253, 254, 257, 261, 262, 263, 264, 280, 335,
253 2004 225 380; (N) 22, 128, 129, 139, 187, 188, 191, 206, 210, 238,
256, 260, 262, 263, 264, 363 dravyabhāvinaḥ 193 dravyagunaparyāyasvabhāva
dravyanayas 305, 313, 319 dravyaparyāyātmaka 186, 325 dravyaparyāyātmakatyavāda
180 dravyaparyāyātmakavāda 141 dravyaparyāyavāda (N) 187 dravyārthika 327 dravyārthikanaya 312, 318,
329, 333; (N) 24, 188 dravyarūpa (N) 195 dravyas 192; (N) 187, 259 dravyasamsparsi 318 dravyāstika 259, 260 dravyatva 140 ; (N) 210 dravyavāda 173, 174, 189, 194;
(N) 52, 190 dravyavibhāgābhāvāt 281 drști 295 ; (N) 41 drşțispștivāda 291, 294, 295;
(N) 295 dukkha 40, 56 durnaya (N) 311 durnayas (N) 311 dussādhya 140 dvaita 70 dvaitādvaita 70, 79 dvaitādvaitavāda 68 dvaitam (N) 69 dviştatva 215, 219
eka 209, 278 ekadeśena 217, 229 ekādhikaranatvena 169 ekameva (N) 95 ekamevādvitīyam 34 ekānta 199, 200, 201; (N) 200,
201 ekāntabhāvātmake 149 ; ®katve
150 ekāntadravyavāda 173, 174 ;
(N) 53 ekāntanityavāda 176 ekāntatva 145 ekāntavāda 291 ; (N) 288 ekāntenaikātmatva (N) 147 ekāntika abhedavāda (N) 139
261
dravyaikāntavāda 174, 180, 194;
(N) 174, 194 dravyanaya 313

Page #434

414
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
ekāntika bhedavāda (N) 139 ekārthatvaniyama 353 ekārthavācakāh 321 ekarūpataiva 22 ekasvabhāvatvam (N) 147 ekatva 140, 240; (N) 147 ekatvavāda 32 eva 339, 340, 343 ; (N) 73,
339, 341 evakāra (N) 339 evambhūta 313, 318, 325, 327 evambhūtanaya 324, 325, 328 gañadhara (N) 127 gāthā(s) 4; (N) 158, 187, 188,
190, 258, 259, 261, 262, 263, 308, 311, 312, 323, 329, 341,
360, 362 gauḥ 354, 355 gauņa 96 ghata 65, 149, 321, 322, 324,
335, 341; (N) 346 ghātaka 163 ghațākāśa 278; (N) 278 ghatatva 335 guda 196 guņa 6, 107, 111, 117, 187, 189,
190, 191, 247, 249, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 280, 380 : (N) 117, 188, 210, 259, 260,
261, 262, 263, 264, 265 guņas 64, 187, 247, 249, 257,
265, 266; (N) 63, 135, 187,
191, 259 guņāśraya (N) 191 guņāstika 259 guņatva (N) 210 guņi 117
ihetipratyayadarśana (N) 210 Indra 321, 322 īśvara 75, 79, 82, 85, 87, 88, 89,
90, 192; (N) 16, 80, 86 itararūpāpattyāpi 343 jada 26; (N) 34 jainagandhi 91 jala (N) 147 jāti 38 jātyantara 6, 195, 198, 233, 380;
(N) 195, 197 jātyantararūpatva 233; (N)
234 jātyantaratā 189 jātyantaratva 2, 198, 199, 200,
202 ; (N) 199 jātyantaravāda 125, 138, 183,
185, 186, 194, 200; (N) 201 jīva 26, 79; (N) 34, 63 jiva-jagat 81 jivas 68, 71, 79 jñāna 72; (N) 241, 243 jñānakarmasamuccayavāda
(N) 69 jñāpaka 308 jñātasattāvāda 294 jñatr 304, 310 jñeya 102 kāla 154, 193, 202, 274, 335 kālabheda (N) 266 kālābheda (N) 266 kālabhedāpekṣayā 266 kālabhedena 164 kālānanugata 51 kālāņus (N) 282 kalasa 321 kālātyayāpadişta (N) 375 kālavibhedāpekṣayā 266 kālikavisesanatā 239 kalpanā 39, 51, 226; (N) 39 kalpanāksita (N) 190 kalpita 144 kaņabhunmata 188 kāņāda (N) 187 kapāla (N) 191
hasta-pustaka-samyoga (N) 207 Himavat 278
ihabuddhi 240 ihapratyaya 240 ihedampratyayadarśana (N)
210

Page #435

INDEXES
kaphahetuḥ 196 kapivṛkşasamyoga 280 kapivṛkşasamyogavat 279
kāraka 308; (N) 212 kāraṇa 86
kārikā (s) 4; (N) 21, 23, 36, 39, 41, 48, 49, 53, 65, 129, 132, 133, 140, 141, 144, 153, 154, 174, 187, 188, 189, 190, 196. 207, 208, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 219, 220, 222, 243, 278, 279, 282, 283, 289, 309, 311, 312, 316, 318, 319, 320, 321, 324, 326, 340, 351, 352, 353, 355, 362
karma 107; (N) 117
kathañcidasattvam (N) 345 kathañcidekāntadṛṣṭi 307 kathañcidvyapadeśya 349 kathañcit 139, 338, 345; (N)
128
kathañcit bhedabhedavāda
(N) 139
kathañcitsattvam (N) 345 kevaladvaitavada (N) 34 kevalajñāna 309
kevalau 221
kevalin 157
kevalins 309
kirana 354
kotis 349; (N) 349 krama 176 kramabhāvi (N) 262
260, 262, 268;
kramārpaņa 307, 346; (N) 341 kramārpaṇaya 349, 358
kraurya (N) 278 kriya (N) 212 kṣaṇa (N) 38, 45
kṣaṇamātram api 164 kṣaṇanāśita (N) 187 kṣaṇas 176; (N) 200 kṣaṇikasantāna 199 kṣaṇikatva (N) 187 kṣaṇikavāda 174, 175, 186, 194; (N) 174, 175, 200
kşetra 154, 202, 335 kumbha 321
kunaya (N) 311 kuṇḍalāvasthāyām 81 kurma (N) 65
kūṭasthanitya 64, 173 küṭasthanityatā (N) 187 kūṭasthanityavāda (N) 53 kvacit 228
lāghava 239; (N) 210 lakṣaṇa 180 lokākāśa (N) 282
madhura (N) 47 madhyasthatā 133 mahāsāmānya 326
mahāvākya 88; (N) 89 Maheśvara 192
manas 109 maņi 329
Man-Lion 196
mathākāśa 278; (N) 278 Mathura 278
māyā 17, 31, 72, 73; (N) 17, 31, 35, 72, 200
māyāvāda 18, 125; (N) 16, 17,
78
māyāvādanirākaraṇa (N) 78 mayūrāṇḍa (N) 197 mecaka (N) 197 mecakaratna 170
micchattam (N) 187 militayoḥ 197
miśra 189; (N) 200 miśravāda 5, 189, 380 mithyā 34
mithyatmadṛṣṭitvāt (N) 312
mithyopādhis 75
mṛṣā 134
415
mṛṣārthatā (N) 190
mūkasvapnavat (N) 51
mukhya 96
muktātma 109
mulädhāra (N) 141 mūlakṣatikāri (N) 170

Page #436

416
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
mūlāvacchedena 279 mūrta rūpa (N) 16
nāgaram 196
naigama 313, 314, 316, 318, 325 naigamābhāsa 316
naigamanaya 314, 315, 316, 325, 327
nairantarya 216
nairatmya 41, 57; (N) 40, 41 nairātmyavāda 40; (N) 40, 41 nakula 163
nāmadheyam (N) 73 nānākāśapradesāḥ 278
nānāśabdavāda 353 nara 196
Narasimha 196
Nārāyaṇa 117
na sat naivāsat (N) 32 nāsti 342
nāstitva 165, 341, 342, 346 naya 310, 324, 333; (N) 161, 304, 310, 311, 313, 317 nayābhāsa (N) 311, 320 nayābhāsas (N) 311
nayas 324, 325, 326, 327, 328, 329; (N) 188, 304, 311, 317, 328 nayavāda 2, 6, 7, 13, 124, 148, 149, 151, 186, 269, 273, 284, 287, 301, 303, 304, 305, 309, 310, 324, 329, 330, 333, 334, 370, 380, 381; (N) 161, 303, 304, 328, 329
nayavādin 320, 323, 327
nayavādins 327 na yuktam 139 nilänilavat 143 nimitta (N) 86 niranvaya 212
niranvaya kṣaṇika 44 nirapekṣa (N) 368 nirapeksavāda 350 nirapekṣavādas 340 niravayavatva 280 nirguna (N) 191
nirguṇabrahman 17, 82; (N)
16
nirvacaniya 73 nirviśeşasattvavāda 84 nirvisesavāda (N) 84 niścayanaya (N) 317 nişedha 144, 149, 336, 344 nişedhapratiyogi 335, 341 nişpanna 228; (N) 214 nişpannayoh 213, 228 nissvabhāva (N) 238 nissvabhāvatā 150; (N) 151 nissvabhāvatvāt (N) 53 nitya 40, 192, 209, 278 nityadravya 109 nityam 281
nityānitya (N) 133 nityatva 38, 240
nityavāda 44; (N) 174 niyantṛ 79, 86 niyata 345
paccayas (N) 211 pada 354
pāda (N) 17
padartha (N) 206, 238 padarthāntara 206 padarthas 107
padartha-sankara (N) 210 pajjayamūḍhā 261
pajjāvatthiyanaya (N) 188 pakṣāntara 200; (N) 200 pakṣāntaravāda (N) 201 pakşasańkara 200; (N) 200 pañcabheda (N) 116 pannattis (N) 126 para 69, 219
parabhāva 155
parabhūtaḥ 217 paradravya 155
paradravyādicatuştaya 155, 336
parakāla 155
parakṣetra 155 paramārthasat (N) 38
51, 199, 350;

Page #437

INDEXES
417
paramārthasatya (N) 143 paramārthasatyam (N) 69 paramārthatah (N) 38 pāramārthika (N) 282 pāramārthika-sat 34 pāramārthiko bhedaḥ 23 paramātmā 192; (N) 86 parameśvarī 261 paramparās 325 parārthaḥ 307 parasamayā 261 parasamayas (N) 188 parasangrahanaya (N) 326 parasatya 350 parasparānanuviddha 195, 201 parasparaparihāra (N) 355 paraspara-vivikta 151 parasparaviviktadravya
paryāyaikāntavāda 194 paratantra 82, 112 pāratantrya 213, 227 pāratantryābhāvāt 214 pāratantrya-sambandha 227,
228 paratattva 149; (N) 172 paratva 157 parāvidyā 69; (N) 16, 143 parikalpita (N) 38 parīksämukha sūtra (N) 307 pariņāma 33, 229, 267; (N)
133, 192 pariņāmanitya 64 pariņāmas 283 pariņāmāt (N) 17 pariņāmavāda 66, 67; (N) 16,
19, 63 pariņāmi 174 parispanda (N) 192 parisuddha (N) 188 paroksa (N) 336 parokşapramāņa 124 paryāya 6, 22, 23, 140, 187, 189,
190, 247, 249, 254, 257, 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 319, 380; (N) 100, 127, 129, 139, 187,
188, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263,
265 paryāyaikānta (N) 194 paryāyaikāntavāda 174, 176,
180, 194 ; (N) 174, 194 paryāyanaya 313 paryāyanayas 313, 318, 319, 320 paryāyarthika 327 paryāyārthikanaya 312, 318, 329,
333; (N) 24, 188 paryāyarūpa (N) 195 paryāyas 21, 139, 140, 247, 249,
255, 257, 265, 266; (N) 22,
135, 139, 259, 262 paryāyasamsparsi 318 paryāyāstika 259, 260, 327 paryāyavāda 176, 189, 194, 261;
(N) 190 paryudāsa (N) 142, 143 paşu 354 pața 149, 322, 335, 341, 343 Pāțaliputra 278 pațatva 153, 335 paurvāparya 176 phala 149 phalatva 153 pīta 164 pittakāraṇam 196-197 pradeśa (N) 282 pradeśas 278, 282; (N) 278, 282 pradhāna (N) 19 pradhānatayā 343, 344 pradīpa 110 prāgabhāvapratiyogi 65 prajna 57 prakāra 85, 337 prakāraprakāribhāva 90 prakāras (N) 80 prakārin 85; (N) 79 praksti 64, 66, 67, 71; (N) 25,
63, 64, 234 prakstis (N) 64 pramāņa 93, 311 ; (N) 311 pramāṇas 3, 124, 125 pramāṇasamuccayavāda 69

Page #438

418
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
fjusūtranaya 318, 319, 327;
(N) 319 Rucaka 132 rūdhiḥ 322 rūdhita-sabdas (N) 322 rupa 31, 179 rūpakşaņa 178 rūpas 163 rūpaśleśa 213, 216, 217; (N)
215, 216 rūpaśleśa sambandha 218, 229
pramāņavisayavyavasthāhāni
(N) 146 prapnuvanti 140 prasajyapratişedha (N) 142, 143 prasanga (N) 55 praśnavaśāt 336 pratibadhyapratibandhaka
bhāva 163, 165 pratibhāsanāt 169 prātibhāsika 34 pratikşaņavināśibhāva 176 pratiniyatavācyavācakabhāva
357 pratiniyatavyavahāralopa (N)
146, 172 pratişedha 148 pratişedhavādins (N) 50 prātītikasattā (N) 72 prātītikasattvam 292 pratītyasamutpāda (N) 44, 45,
63 pratyakşa (N) 336 pratyakşādipramāṇabādhā (N)
142, 146, 147, 172 pratyakşapramāņa 124 prthagbhūta 336 přthivi 354 prthvi 276 pudgala 274, 275; (N) 20 pudgalanairātmya (N) 41 Purandara 321, 322, 324 puruşa (N) 25, 63, 64, 234 puruşas 64, 67; (N) 64 puruşabahutvam (N) 64 puruşāpekṣayā (N) 72 pūrvottarabhāvinau 164 pustaka 149
sabala (N) 195 śabda 281, 313, 318, 325, 327,
328 ; (N) 352 śabdabrahmavāda (N) 34 sabdādayah (N) 307 śabdādvaitavāda 308; (N) 34 śabdādvaitavādins 321 śabdanaya 320, 322, 323, 325,
326, 328 sabdanayābhāsa 321 sabdanayas 305, 319 śabdapratipattyadarśanāt 224 sabdatantra 319 sadasadātmaka 168 sadasadvilakşaņa 35, 37; (N)
36
sadasat 349, 350; (N) 32 sadasatsvarūpatva 153 sādṛśyopacārādeva 356 sadvāda (N) 200 sagunabrahman 82; (N) 16 sahabhāvi 260, 262, 267; (N)
262 sahabhāviparyāya 268 sahakāri 54, 179; (N) 86, 179 sahakāritvena 178 sahānavasthānabhāva 163, 164 sahārpaņa 346; (N) 341 sajātiya 31 ; (N) 31 śākhāvacchedena 279 sakkayadiţthi (N) 41 sakra 321, 324 sāksāt 309 sakti 75
rajas 64 rāla (N) 242 rasa 179 rasādikşaņānām (N) 178 rasakşaņa 178 rayaņāvali 329 rjusūtra 313, 318, 319, 325, 327,
328

Page #439

śaktiḥ (N) 307
saktu 230
samabhiruḍha 313, 318, 325, 327 samabhirudhanaya
321, 323,
325, 328, 354
sāmānādhikaranya 89, 96, 97;
(N) 96, 97 samanvayadṛşti (N) 288
sāmānya 38, 107, 263; (N) 23, 146
sāmānyaguṇa (N) 263 sāmānya lakṣaṇa (N) 310 sāmānyalakṣaṇas (N) 47 sāmānyanaigama 327 sāmānyanaya 327 sāmānyasaṁjñā 260 sāmānyaviśeşatmaka 325
INDEXES
samarthya 53, 339 samāsa 313
samastyavṛttitvam 279 samavāya 88, 108, 111, 207, 208, 209, 215, 224, 233, 237, 240, 241, 243; (N) 25, 88, 107, 108, 205, 206, 207, 208, 210, 211, 213, 222, 223, 237, 238, 239, 240, 243
samavayas (N) 240
samavāya-sambandha 207, 235;
(N) 243
samaveta (N) 263
sambandha 2, 216, 221, 380; (N) 87, 215, 243 sambandhakhaṇḍanam
(N)
222
sambandhinau 206 sambandhinaveva 224
samhāravāda (N) 336 samjñā 306, 356
357
saṁjñāntaram 264 saṁjñāsaṁjñi-sambandha samsaya 141, 146, 171; (N) 141 samsayaviṣayatvasambhava
(N) 345
saṁskāravāda (N) 19
samsthānabheda 65
samsthānamātram 223
samudita 336 samvṛti-sat (N) 38 samvṛtisatya (N) 143
samyoga 163, 224, 243, 280; (N) 206, 208, 213, 237, 238, 279
samyogasambandha 207 samyoge 163 samyutta (N) 288 sandigdha (N) 141
sandratara (N) 18
sanghata (N) 20, 213 sanghātavāda (N) 19
sangraha 313, 317, 318, 325, 327, 328
sangrahābhāsa 317
sangrahanaya 316, 327;
419
326
sankalpa 314
sankara 141, 145, 170, 241; (N)
141
santānasyāvastutvāt 177
sāpekṣa 350
(N)
sānkarya (N) 141 sanketa 359 sankhyādi 23
sankīrṇavāda (N) 336 sankṣepa 313
sanmätrabrahmavādam 85 santāna 176, 177; (N) 38, 44, 177, 200
santaratā 216, 217
saptabhangīnaya 374 saptabhangīvāda 287 śarīra 85
sarvam pṛthak (N) 38 sarvanirāśaṁsatvāt 219 sarvātmanā 217, 229 sarvathā 266, 349
sāpekṣatva 351
sāpekṣavāda 340, 350 saprapañca 68
saptabhangi 7, 148, 149, 269, 273, 304, 333, 334, 336, 337, 364, 374, 375; (N) 304, 334, 335

Page #440

420
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGB
sarvathaikāntadṛṣṭi 307 sarvavastusabalavāda (N) 336
sarvavyāpaka 209 śaśaviṣāņā (N) 238
śāśvatavāda (N) 46
sat 35, 36, 37, 148, 149, 164, 199, 219, 291, 317, 344, 347, 349, 350; (N) 32, 35, 73, 128, 143, 200, 349 satkāraṇavāda (N) 67 satkārya 82; (N) 86 satkāryavāda 65, 66, 67, 77, 83, 97; (N) 65, 67, 78, 80, 97, 234
satkāryavādin 81; (N) 25 satkāyadṛṣṭi 41, 42; (N) 41, 57 sattā 326; (N) 206 sattadvaita 16
sattva 64, 169, 170 sattvāsattva 169
sattvasattvarūpatva (N) 171
satya 79
satyopādhis 75 śaurya (N) 278
sāvayava 282
savayavatva 279, 280; (N) 277
saviseṣābheda (N) 117
saviśesābhedavāda 117
saviśeşavāda (N) 84 savvam 39
senā (N) 357
śeşa 86; (N) 86
siddha (N) 214 siddhi (N) 175 śilāśakalayugala (N) 242
simha 196
śītoṣṇavat 143
skandhas (N) 40
śleşa 215, 217
śloka (N) 77
ślokas (N) 77, 78, 81, 82 sṛṣṭi 295; (N) 86
sṛṣṭiḍṛṣṭivada (N) 295
śruti (N) 293
sthiti 132
sthula 312
suddha (N) 188 śuddhabhedavāda 116 śuddhadvaitavada (N) 34, 35 śuddhaniścayanaya 326 suhumabheya 327
sunthi 196
śunya (N) 349
sutra 94, 129, 136, 142, 170, 180, 264, 325, 326; (N) 17, 73, 83, 259, 264, 265, 278, 282, 283 sūtrakāra 366; (N) 17 sūtras 78; (N) 17, 116, 188, 259, 260, 265, 289, 313
şvabhāva 113, 239, 241; (N) 41, 208, 262, 356 sva-bhava 155 svabhāvabhedaḥ 23
svabhāvabhinnaś ca 86
svabhāvadharma (N) 238
svabhāvasambandha 237; (N)
237, 238
svabhāvatā 242
svabhāvatvahāniḥ 178 svābhävika 79; (N) 77, 116 svābhāvikabhedabheda 77, 82; °vāda 77; (N) 81
svābhāvika dvaitadvaita (N)
80
svābhāvikalambāyamānā
vasthāyām 81
svābhāviki śaktiḥ 307
svacchāḥ 64
svadravya 155
svadravyādicatuşṭaya 155, 335
svagata 31; (N) 32
svakāla 155
svakşetra 155
svalakṣaṇa (N) 38
svalakṣaṇas (N) 47, 51
svalakṣaṇavāda 111
svärthaḥ 307
svarupa 113, 224, 239; (N) 238 svarupahāniprasangaḥ 343
svarupaikyam 84, 90 svarūpāpekṣayā 266, 267

Page #441

INDEXES
421
tādātmya 38, 308 tadatattvavāda (N) 336 taddeśabhāvinyeva 279 tamas 64 tat 88 tat tvam asi 88 (N) 89 tāttyikatvāyoga 216 tikta (N) 47 tirobhāva 66; (N) 34 tīrthikāh (N) 41 tippaņi (N) 196, 197 toya 230 trailokyavyāvarta 44, 46, 55 trayātmakam (N) 133 tuccha 35, 154 tucchavāda 44 tullatthā 258 tulyabalatvāt 78, 164 tulyarthau 258 tulyārthatvāt (N) 258 tvam 88
svarūpasambandha 237, 243;
(N) 237, 238 svarūpavat 266 svarūpeṇa 228 svasthacetasā 144 svatantra 82, 112 svata eva 241 svatattva 149, 154 svātmanisthitāḥ 212 svatovyāvartaka 110 svayambhāvāḥ 212 syādasti ghatah 341 syādasti nāsti ca ghataḥ 341;
(N) 341 syādastināsti cāvaktavyaś ca
ghataḥ 342 syādastyavaktavyaśca ghataḥ
342 syādastyeva ghataḥ 339 syādavaktavyo ghataḥ 342;
(N) 341 syādvāda 2, 6, 7, 13, 124, 125,
148, 149, 269, 273, 284, 287, 303, 304, 305, 306, 308, 309, 324, 329, 331, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 338, 340, 345, 351, 357, 359, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, 376, 378, 380, 381 ; (N) 23, 36, 161, 304, 323, 329, 334, 335, 336, 345, 360,
362, 372, 373 syädvādamudrānkitam 287 syādvāda-saptabhangi 151, 186 syadvadeksaņasaptakam (N)
335 syādvādic 363 syādvādin 350, 353, 370; (N)
23, 355, 369 syādvādins 339 śyāma 164 syānnāsti ghatah 34 syānnāstyavaktavyaśca ghataḥ
342 syāt 7, 337, 338, 340, 342; (N)
161, 335, 337, 341
ubhaya 348; (N) 141, 142, 146,
172 ubhayadoşa (N) 141, 142, 147,
172 ubhayaprādhānyam 358 ubhayarūpa (N) 195 ubhayavāda 138, 180, 183, 185,
186, 189, 190, 192, 193, 194, 200, 201, 380; (N) 187, 188,
190, 194, 200, 201, 299 ubhayavādin 201 upacara (N) 278 upacāraḥ 322 upādāna 179; (N) 86, 179 upādānabhāvena 178 upādhi 77, 278, 280; (N) 278 upādhis 74, 75, 76; (N) 75 upakāritva 226; (N) 222 upalaksaņa (N) 73 upalaksaņā (N) 142 upalakṣita 139; (N) 141 upanayas (N) 328 upanişad (N) 16 upodghātaḥ (N) 84

Page #442

422
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
utpada 127, 132; (N) 127, 129 utpādavyayadhrauvyātmaka
vāda (N) 199 utpada-vyaya-dhrauvya
yuktam sat 127, 136; (N)
151-152 utpatti (N) 127
vācaka 308 vacanasāmarthyam 358 vacanavinyāsa 309, 337 vācārambhaņam (N) 73 vācyavācakaniyama 323, 353,
357 vāda 69 ; (N) 53 vadhya 163 vadhyaghātakabhāva 163 vadhyaghātakavirodha (N)
163 vāhika 355 vaicitrya (N) 289 vaicitryam (N) 289 vairivat (N) 312 vaiyadhikaranya 141 vana (N) 357 Vanavāda 132; (N) 141 Vardhamanaka 132 vartate 281 Vārtika 132; (N) 230 vāstava 206 vastu 169, 170, 171, 263, 310,
336; (N) 171, 259 vastuno gamakāh (N) 311 vastutastu (N) 95 vastutva (N) 206 vastvamsagrāhi 310 vibhajyavāda (N) 288, 336 vibhāva (N) 262 vibhu 278, 282 vicāra (N) 39 vicitram (N) 289 vidhi 144, 148, 149, 336 vidhipratiyogi 344 vidhivādins (N) 50 vigrahayān sambandha (N) 237 vijātiya 31 ; (N) 31
vijñānadvaya (N) 355 vikalpa 39, 55, 283; (N) 39 vikāra 33 vilaksana (N) 35 vināśa (N) 127 vinaştāh (N) 41 vinaśyati 281 Vindhya 278 virodha 139, 141, 142, 148, 162,
163, 165, 168, 169; (N) 91,
141, 142, 147, 163, 172 virodhābhāsa (N) 101 virodhadosa 148 virodhato (N) 312 virodhitvāt (N) 312 viruddha (N) 175 viruddhadharmādhyāsa 21 visañjutta 329 vişaya 283 vişayavişayibhāva 238 vişayavyavasthāhāni 141, 146,
171; (N) 172 višeşa 107, 108, 109, 110, 112,
113, 114, 115, 117, 188, 263, 316; (N) 23, 25, 80, 108, 110,
112, 116, 118, 146 viśesaguņa 281 ; (N) 263 višeşa lakşaņa (N) 310 višeşana 87; (N) 81, 84, 85 višeşanaigama 327 višeşanaya 327 višesaņaviseşyabhāva 238 višeşāntara 110 viseșas 109, 111, 114, 115; (N)
109, 110, 112 višeşasamjñā 260 višeşya 87; (N) 84, 85 visista 196 višiştaikyam 84, 90, 96 vistāra 312; (N) 262 vitarka (N) 39 vivarta 31, 33, 34; (N) 73 vivartavāda 31, 32, 35, 72; (N)
16 vivartavādin 72; (N) 73 vivștisatya (N) 151

Page #443

INDEXES
423
vşkşāḥ (N) 357 vștti (N) 19 vyadhikaranatā 141, 144 vyadhikaranatādoşa 169$ (N)
147, 172 vyañjanam (N) 323 vyapadeśa 281 vyāpaka 209, 240 ; (N) 289 vyāpyavpttitvam 279 vyāsa 312 vyatikara 141, 145, 170 vyatireki (N) 262 vyatiriktavastu 225 vyavacchedaprayojanah (N)
339 vyavahāra 313, 317, 318, 319,
325, 327, 328 vyavahāralopa (N) 142, 146 vyavahāranaya 317, 327-8; (N)
vyavahāranayābhāsa 318 vyāvahārika 34; (N) 282 vyāvahārikasattā 293 vyāvartaka 110 vyāvartakatvam (N) 81 vyāvsttarūpāḥ 212 vyāvștti (N) 22 vyārttibuddhihetavaḥ (N) 109 vyāvsttimat 21 vyāvșttyartham 339 vyaya 127; (N) 127, 129 vyutpatti-sabdas (N) 322
yauga (N) 187 yaugaiḥ (N) 141 yogin (N) 57 yogyatā 239, 241 ; (N) 307 yugapat 357 yuta (N) 207 yutasiddha 207; (N) 207

Page #444


Page #445


Page #446
_