Contribution Of Jaina Writers To Nyaya Vaisesika Literature

Author(s): J N Jaitley
Publisher: J N Jaitley
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/269369/1

Page #1

CONTRIBUTION OF JAINA WRITERS TO THE NYAYA-VAISEȘIKA LITERATURE
J. N. JAITLEY
Historical Position of Jainism :
All the existing Indian philosophical systems excepting the Cārvāka have their close connection with the chief ancient religions of India, viz. Brāhmaṇa or Vedic, Jaina and Bauddha. When we examine the literary work of these three religions we find that Ācāryas of these different religions studied the works of other religions. Their study of other systems is generally shown, when they have to refute the rival schools in their dialectical works. It is, however, not usual to find a scholar following one religion writing a work independently or in the form of a commentary on the tenets of other religions. There are however a few exceptions. For example, Durveka Miśra and Arcața, though followers of Brāhmaṇism, wrote commentaries on the Hetubindu of Dharmakirti, a famous Buddhist logician. The Jainācāryas provide, however, more examples of this type of activity. They have contributed in the form of commentaries to the secular as well as non-secular works of the other two religions. In this dissertation I propose to study the contribution of Jainācāryas to the NyāyaVaiseșika literature.
At the outset one is tempted to ask the question as to why the Jainācāryas should have gone out of their way to contribute to the literature of other schools. In order to understand this problem it is necessary to trace the historical position of Jainism in the main current of Indian culture.
Jainism as a sect is supposed to have had its historical existence from the time of Mahāvīra, the twentyfourth Tirthankara of Jainas. Some scholars take it as far back as Pārsvanātha, the twentythird Tirthařkara, who is generally placed in the 8th Century B.C.
In the history of Indian culture Jainas and Buddhists are known as Sramaņas. A sort of antagonism between Sramaņas and Brāhmaṇas appears to have become part of the old tradition. The compound STAT ब्राह्मणम् according to the Panini rulel येषां च विरोधः शाश्वतिकः is a clear indication of the same.
This item of our tradition requires some close consideration. For this purpose it would be interesting to note the rise of Sramaņa sects in
1 Pātañjala Mahābhāşya, P. 539,

Page #2

106
Bhāratz
their early relation to Brāhmaṇical schools as well as the historical developments of their churches. I shall limit myself to Jainas though the general problem of the rise of Sramaņas pertains to all the Sramaņa sects.
The Sūtrakstānga1 of Jainas and the Brabmajāla-Suttaa of Bauddhas refer to a great number of sects other than their own. Some of these may be Vedic while the others are non-Vedic and Sramaņa. Of these sects the historicity of the three Sramaņa sects, viz. those of Jainas, Bauddhas and Ājivakas is generally accepted by the scholars.
There is however a controversy about the origin of these Sramaņa sects. The older view is that these Sramaņa sects were more or less so many protests against the orthodox Vedic cult. The strongest argument in favour of this view is that our oldest extant literature comprises Vedas including Brāhmaṇas and Upanişads. The canonical works of Jainas and Bauddhas are much later and assume the existence of the Vedas and Vedism. Naturally therefore one becomes inclined to regard these sects represented by later literature as in some way related to the older Vedism.
However, a more critical and thorough examination of the Vedic as well as of Sramaņa sacred texts has given birth to the hypothesis of the independent origin of these Sramaņa sects. Not only that, but this study has also suggested the possibility of some of the Vedic sects like Sivism, schools like Sānkhya-Yoga and some of the Bhakti cults being non-Vedic in origin. The bases of this hypothesis are the latest archaeo
1 Sut. refers to the creeds prevalent in the time of Mahavira, They are
(1) f ata, (2) 3fats, (3) rats and (4) fariyat, The same Sut. states that these four great creeds comprise 363 schools. Vide Sut. I-xii-1 also cf. Sth. 4-4-35, Bhag. 30-1-825, Uttar, 18-23 and
Nāndi 47. 2 BJS. in DN enumerates 62 schools under the chief eight heads viz.
(1) Thaifa, (2) arteft*, (3) tarafa, (4) 37#farà94, (5) affa49c9f45, (6) Jamraf74, (7) 3780aifa and (8) faguraftFarafa DN 1-12-39, also cf. Syt. 1-2. It enumerates (1) #sara, (2) Fahr995, (3) fanfaars, (4) açorar, (5) Haara, (6) gegara, and (7) Saarats It should be noted that according to the works of the Jaina canon referred to all the five Vädas excepting uçotats and भतवाद come under the head of क्रियावाद while except भतवाद all the six come under the head of 3fat. For the detailed study vide SSJL by A. C. Sen.

Page #3

107
Contribution of Jaina Writers etc. logical researches, philological findings and also the literary evidences. Let us briefly review these different sources of the history.
The archaeological researches have now definitely proved the existence of a highly developed culture with which the one reflected in Vedas and Brāhmaṇas looks rural if not primitive. We may refer to the City culture of the Indus Valley Civilization. The existence of the images of ProtoSiva and Sakti in the monuments at Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa points in the direction of the image-worship which was later on accepted by all Indian sects. It should be noted here that in the Vedas there is very little evidence of the cult of image-worship.
Similarly philologists have now shown that the Sanskrit language that was codified by Pāṇini was not the pure Aryan Vedic language. Many · non-Vedic words current in the languages of the different regions of this country were absorbed in Sanskrit language with the assimilation of the different non-Vedic cults into Vedic cult. Here we are concerned with the word Pūjana2 used in the sense of worship. The Vedic Aryans used the word Yajana in the sense of their daily sacrificial worship. They had no concern with image-worship. The word Pūjana indicates quite a different mode of worship which must have been then prevalent among the peoples of non-Vedic civilisation. It must have involved some sort of imageworship. With the assimilation of this image-worship, the word Pūjana also must have been assimilated in the language of the Aryans. In later times not only did Pūjana become popular and was a more prevalent form of worship among all the classes of people but even in pure Yajana of sacrifices image-worship was brought in one form or another. For example, the Pūjana of Gaņapati acquired its priority in every type of Yajana.
D. R. Bhar.dārkar3 deals with the problem of non-Vedic sects in some detail in his "Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture". In this work, he draws upon archaeological research as well as literary works like Vedas, Brāhmaṇas, Sūtras, Pițakas and Agamas. There he shows the origin of Sivism to lie in the non-Vedic Vrātya cult. Similarly according to him Jainism and Buddhism have their origin in a Vrsala tribe. This tribe had its own independent civilization and stubbornly resisted the imposition of Brāhmaṇic culture by the Aryans. This tribe chiefly resided in the south-east part of the country which is now known as Bihar and
1 'Mohenjo Daro and the Indus Valley civilisation' by John Marshall.
Vide description of plate No. XII-17. 2 'Indo-Aryan and Hindi' P. 64. 3 'Some Aspects of Ancient Indian Culture', pp. 40-52.

Page #4

108
Bharati
which is the birth-palace of Jainism and Buddhism. In fact he has ably discussed the relation of the non-Vedic cultures with that of Vedic ones and has shown bow some of the non-Vedic cults like Yoga and others were assimilated in the Vedic cult.
The findings of D. R. Bhandarkar strengthen the older hypothesis of Winternitz pertaining to the independent origin of the Sramaņa sects. Winternitz has discussed the problem in some detail in his lectures on 'Ascetic Literature in Ancient India'.1 He has paid tributes to the scholars like Rhys Davids, E. Leumann and Richard Garbe who combated the older view of Vedic origin of the Sramaņa sects. His chief grounds are the constant occurrences of the term Sramaņa-Brāhmaṇa in Buddhist Pițakas and Asoka's inscriptions, as well as in legends, poetical maxims and parables found in the Mahābhārata as well as in Purāņas. He closely examines the Pitā-Putra Samvāda, Tulādhāra-Jājali Samvāda, Madhubindu parable and other such Samvādas and compares them with their different versions found in Jaina Āgamas and Buddhist Jätakas. Thus after examining thoroughly the different passages referring to Asceticism and showing their contrast with those referring to ritualism, he concludes "The origin of such ascetic poetry found in the Mahābhārata and the Puranas may have been either Buddhist or Jaina or the parallel passages may all go back to the same source of an ascetic literature that probably arose in connection with Yoga and Sankhya teachings".2 The Sāökhya and Yoga schools, as we have seen above might have been non-Vedic in origin. When some of the Vedic Brāhmaṇas were convinced of the Nivịttipara path or asceticism and left ritualism, the schools which accepted the authorities of Vedas and also the superiority of Brāhmaṇas by birth got slowly assimilated in the Vedic cult. Probably amongst Sramaņa sects the Sankhya was the first to accept the authority of the Vedas and the superiority of Brāhmaṇas by birth and perhaps this may be the reason why we find Sankhya teachings reflected in early Upanişads.
Whatever may be the case, this brief survey points to one fact and that is that by the time of Mahāvira and Buddha, the Sramaņas were a powerful influence affecting the spiritual and ethical ideas of the people. By the process of assimilation the Nivștti outlook became a common ideal both among the thinkers of the earlier Upanişads as well as among the Sramana thinkers. However, the Sramaņa thinkers-Jainas and Bauddhas
.
1 'Some Problems of Indian Literature', p. 21.
Ibid page 40.

Page #5

Contribution of Jaina Writers etc.
109
rejected the authority of Vedas and the superiority of Brāhmaṇas by birth. And their repugnance to animal-sacrifice as a form of worship made them socially distinct and proved an antagonistic force with which the powerful and well-established Vedic sects had to contend.
Here it may be noted that references in the earlier Buddhist Pitakas and Jaina Āgamas as well as in Asoka's inscriptions to Sramaņa-Brāhmaṇa do not indicate any enmity but imply that both are regarded as respectable. It is only in Patañjali's Mahābhāsya which is later than Asoka that we find the compound Sramaņa-Brāhmaṇam suggesting enmity. This may be the result of a contest of centuries between Sramaņas and Brāhmaṇas.
Whether we accept this protestant-theory of the origin and rise of the Sramaņas or the theory of their independent pre-Vedic origin, one
thing is clear that there was a great ferment of Sramaņa-thought in or · about the period of the earliest Upanişads and Araṇyakas, i.e. about 800
B.C. As we have said above the history of Jaina church also does not start with Mahāvira but it goes as far back as Pārsva, i.e. 800 B.C.
The Jaina Āgamas which are the earliest source for the life and teachings of Mahāvīra point to one fact very clearly and that is that the Jñātāputra Vardhamāna had to make his way through a crowd of Sramaņa and Vedic “Titthiyas” or “Tīrthikas". Another point which becomes clear from Āgamas is that Vardhamāna's method was to harmonize and assimilate as much of different contending sects as was consistent with his main ideal of Mokşa. This peculiar trait of Mahāvīra's method seems to be responsible for giving his school the name and character of Anekāntavāda and Syādvāda. The essence of these Vādas lies in harmonizing the different ways of thought by regarding them as so many different points of viewing reality and grasping the truth. This character of Jainism explains why throughout its history it has always studied carefully the religio-philosophical ideas of other schools and developed the Anekānta doctrine in relation to the growth of varicus Darsanas.
Reflection of the thoughts of different contemporaneous sects in Jaina Agamas :
As repeatedly said above the earliest source of Jaina history and religious thought lies in the Agamas of Svetāmbara Jainas. The Digambara Jainas do not accept the present Jaina canon as genuine and therefore authentic. But the researches of the modern scholars like H. Jecobi and others have shown that these Āgamas represent more or less the earliest records of the teachings of Mahāvīra.

Page #6

110
Bhāratī
A careful study of Agamas shows the reflection of the thoughts of the different contemporaneous sects. Let us take some of the passages on the point. The Sutrakṛtänga is one of the earlier canonical works of Svetambara Jainas. It refers to many different philosophical views prevalent in those days. Let us briefly review some of them.
संति पंच महभूया इहमेगेसि माहिया ।
सू. १-१-१-८.
पुढवी आउ तेऊ वा वाउ आगासपंचमा । सू. १-१-१-७ एए पंच महब्भूया तेभ्यो एगोत्ति आहिया । 3rari faurravi faurret at afgurt 11 Some say that this world consists of merely five elements. They. are earth, water, fire, air and sky. They also explain that the soul is created out of these five elements and is destroyed with their destruction.
The commentator Silanka rightly attributes this view to the Cārvāka.1 It is well known that Cārvāka does not accept the independent existence of any soul from the body and looks upon it as the resultant of the combination of the five above stated elements.
जहा य पुढवीथूमे, एगे नाणाहि दीसइ ।
एवं भो कसिणे लोए, विन्नू नाणाइ दीसइ ||
सू. १-१-१-९.
(Some believe) that as though the earth is one yet is seen in different forms, similarly the whole of this world which is the form of Atmā is seen differently.
1 A. C. Sen attributes the view stated in verse No. 8 to
afe and criticising Jecobi states "Jecobi has linked this verse with the following one. This is not justified, for the latter refers to Vedanta." His criticism is right as far as the latter verse No. 9 is concerned because it refers to Vedanta view. However verse No. 8 refers to the view of the Cārvāka school. The commentator Silanka is of the same opinion. The view of तज्जीव-तच्छरीरवादिन् is referred to in verse No. 11 and 12 of the same chapter, i.e. 1-1-1. The commentator Silāika commenting on them clearly states साम्प्रतं तज्जीवतच्छरीरवादिमतं पूर्वपक्षयितुमाह. Even though the view of तज्जीव तच्छरीरवादिन् does not differ much from that of the Carvaka, still it should be noted that in verse No. 8 the view of off is not referred to. In fact verse No. 7 and No. 8 clearly go together and refer to the view of Carvāka while verse No. 11 and No. 12 refer to -107 वादिमत For A. C. Sen's criticism vide SSJL, page 19 foot-note
No. 71.

Page #7

.
Contribution of Jaina Writers etc.
111
The commentator Silānka attributes this view to Ātmadvaitavādins. It clearly refers to one of the Upanişadic views.
कुव्वं च कारयं चेव, सव्वं कुव्वं न विज्जइ ।
एवं अकारओ अप्पा एवं ते उ पगभिआ ॥ सू. १-१-१-१३
Some venture to say that the soul neither does any act himself nor does it do so through any agency. Thus he is non-door or Akartā.
Sīlānka states that this is the view of Sankhyas who believe that the soul is merely the witness of the act and not the agent.
Similarly he also attributes the view of Ātmaşaşthavāda referred to in verse No. 15 to Sānkhyas, who accept the authority of Vedas, and to Saivadhikārins.
Ātmaşaşthavādins accept the existence of independent soul besides the five elements, viz. earth, water, fire, air and sky. The soul is eternal and independent. It is not born of the five elements as held by Cārvāka. The commentator Harşakula mentions Vaišeşikas as the Ātmaşaşthavādins. However the existing systems of Sankhya and Vaišeşika accept more than these six elements. It seems that probably this view may refer to the older schools of Sāňkhya and Vaišeşika types.
'चे खंधे वयंतेगे बाला उ खण जोइणो।
STUOTT STOOOTT UTATE 1 2 3ÈT II 7. 8-8-8-819
Some ignorant people say that there are merely five Skandhas having momentary existence. There is nothing like soul either different from these five Skandhas or produced from these Skandhas. There is no soul either born of some cause or born without any cause.
Silānka attributes this view to Bauddhas. Similarly he also attributes the view referred to in the verse No. 18 to another school of Bauddhas. This view holds that this world consists of four Dhātus, viz. earth, water, fire and air.
"Similarly regarding the creation of the world the Sut. refers to Távarakiraņavāda and Prakstikāraṇavāda in the following verse :
ईसरेण कडे लोए पहाणाइ तहावरे।
oftarafta mara yag: Huferg 1 7. 8-8-3
According to Silāňka, these Isvarakāraņavādins are Naiyāyikas and Vaiseşikas while Pradhāna is held as the cause of this world by the Sankhyas.

Page #8

112
Bharati
On the same line other Āgamas like Sthānānga, Bhagavati, Uttaradhyayana and others too refer to the view of the different schools and sects prevalent in the days of their compilation. As for example Anuyogadvāra refers to the different schools by their particular names as follows :
कणगसत्तरी वेसियं वइसेसियं बद्धसासणं काविलं लोगायतं सट्रियन्तं माठर पुराण वागरण नाउगाइ.
The Nāndisūtra also refers to the same schools with the addition of Bhāgavayam and Payañjala, i.e. Bhāgavata and Päteñjala. Thus later Āgamas clearly refer to Vaišeșika, Lokāyata, Kāpila and others.
Nyāya-Vaiseșika Topics in the Agama Literature :
The references given above are sufficiently indicative of the fact that the Jainas from very early times kept themselves well-informed about the schools of thought other than their own. Now let us see in more detail their acquaintance with the Nyāya and Vaiseșika schools of thought with which we are here more directly concerned. The Sthānanga observes :
अहवा हेऊ चउबिहे पण्णत्ते, तं जहा जावते, थावते, वंसते लूसते; अहवा हेऊ चउव्विहे पण्णत्ते, तं जहा पच्चक्खे, अणुमाणे, ओवम्मे आगमे; अहवा हेऊ चउव्विहे पण्णते तं जहा अत्थितं अत्थि सो हेऊ १, अत्थित्तं णत्थि सो हेऊ २, णत्थित्तं अत्थि सो हेऊ ३, णत्थित्तं णत्थि सो हेऊ ४. स्था. सू. ३३८.
The word Heu or Hetu is used here in three different senses. In the first instance, the word Hetu means a reason or an argument. The Thăvate or Sthāpaka is an argument whose aim is to establish a thesis, but the aim of other Hetu viz. Jāvate, Vansate and Lūsate or Yāpaka, Vyansaka and Lūşaka is to defeat anyhow the opponent either by confusing him or by silencing him.3 These Yapaka, Vyansaka and Lūşaka may be compared with the Avijñatartha Nigrahasthāna, Aviseşasamā Jāti and Sāmānyacchala respectively of Nyāyasūtra. Thāvate or Sthāpaka is a valid argument. In the second instance, the word Hetu is used in the sense of Pramāņa and therefore they are identical with Pramāņas of 'Nyāyasūtra', viz. Pratyakşa, Anumāna, Upamāna and Sabda.5 In the third case it is used
1 For the detailed study of the problem one may refer to SSJL by A. C. Sen
Anu, page 36 (Devacanda Lal bhai's edition). 3 For detail vide DVN verse No. 86. * Vide NS 5-2-9 for Avijñā ārtha, 5-1-23 for Aviseşasama and 1-2-13
for Sāmānyacchala. 5 Vide NS 1-1-3.

Page #9

Contribution of Jaina Writers etc.
113 in the technical sense of Hetu in a Syllogism. The following table will give a comparative view of the Jaina and the Vaiseşika Hetus:-- स्थानाङ्ग सूत्र
वैशेषिक सूत्र. हेतु-साध्य (१) विधि-विधिः संयोगी, समचायी, एकार्थ समवायी ३-१-३
and भूतो भूतस्य ३-१-१३ (२) विधि-निषेध भूतमभूतस्य ३-१-१३ (३) निषेध-विधि अभूतं भूतस्य ३-१-११ (४) निषेध-निषेध __ कारणाभावात् कार्याभावः १-२-१ Similarly Bhagavati states : से कि तं पमाणं ? पमाणे चउविहे पण्णत्ते; तं जहा पच्चक्खे, अणुमाणे, ओवम्भे, आगमे जहा अणुओगदारे तहा णेयव्वं पमाणं ।
भगवती ५-३-१३१-३२ Anuyogadvāra also observes the same Pramāṇas as referred to by Bhagavati. In addition to it, it also describes in detail the three types of Anumāna which are explained in Nyāyasūtra as Pūrvavat, Seşavat and Samanyatodrsta.1 It observes :.. से किं तं अणुमाणे ? अणुमाणे तिविहे पण्णत्ते तं जहा पुव्ववं सेसवं दिट्ठसाहम्भवं । अनु. पृ. २११ ।
Then further it describes each of these Anumānas one by one. Describing Puvvavam or Pūrvavat it states :
माया पुत्तं जहा नळं जुवाणं पुणरागयं । 'काइ पच्चभि जाणेज्जा पुन्वलिङ्गेण केणइ ॥ अनु. .. २११-१२ .
A mother recognizes her lost young son on return with the help of some marks previously known. This is nothing else but Pratyabhijñāna of later writers. . Sesavat is of five types. They are as follows:
- से किं तं सेसवं? सेसवं पंचविहं पण्णत्तं; तं जहा (१) कज्जेणं, (२) कारणेणं, (३) गुणेणं, (४) अवयवेणं, (५) आस एणं, अनु. ६. २१२. i.e. (1) to infer cause from effect, (2) effect from cause, (3) a substance from its quality, (4) a body from its limb and (5) a source of derivation from an object derived. Each of these types is illustrated by more than one example as follows :
(१) संखं सद्देणं भेरि ताडिएणं, वसभं ढक्किएणं, मोरं किंकाइएणं हयं हेसिएणं and so on
1 Ibid 1-1-5.
15

Page #10

114
Bhārati (२) तंतवो पडस्स कारणं. ण पडो तंतु कारणं, वीरणा कडस्स कारणं ण कडो वीरणा कारणं, मिप्पिडो घडस्स कारणं ण घडो मिप्पिड कारणं ॥ .
३) सुवण्णं निकसेणं, पुप्फ गंधेणं, लवणं रसेणं, मइरं आसायएणं, वत्थं फासेणं ॥
(४) महिसं सिंगेणं, कुक्कुडं सिहाएणं, हत्थि विसाणेणं, वराहं दाढाए, मोरं पिच्छेणं, आसं खुरेणं वग्धं नहेणं and so on (५) अग्गि धूमेणं, सलिलं वल्लागणं, वुद्धि अब्भविकारेणं कुलपुत्तं सीलसमायारेणं ॥
- अनु. पृ. २१२-१३ Drstasādharmya or Samanyatodrsha is of two types, (1) Sāmānyadrsta and (2) Visesadrsta. Both are illustrated as follows :
(१) से किं तं सामण्णदिळं ? जहा एगो पुरिसो तहा वहवे पुरिसा, जहा वहवे पुरिसा, तहा एगो पुरिसो। जहा एगो करिसावणो तहा वहवे करिसावणा, जहा वहवे करिसावणा तहा एगो करिसावणो। अनु. पृ. २१४
This is a generalisation from one to many and many to one on the ground of similarity and therefore it is called Sāmānyadựşta or Dșstasādharmya.
(२) से जहाणामए केइ पुरिसे कंचि पुरिसं, बहूणं पुरिसाणं मज्झे पुव्वदिटुं पच्चभिजाणिज्जा अयं से पुरिसे। बहूणं करिसावणाणं मज्झे पुव्वदिह्र करिसावणं पच्चभिजाणिज्जा अयं से करिसावणे, अनु पृ. २१५
This is a Pratyabhijñāna or recognition of a particular from many which are similar and therefore it is called Višeşadsşta Drşțasādharmya. This may be distinguished from Pratyabhijñāna or Pūrvavat by the absence of any reference to similar things.
Comparing the above mentioned Anumānas with those in Nyāyaśāstra we find that the names of these three types are identical with those in Nyāyasūtras of Gautama. But the Sūtras neither explain nor illustrate them, so we cannot say whether there was any identity of explanation. The Bhāşya of Vātsyāyana explains and illustrates these three types in a different way, for example it explains Pūrvavat as follows:
यत्र कारणेन कार्यमनुमीयते, यथाः-मेघोन्नत्या भविष्यति वृष्टिरिति । अथवा पूर्ववदिति यत्र यथा पूर्व प्रत्यक्षभूतयोरन्यतरदर्शनेनाऽन्यतरस्याप्रत्यक्षस्यानुमानं, यथा धूमेनाग्निरिति । न्या. भा. १-१-५.
Both these illustrations of Pūrvavat come under the head of Sesavat of Anuyoga—the former under the second type Kāraņeņa and the latter under the fifth type Asaeņa or Aśrayeņa. In the same way the explanation and illustration of Sāmānyatodrsta given by Vātsyāyana in his Bhāşya

Page #11

Contribution of Jaina Writers etc.
115 come under the third type of seşavat Guņānām because Bhāşya infers soul from its quality like desire etc. 1
The two types of Drgtasādharmýa as explained in Anuyoga represent respectively Upamāna and Pratyabhijñāna of Nyāyaśāstra.
As regards the categories, the Uttarādhyayanasūtra (28-5) enumerates three categories, viz. Dravya, Guņa and Paryāya as the objects of knowledge. However in Vaiseşikasūtra too the term 'Artha' is applicable to only Dravya, Guna and Karma.2 Anuyoga also refers to these categories 3
The definition of Paryāya .as given by Uttarādhyayana is also comparable with the division of Anekāśrita Guņas by Prasastapāda. Uttaradhyayana4 defines Paryāyas as follows :
एकत्तं च पुहत्तं च संखा संठाणमेव च ।
संजोगा य विभागा य पज्जावाणं तु लक्खणं ॥ २८-३ Prasastapāda enumerates the following quality as Anekāśrita Guņas :
संयोग-विभाग-द्वित्व-द्विपृथक्त्वादयोऽनेकाश्रिताः ॥ प्र. भा. गुणनिरूपण..
Following the Agamas, the Niryuktis and Bhāşyas like those of DasaVaikālikasūtra, Avaśyakasūtra and other works also show continuous familiarity with Nyāya and Vaiseşika schools of thought. The few references given below will prove the same.
Acārya Bhadrabāhu (300 B.C.) in his Dasavaikālika-Niryukti discussing Anumāna enumerates the five Avayavas and two types of ten Avayavas of an Anumāna.5. The five Avayavas, viz. Pratijñā, Hetu,
1 NBh 1-1-5 ? cf. VS 8-2-3. 9 Anu. 124. 4 However the general definition of Dravya, Guņa and Paryāya in Uttar.
is as follows : गुणाणभासओ दव्वं एगदव्वस्सिया गुणा । लक्खणं पज्जवाणं तु उभओ अस्सिया भवे ॥ २८-६ There is a fifference of opinion regarding the interpretation of the last Pada 37317 3fETT The old commentaries understand by the word Ubhao, Dravya and Guņa. While the modern scholars like Pt. Dalasukha Mālavaņia understand more than one Dravya and see the consistency of the definition of Paryāya as given in verse No. 13
of the same Adhyayana. Vide introduction pp. 106-7 of NVV. 5 DVN verse No. 50 and No. 89-91.

Page #12

116
Bhārati
Drstānta, Upasamhāra and Nigamana are identical with the similar five, viz. Pratijñā, Hetu, Udāharaṇa, Upanaya and Nigamana of Nyāya school1 and Pratijñā, Apadeśa, Nirdarsana, Anusandhāna and Pratyāmnāya of Vaiseșika school. However his enumeration of two types of ten Avayavas3 is different from the one given in Vātsyāyana Bhāşya.4 Bhadrabāhu in his Niryukti5 also states that in Vāda or debate merely Pratijñā and Udāharaṇa or Pratijñā, Hetu and Udāharaņa are enough.
Even though the Agamas do not refer to any tradition about the origin of Vaiseșika school, Jinabhadragaại Kșamāśramana (6th Cen. A.D.) in his Viseşāvaśyaka Bhāşya gives an interesting tradition about it. 6 According to this tradition, one Rohagutta or Rohagupta a pupil of Sirigutta or Sri Gupta was the founder of Vaiseșika school. This Rohagupta was originally a Jaina monk but once he defeated a learned Jaina monk Pottasala who was very proud of his knowledge. Pottasala said that there were only two Rāsis, Jiva and Ajīva. Rohagupta to defeat him said that there were three Rāsis, Jiva, Ajiva and No-Jiva. As the examples of No-Jiva, he cited a cut-tail of a lizard and others; as examples of Jiva and Ajiva, all the living creatures and non-living thus like pots etc. respectively. These latter were in accordance with the Jaina view, but the example of the former was a fraud from the Jaina point of view. Therefore when Rohagupta informed his teacher about the defeat of Pottasala the teacher was not pleased with Rohagupta and asked him to go to the assembly and confess his fault and state that he accepted the third type only to defeat Pottasala. Thereupon he became angry and challenged his teacher. However he was defeated by his teacher after a long discussion of six months. But he retaliated by starting a new school. The Višeşāvaśyaka mentions the following as the tenets of this Nihnava or schism of Rohagupta :
भू-जल-जलणानिल नह-काल-दिसाऽऽया मणो य दव्वाई। . मण्णंति नवेयाइं सतरस गणा य इमे अण्णे ।। 64-TH-FET-14T Bar-fPage #13

Contribution of Jaina Writers etc.
इच्छा - दोस - पत्ता कम्भं तयं च पंचदिहं । उक्खेवण- मक्खेवण पसारणा कुंचणं गमणं ॥ सत्ता - सामण्णं पिय सामण्ण विसेसिया दिसेसोय ।
समवायो न पयत्था छच्छात्तीसप्पभेदा य ॥
117
(1) Bhu-earth, (2) Jala-water, (3) Jalana-fire, (4) Anila-air, (5) Naha-sky, (6) Kala-time, (7) Diśa-direction, (8) Aya-soul and (9) Mano-mind are the nine Dravyas.
(1) Rūpa-colour, (2) Rasa-taste, (3) Gandha-odour, (4) Fasa-touch, (5) Samkha-number, (6) Parimāṇa-measure, (7) Puhuttaindividuality, (8) Sanjoga-contact, (9) Vibhaga-separation, (10) Paratta-priority, (11) Aparatta-posteriority, (12) Buddhiknowledge, (13) Suha-happiness, (14) Dukha-misery, (15) Iccha-desire, (16) Dosa-fault, (17) Payatta-effort are the seventeen Guņas.
(1) Ukhevana-tossing up, (2) Akhevana-tossing down, (3) Pasarana-spread, (4) Akuncaṇa-contraction and (5) Gamana-gait are the five Karmas.
(1) Sattāsāmānya-generality having two types.1
(1) Visesa-particularity and (1) Samavaya-inherence. These are the six categories with their thirtysix sub-divisions. categories shown above are of Vaiseṣika school.
The
This discussion based upon the references from the Agamas, the earlier Niryuktis and Bhāṣyas clearly point to the fact that the Jainas continuously kept themselves familiar with the schools of thought other than their own. Their familiarity with Pramaņas, Hetus, Avayavas and other topics of Nyaya school as well as with the Vaiseṣika categories of Dravya, Guṇa, Karma, Samanya, Viseşa and Samavaya became of great use to them in systematizing and putting their school of thought in line with Brāhmaṇical and Buddhist schools.
Jaina Darsanikas showing the influence of Nyaya-Vaiseṣika schools:
Now we shall take up the works of a few prominent Jaina Dārśanikas in which the influence of Nyaya-Vaiśeṣika schools of thought and literature is clearly seen.
1 Dr. A. B. Dhruva also in his intropuction of Syādvāda-Mañjarī (footnotes on p. XLV) quotes a passage showing three types of Samanya which was also imported by Rohagupta, the founder of the sixth schism, into Jainism. In that passage opinion of someone is stated as follows:
अन्ये तु व्याचक्षते महासामान्यं द्रव्यत्वादि सामान्यविशेषः पृथिवीत्वादि । According to Vaiśeṣika Sāmānya is of two types, Para and Apara.

Page #14

118
Bharati
Vācaka Umāsvāti and Kundakundācārya (2nd-3rd Cen. A.D.):
The Tattvārthasūtra by Umāsvāti (200-300 A.D.) is the first work in Sanskrit where all the principles of Jainism are embodied in Sūtra form. There is a Bhāşya on these Sūtras which is also attributed to Umāsvāti. There has been some discussion about the authorship of this Bhāşya but it is now accepted as Umāsvāti's work by eminent scholars of Jainism like Pt. Sukhalālji.1 In these Sūtras we find the following parallels with the Vaisesika school. Tattvārtha. defines Dravya as गुणपर्यायवद् द्रव्यम् (५-३७) while Vaisesika defines the same as क्रियागुणवद् द्रव्यम् (वै. सू. १-१-१५) Tattvārtha defines Guna as द्रव्याश्रया निर्गुणाः गुणाः (५-४०) while Vaisesika defines it as द्रव्याश्रय्य गुणवान् (वै. सू. १-१-१६) Tattvārtha defines Kala as वर्तना परिणामः क्रिया परत्वापरत्वे च कालस्य (५-२२) while Vaisesika defines it as अपरस्मिन्नपरं चिरंक्षिप्रमिति काललिङ्गानि (बै. सू. २-२-६). Similarly the division on the basis of Sādharmya or similarity and Vaidharmya or dissimilarity of Pudgalas etc. shows the use of this peculiar method of Vaiseşikas by Umāsvāti. In his Bhāsya establishing Nayavāda he shows the different views regarding the number of categories as follows:
__यथा सर्वमेकं सदविशेषात् । सर्वं द्वित्वं जीवाजीवात्मकत्वात् । सर्वं त्रित्वं दुव्यगुण पर्यायावरोधात् । सर्वं चतुष्टयं चतुर्दर्शन-विषयावरोधात् and so on (१-३५) This passage when compared with the following passage of Nyāya-Bhāşya will show Umāsvāti's close familiarity with Nyāya-Bhāşya. Enumerating Sankhyaikāntavādas, Vātsyāyana observes :
सर्वमेकं सदविशेषात् । सर्वं द्वेधा नित्यानित्यभेदात । सर्वं त्रेधा ज्ञाता ज्ञानं ज्ञेयमिति। सर्वं चतुर्धा प्रमाता'प्रमाणं, प्रमेयं प्रमितिरिति । एवं यथा सम्भवमन्येऽपीति । न्या. भा. ४-१-४१ .
In the works of Kundakundācārya (about 2nd Cen. A.D.) who is one of the earliest Digambara writers on Jaina philosophy, we find the use of some peculiar technical Vaiseșika terms like Artha, 2 Ayutasiddha, 3 Murta and Amārta,4 which leaves no doubt about Vaisesika influence. Kundakurdācārya in one of the verses of his Pravacanasāra observes :
दव्वाणि गुणा तेसिं पज्जाया अट्ठसण्णया भणिया। (१-८७) i.e. the term Artha is applicable to Dravya, Guna and Paryaya. He in his Pañcāstikāya states that Dravya and Guņa both are Ayutasiddha or
1 TS (Gujarati translation) introduction page 43. 3 Vide vs 8-2-3. 3 Ibid 7-2-3. • Pbh. pp. 7-8 क्षिति जलज्योतिरनिलमनसां क्रियावत्त वपरत्वापरत्ववेगवत्वानि ।

Page #15

Contribution of Jaina Writers etc.
119
inseparable entities. Of course here he interprets the term Ayutasiddha1 to suit the Jaina point of view. He also accepts Asatkāryavāda2 of Nyāya and Vaiseșika schools of thought from the Paryāyārthika view point of Jainism. In showing the division of different substances on the basis of Sādharmya and Vaidharmya, though the Vaiseşika-Sūtra does not mention the ground of Mūrtatva and Amūrtatva, the Prasastapāda-Bhāsya does so. As we have stated, Umāsvāti does adopt the method of Vaiseșika in showing the division between different substances. He considers the ground of Rupi and Arupis in that division. Kundakundācārya instead of Rupis and Arupi adopts the terms Mūrta and Amūrta4 of Prasastapāda. Thus the work of Umāsvāti and Kundakundācārya show an intimate knowledge of Nyāya and Vaiseșika concepts and also adaptation of some terms to suit their needs.
After Umāsvāti and Kundakundācārya, both the sects of Jainism. Svetāmbara and Digambara, have produced eminent Ācāryas in every century up to Upādhyāya Yasovijaya (17th Cen. A.D.). As we are here mainly concerned with the contribution of Jaina writers to Nyāya-Vaiseşika literature, we shall first take up only a few prominent Ācāryas by way of showing the influence of N-V. on Jain thought and then discuss in detail all the works so far known either in a printed form or in MSS dealing with N.V. proper. Siddhasena Divākara (4th-5th cent. A.D.):5
Let us first take Siddhasena Divakara of the Svetāmbara sect. It is known that another word for Jainism is Anekāntavāda. This term Anekāntavāda as far as I know is not found in the earlier Agamas. The idea of course was known to the early thinkers of Sramaņa period, but the term that was more in vogue was Syādvāda. It was however after Siddhasena Divākara, the first systematizer of Jain logic, who put the doctrine of the Agamas in a methodical form, that the term Anekāntavāda became more popular and in course of time became a synonym for Jainism. Siddhasena Divākara put forth two works one in Prāksta Sanmati-TarkaPrakarana and the other in Sanskrit ‘Nyāyāvatārasūtra'. Besides these
1 Vide PK, verse No. 56. 2 Ibid verse No. 60. 8 TS 5-3,4. 4 PK verse No. 104. 5 For the time of Siddhasena Divakara vide "Sri Siddhasena Divakarana
Samayano Praśna” in Gujarati) by Pt. Sukhalālaji BV Vol. III, p. 152.

Page #16

120
Bharati
works he wrote 32 Dvātrimśikās or 32 treatises, each containing 32 verses. Out of these 32 Dvātrimśikās only 21 are available at present. In these Dvātrimsikā No. 12 deals with the Nyāya school while No. 14 with the Vai esika school. All these works show Divākara's intellectual vigour and profound scholarship.
Now we find that in Nyāyasūtra and its Bhāşya the term Ekāntal is used to suggest an extreme view which by that very reason is regarded as unacceptable in them. The following passage of the Bhāşya will show that Anekānta point of view was also known to the Nyāya school of thought.
ते खल्विमे सङख्यकान्ता यदि विशेषकारितस्यार्थभेदविस्तारस्थ प्रत्याख्यानेन वर्तन्ते प्रत्यक्षानुमानागमविरोधात्मिथ्यावादा भवन्ति । अथाऽभ्युज्ञानेन वर्तन्ते । समानकारितोऽर्थसङग्रहो विशेषकारितश्चार्थभेद इत्येवमेकान्तत्वं जहतीति । ते खल्वेते तत्त्वज्ञानsfadar IIT: geferat fat i F241. F. 8-8-63
There are two other topics which may also be mentioned here.
The word Vibhajyavāda was also known in the sense of Syādvāda and Anekāntavāda to Indian philosophers. Siddhasena Divakara uses the word Bhayaņā or Bhajaņā? in the sense of Anekānta. Vātsyāyana in his Nyāya-Bhāşya uses the word Vibhajya-Vacaniya3 in the sense of viewing an object from different view points.
Siddhasena Divākara in the Sanmati-Tarka-Prakaraña enumerates the following six characteristics of the soul which are also worth comparing with those mentioned in the Nyāyasūtra4 and the Vaišeşikasūtra 5.
अत्थि आविणासधम्भी करेइ वेएइ अत्थि निव्वाणं । .
अत्थि य मोक्खोवायो छ सम्मतस्स ठाणाई॥ ३-३५ ।
The points of similarity discussed above clearly point to the influence of the earlier Nyāya-Vaiseșika thought on Siddhasena Divākara. According to Jaina tradition, Siddhasena Divākara was a learned Brāhmaņa Pandita. He was converted to the faith of Jainism by VỊddhavādi. In the light of this tradition we should not be, in any way surprised if he utilized his Brāhmaṇic learning for organizing and defending his new faith. Acārya Samantabhadra (5th Cen. A.D.):
In the same age, the Digambara sect produced a great Ācārya in Samantabhadra. Aptamīmāṁsā, Svayambhū-Stotra and Yuktyanuśāsana
1 NS 4-1-43 and also Nbh on NS 4-1-29 and 4-1-34. 2 Sanmati 3-27. 3 Nbh on NS 2-1-12. 4 NS 1-1-10.
5 VS 3-2-5.

Page #17

Contribution of Jaina Writers etc.
121
are his important works. His Aptamimāṁsā deals with Saptabhangi on the Anekānta line. Applying Saptabhangi Prakriyā, he refutes the views of different schools. In this connection the following verse of the Aptamimānsă is worth comparing with NS 4-1-43 which refutes the different Sankhyaikāntavādas.
एकानेक विकल्पादा वुत्तरत्रापि योजयेत् ।
प्रक्रियां भङ्गिनीमेनां नयनयविशारदः ॥ आ. मी. का. २३
The verses No. 28, 37 and 41 of the same work are also worth comparing with NS 4-1-34, 4-1-29 and 4-1-25 which represent Sarvaprthaktva theory, Sarvanityatva theory and Sarva-Anityatva theory respectively. The following verse of the Aptamimāṁsā shows that Samantabhadra adopted the terms Prāgabhāva and Pradhvansābhāva of the Vaišeşika school to suit the needs of Jaina philosophy. Refuting Bhavaikäntavādins, he states ___ कार्य द्रव्यमनादि स्यात् प्रागभावस्य निह्नवे।
प्रध्वंसस्य च धर्मस्य प्रच्यवेऽ नन्ततां व्रजेत् ॥ का. १० Akalankadeva and Ācārya Haribhadrasūri (7th-8th Cen. A.D.):
After Acārya Samantabhadra, the Digambara-Acārya Akalankadeva and the Svetāmbara-Acārya Haribhadrasūri are in their respective sects well-known logicians. Akalankadeva (7th Cen. A.D.) wrote a commentary Aštasata on the Aptamīmārsā of Samantabhadra and a commentary, Tattvārtharājavārtika on the Tattvārthasūtra of Umāsvāti. But his independent contribution to Jaina logic lies in his three works, Laghiyastrayi, Nyāyaviniscaya and Pramāṇasangraha popularly known as AkalankaGrantha-Trayi. Of these three works his Nyāyaviniscaya is divided into three chapters, Pratyakşa-Prastāva, Anumāna-Prastāva and PravacanaPrastāva. This type of division shows the influence of Tri-Pramāṇavadins on Akalanka. In the realm of Indian Darśanas, the Sankhyas are known to have three Pramāņas, viz., Pratyakşa, Anumāna and Agama; but Sankhyas are not generally drawn upon for the theory of Pramāṇas. The only other source which we can refer to, would be Nyāya and Vaišeşika schools. Though Nyāya school includes Upamāna and accepts four Pramāņas, Vātsyāyana in his Nyāyasūtra Bhāsya refuting different Sänkhya theories states TEUTETTATANT factare att vara 11 and thus gives importance to three Pramāņas. Kaņāda in his Vaišeşikasūtra nowhere mentions the number of Pramāṇas. He however defines two Pramāņas, Pratyakşa and Anumāna, but mentions Sabda in an independent Sūtra
1 Nbh. on NS 4-1-43. 16

Page #18

122
Bhārati
एतेन शाब्दं व्याख्यातम् ( वै. सू. ३-२-३ ), implying thereby that its definition is included in Anumana. He, however, indirectly accepts Agama-Pramāņa in the following Sūtras:- तस्मादागमिकम् and ( वै. सू. २-१-१७) तस्मादागमिकः ( वै. सू. ३-२-८ ) 1.
Prasastapāda, however, discusses only two Pramāņas including Sabda in Anumana; but it appears that a commentator named Vyomasiva and some followers of Kanāda seem to have interpreted his view as propounding three Pramāņas. This becomes clear from the fact that Vyomasiva in his Vyomavati clearly propounds three Pramāņas, and also from the statement of Hemacandra in his Pramāṇamimamsã3 that the Vaiseşikəs are Tri-Pramāṇavādins.
Among Naiyāyikas, Bhāsarvajña in his Nyāyasāra recognizes three Pramāņas. All this, as we have said above, shows that prior to Vyomsiva there must have been an old tradition of Vaiseṣikas professing three Pramāņas. So we might conjecture that the above division of Akalanka's work under the three Pramana-Heads may be due to the influence of an old tradition of Nyaya-Vaiseṣika schools professing three Pramaņas. This has to be said because the Jaina tradition of Pramaņas was different and he has not followed it in his dialectical method.
Before we come to Acārya Haribhadrasuri (8th Cen. A.D.), a reference may be made to Acarya Mallavadi (circa 6th Cen. A.D. approx.) the reputed author of Dvadaśāra or Nayacakravāla popularly known as DvadaśāraNayacakra. The book would throw much light on the subject of our discussion as can be seen from the following passages of its commentary by Simhagani-Kṣamāśramaņa. The date of Simhagani-Kṣamāśramaṇa is not yet finally settled but he is probably not later than Haribhadrasuri. Of the work Dvādaśāra only one verse has uptil now been discovered.
यत्तूच्यते इत्यादियावत् सप्तम्यभिधानेन दर्शयति [ दर्शितं ] इति सूत्रार्थः कटन्याख्यातः ‘सदसतोर्वैधर्म्यात् (न्या. सू. ४-१-४८) द्वा. न. च. टी. पू. ६१०
1 Sankara Miśra in his Upaskāra commenting on the Sutra 2-1-17 states यस्माद्विशेषाकारेण नानुमितिः तस्माद् वायुरिति नाम आगमिकम् । आगमो वेदः, ततः सिद्धमित्यर्थः ।
Similarly commenting on Sūtra 3-2-8 he states f नानुमेयः, दृष्टसामान्यदृष्टयोर्लिङ्गयोरभावात् ।
2 Vide Vyoma. p. 578.
a Vide PM, p. 7.
4 Vide Nyayasara, p. 2.

Page #19

Contribution of Jaina Writers etc.
123
Katandi is the name of a commentary on Vaiseșika Sūtras. However this is altogether a new name. It should be noted that as shown above Simhagaņi also' quotes Nyāya-Sūtras.
___ इदानीं सूत्रकारमतं समर्थयता वाक्य-भाष्य-टीकाकाराणां मतानि समाहृत्य प्रधानानुगामित्वाच्छेषाणां सूत्रकारमतमेवेत्थं द्वे[दू]षयितुमाह तत्वोपनिलनयात् सदाद्यभिधानार्थ कारण[णे समवेतस्य वस्तुन उत्तरकालं सत्तासम्बन्ध इति बहूनां मतम् । वस्त्वस्तू त्युत्पत्तिकाल एव इति तु वाक्याभिप्रायोऽनुसृतो भाष्यकारैः । सिद्धस्थ वस्तुनः स्वकारणः स्वसत्तया च सम्बन्धः इति प्रशस्तमतोमतेर भिप्रायः । अस्मदभिप्रायस्तेषां त्रयाणामप्यसत्यतेति । कस्मात् ? परस्पर विरुद्धार्थत्वात्..."कुमार ब्रह्मचारिपितृत्ववत् । द्वा. न. च. टी. पृ. ३०१
Here from the phrase arathETA4TETTİ we can say that there was a Vākyakāra, Bhāşyakāra and a Tīkākāra. In short there must have been three types of commentaries on Vaiseșika Sūtras viz. Vākya, Bhāşya and Tīkā. Of these three Vakya is a new type not hitherto known. Bhāşya may be probably a Bhāşya on Vaiseșika Sūtras. As he quotes the opinion of Prasastamati separately, here Bhāşya may mean perhaps some Bhāşya other than that of Prasastapäda. Tīkā means the Tikā Katandi which is referred to in the above quoted passage.1
These passages are enough to show that Jaina logicians remained in close contact with the contemporary Nyāya and Vaiseșika literature.
Acārya Haribhadrasūri who is known as Yakinimahattarā-Sūnu was a prolific writer in the history of Jaina literature. His works also show his familiarity with Nyaya-Vaisesika schools. In his Saddarsanasamuccaya, the first compendium of Vedic and non-Vedic Darsanas, he devotes one chapter to Nyāya and one to Vai eşika schools. In his Šāstravārtāsamuccaya we find that he, after refuting Isvarakartrtva theory, makes peace with it by viewing a Tirthaikara in the terms of Isvara and Kartā. This is typical of Jaina writers.
The passages of Sinhagani's commentary are taken from the MS of the same which lies at present with Muni Sri Jambūvijayajī, the learned
Editor of Dvādaśāra. 2 The following verses of Sāstravārtāsamuccaya shows his adaptation of the idea of Iśvaratva and Jagatkartstva :
ईश्वरः परमात्मैव तदुक्त व्रत सेवनात् । यतो मुक्तिस्ततस्तस्याः स्याद् गुणभावतः ।। तदनासेवनादेव यत्संसारोऽपि तत्त्वतः । तेन तस्यापि कर्तुत्वं कल्प्यमानं न दुष्यति ।। कर्ताऽयमिति तद्वाक्ये यतः केषाञ्चिदादरः । अतस्तस्थानुगुण्येन तस्य कर्तृत्ववेदनम् ॥ पारमैश्वर्य युक्तत्वान्मत आत्मैव चेश्वरः । स च कर्तेति निर्दोषः कर्तृवादो व्यवस्थितः ॥ शा. वा. स. का. २०८-२०७

Page #20

124
:-
Bhārati
Like Siddhasena Diväkara, Acārya Haribhadrasūri was also a learned Brāhmaṇa Pandita before embracing Jainism and therefore probably felt some inner necessity of reconciling his former philosophical outlook with his new faith.-a1
Vidyānanda (9th Cen. A.D.), Prabhācandra (9th 10th Cen. A.D.) and Abhayadevasūri (11th Cen. A.D.):
After Akalankadeva, in Digambara sect there follow two logicians, Vidyān anda and Prabhācandra. Vidyānanda wrote a voluminous, commentary, Aşțasāhasrī on the Aptamāmāṁsā of Samantabhadra, Prabhācandra wrote similar commentaries—Nyāyakumudacandra on Laghīyastrayi of Akalanka and Prameyakamalamārtanda on Parīkşāmukhasūtra of Māņikyanandi. Abhayadevasūri of the Svetāmbara sect wrote a very big commentary Tattvabodhavidhāyinī popularly known as Vāda-Mahārnava on Sanmati-Tarka-Prakarana of Siddhasena Divākara. These Ācāryas exhibit in their works a mastery of style and exposition which shows their thorough study of works like Nyāya-Tātparyatīkā of Vācaspati Miśra. In fact Siddhasena Divākara and all the later Jaina logicians remained always familiar with the contemporary works of the different schools of Indian philosophy and to enunciate and establish their tenets on a logical basis, they studied Nyāya and Vaiseșika schools in particular. The stamp of Nyāya-Vai eşika logic will be clearly visible in the following passages of Atsasāhasrī by Vidyānanda where he defines the terms Prāgabhāva and Pradhvansābhāva from the Jaina point of view :
ऋजुसूत्रनयार्पणाद्धि प्रागभावस्तावत्कार्यस्योपादान परिणाम एव पूर्वोऽनन्तरात्मा (अ. . 7. C. 800) 774100||IIGUTUSTU çataratata TECH: 1 37. 9. q. 80$
In the Prameyakamalamārtanda Prabhācandra also defines the above terms as follows: __यदभावे हि नियमतः कार्योत्पत्तिः स प्रागभावः ।, प्रागन्तरपरिणामविशिष्टं मृद्रव्यम् । 4. 8. HT. T. 888
यद् भावे हि नियता कार्यस्य विपत्तिः स प्रध्वंसः मदद्रव्यानन्तरोत्तरपरिणामः । 1. F. AT. T. 888
The Tattvabodhavidhāyinī or Vāda-Mahārnava of Abhayadevasūri is a veritable encyclopaedia of the Indian philosophical topics before the 11th Cen. A.D. This work shows Abhayadeva to be a great scholar of Nyāya and Vaiseșika works along with his knowledge of other Darśanas.
1 -a. For the list of Haribhadrasūri's works vide “Jain Sahityano Itihāsa'
(Gujarati) p. 159.

Page #21

Contribution of Jaina Writers etc.
125
The following passages from an unknown work on the Vaiseșika school show his detailed study of the school.
यदप्यात्मनो विभुत्वसाधनं कैश्चिदुपन्यस्तम् । अदृष्टं स्वाश्रयसंयुक्ते आश्रयान्तरे कर्म आरभते, एकद्रव्यत्वे सति क्रियाहेतु गुणत्वात्, यो य एकद्रव्यत्वे सति क्रियाहेतुगुणः सस स्वाश्रयसंयुक्ते, आश्रयान्तरे कर्म आरभते यथा वेगः, तथा चादृष्टम्, तस्मात् तदपि स्वाश्रयसंयुक्ते आश्रयान्तरे कर्म आरभते इति । न चासिद्धं क्रियाहेतुगुणत्वम् ; अग्नेरूद्धज्वलनम्, वायोस्तिर्यक्पवनम्, अणुमनसोश्चाद्यं कर्म देवदत्तविशेषगुणकारितम्, कार्यत्वे सति देवदत्तस्योपकासत्वात् पाण्यादिपरिस्पन्दवत्, एकद्रव्यत्वं चैकस्यात्मनस्तदाश्रयत्वात्, एकद्रव्यमदृष्टम् विशेषगुणत्वात् शब्दवत् ।
. एकद्रव्यत्वात् इत्युच्यमाने रूपादिभिर्व्यभिचारस्तनिवृत्त्यर्थं 'क्रियाहेतुगुणत्वात्' इत्युक्तम्। 'क्रियाहेतुगुणत्वात् इत्युच्यमाने मुशलहस्त संयोगेन स्वाश्रयासंयुक्तस्तम्भादिचलनहेतुना व्यभिचारः तन्निवृत्त्यर्थम् 'एक द्रव्यत्वे सति' इति विशेषणीयम् । एकद्रव्यत्वे सति क्रियाहेतु गुणत्वात्' इत्युच्यमाने स्वाश्रयासंयुक्त लोहादिक्रियाहेतुनाऽयस्कान्तेन व्यभिचारः तन्निवृत्त्यर्थं गुणत्वात् इत्यभिधानम् सम्मति. टी. ५१२४-पं. १५
This is clearly the view-point of the Vaišeşikas.
यस्त्वाह 'सदुपलम्भकप्रमाणगम्यत्वं षण्णामस्तित्वमभिधीयते तच्च षट्पदार्थविषयं ज्ञानं तस्मिन्सति सत् इति व्यवहारप्रवृत्तेः । एवं ज्ञानजनितं ज्ञेयत्वम् ; अभिधानजनितम् अभिधेयत्वम् । इत्येवं व्यतिरेकनिबन्धना षष्ठीसिद्धा। न चाऽनवस्था, न च षटपदार्थान्तर व्यतिरिक्तपदार्थान्तरप्रसक्तिः, ज्ञानस्य गुणपदार्थेऽन्तरभावात् ।
सन्मति. टी. पृ. ५६६१-पं. १४
He, at various places, refers also to Nyāyasūtra, Vaišeşikasūtra, their authors Aksapāda and Kanada, Prasastamati, the author of Vaisesikabhaşya and many others. Vādī Devasūri (11th-12th Cen. A.D.) abd Ācārya Hemacandra (12th Cen. A.D.)
After Abhayadevasūri we come to two great logicians of the Svetāmbara sects, Devasūri and Ācārya Hemacandra. Devasūri got the epithet Vädī because he in an open debate held at the court of Siddharāja Jayasimha, a Solanki king of Gujarat, defeated a great dialectician named Kumudacandra of the Digambara sect. Vadi Devasüri's Pramānanayatattvālokālankāra with his own commentary Syādvādaratnākara is an epoch-making work on Jaina logic. The following passages from this work will show not only his detailed study of Nyāya and Vaisesika schools, but also his mastery over the dialectical method.
शङ्करन्याय भूषणकारावाचक्षाते 'यो हि भावो यावत्या सामया गह्यते तदभावोऽपि तावत्य वेत्यालोक गहणसामग्रया गृह्यमाणं तमस्तदभाव एव' तदपि न किञ्चित् तयोग्रहण सामग्र्या गृह्यमाणस्यालोकस्यैव तदभावताप्रसङ्गेना नैकान्तिक वात् । स्या. र. ५. ८५२. पं. ८

Page #22

126
Bhāratī
यमपि पूर्वमतारोचकितया कन्दलीकारः स्वकीयं मार्गमुत्पेक्षांचक्रे 'रूपविशेषोऽय मत्यन्तं तेजोऽभावे सति सर्वतः समारोपितस्तम इति प्रतीयते' इति सोऽपि कापथः । निशादा वत्यन्त तेजोऽभावे सत्यप्यधिकरणभूतलादि वस्तुमात्रस्याप्यनुपलस्ध्या रूप विशेषानुपपत्तेः । उपलभ्यमान एव हि कम्बौ पीततारोपः प्रतीत इति । स्या. २. पृ. ८५२-पं २०
यथात्र व्योमशिवेनोपादेशि 'तदेतदसत्, भासामभावरूपत्वाच्छायायाः। तथापि यत्र यत्र वारकदुप्येण तेजसः सन्निधिनिषिध्यते तत्र तत्र छायेति व्यवहारः । वारकदुप्यगतां च क्रियामातपाभावे समारोप्य प्रतिपाद्यते छाया गच्छतीति । अन्यथाहि वारकद्रव्यक्रियापेक्षित्वं न स्यात्' इति सोऽयं पङ्गोस्तुरङ्ग वेगविनिर्जयमनोरथः । मुख्यार्थ बाधायां हि सत्यामारोपः प्रतिष्ठां प्राप्नोति । स्या. र. पु. ८५३-पं. ११
In the above cited passages, to prove that "Tamas' or Darkness is an independent substance, he refutes Nyāya and Vaiseșika viewg. He quotes the views of different Naiyāyikas like Sankara Miśra, Nyāyabhūşaņakāra, Kandalikāra and Vyomáiva and then refutes them. His style of refutation resembles that of the famous logician Jayanta Bhatta, who while arguing ridicules the opponents.
Acārya Hemacandrasūri, a Junior contemporary of Devasūri, was a versatile genius. He left no branch of learning without his contribution and therefore he is known as Kalikālasarvajña. Anyayoga-Dvātrimsikā and Pramānamāmāṁsā are his works on Jaina logic. Of these, Pramānamāmānsā is not available in its complete form. It consisted of six Adhyāyas but only two Adhyāyas are available. A passage from the available part is enough to show his deep study of Nyāya-Vai eşika school and his scholarship.
नैयायिकास्तु "इन्द्रियार्थ सन्निकर्षोंत्पन्नं ज्ञानमप्यपदेश्यमप्यभिचारि व्यवसायात्मकं प्रत्यक्षम्” (न्या. सू. १-१-४) इति प्रत्यक्षलक्षणमाचक्षते । अत्र पूर्वाचार्यकृतव्याख्यावैमुख्येन सङख्यावद्भिस्त्रिलोचनवाचस्पतिप्रमुखैरयमों समर्थितः यथा 'इन्द्रियार्थसन्निकर्षोत्पन्नं ज्ञानमप्यभिचारि प्रत्यक्षमित्येव प्रत्यक्षलक्षणम्। 'यतः' शब्दाध्याहारेण च यत्तदोनित्याभिसम्बन्धादुक्तविशेषणविशिष्टं ज्ञानं यतो भवति तत् तथाविधज्ञानसाधनं ज्ञानरूपमज्ञानरूपं वा प्रत्यक्षं प्रमाणमिति। अस्य च फलभूतस्य ज्ञानस्य द्वयी गतिरविकल्पं सक्किल्पं च । तयोरुभयोरपि प्रमाणरूपत्वमभिधातुं विभागवचनमेतद् अव्यपदेश्यं व्यवसायात्मकम्' इति ।
तत्रोभयरूपस्यापि ज्ञानस्य प्रामाण्यमुपेक्ष्य 'यतः' शब्दाध्याहारक्लेशेनाऽज्ञानरूपस्य सन्निकर्षादेः प्रामाण्य समर्थनमयुक्तम् । कथं ह्यज्ञानरूपाः सन्निकर्षादयोऽर्थ परिच्छित्तौ साधकतया भवन्ति व्यभिचारात् ? सत्यपीन्द्रियार्थसन्निकर्षेऽर्थोपलब्धरभावात् । ज्ञाने सत्येव भावात्। साधकतमं हि करणमप्यवहितफलं च तदिति ।
सन्निकर्षोऽपि यदि योग्यतातिरिक्तः संयोगादिसम्बन्धस्तहि स चक्षुषोऽर्थेन सह नास्ति, अप्राप्यकारित्वात्तस्य । दृश्यते हि काचाभ्रस्फटिकादिव्यवहितस्याप्यर्थस्य चक्षुषोपलब्धिः । अथ 'प्राप्यकारि चक्षुः करणत्वाद्वास्यादिवदिति षे, त_यस्कान्ताकर्षणोपलेन लोहासन्निकृष्टेन

Page #23

Contribution of Jaina Writers etc.
127 व्यभिचारः । न च संयुक्तसंयोगादिः सन्निकर्षस्तत्र कल्पयितुं शक्यते अतिप्रसङ्गादिति । प्र. मी. सू. १-१-२९. पृ. २२-२३
While refuting the definition of Pratyakşa given by the Naiyāyikas in the above passage, he draws our attention to the change in the interpretation of the Sūtra made by scholars like Trilocana and Vacaspati Miśra. His method resembles that of the old Bhāşyakāras like Vätsyāyana and others.
Mallişeņasūri (13th Cen. A.D.):
Ācārya Mallişeņasūri, the author of the famous treatise Syādvādamañjarī, a commentary on Anyayoga-Dvātrimśikā of Ācārya Hemacandra, was also a great logician of the 13th Cen. A.D. As usual, he also studied the different works of Indian philosophical systems. In his Syādvādamañjarī his detailed study of Nyāya-Vaiseșika systems and their influence on his style are quite patent. The following passage will show the same :
यत्तावदुक्तं परैः ‘क्षित्यादयो बुद्धिमत्कर्तृकाः कार्यत्वाद् घटवदिति' । तदयुक्तम् व्याप्तेरग्रहात् । साधनं हि सर्वत्र व्याप्ती प्रमाणेन सिद्धायां साध्यं गमयेदिति सर्ववादिसंवादः । स चाऽयं जगन्ति सुजन सशरीरोऽशरीरो वा स्यात् । सशरीरोऽपि किभस्मदादिवदृश्यशरीरदिशिष्ट उत पिशाचादिवददृश्यशरीरविशिष्ट: ? प्रद प्रथमपक्षे प्रत्यक्षबाधः, तमन्तरेणाऽपि च जायमाने तृणतरुपुरन्दरधनुरभ्रादौ कार्यत्वस्य दर्शनात् प्रमेयत्वदिवत् साधारणानकान्तिको हेतुः । द्वितीयविकल्पे पुनरदृश्यशरीरत्वे तस्य महात्म्यविशेषः कारणम्, आहोस्विदस्मदाद्यदृष्टवैगुण्यम् ? प्रथमप्रकार: कोशपानप्रत्यायनीयः, तत्सिद्धौ प्रमाणाभावात् इतरेतराश्रयदोषापत्तेश्च । सिद्धे हि माहात्म्यविशेषे तस्यादृश्यशरीरत्वं प्रत्येतप्यं, तत्सिद्धौ च माहात्म्यविशेषसिद्धिरिति । द्वैतीयिकस्तु प्रकारो न सञ्चरत्येव विचारगोचरे, संशयानिवृत्तेः । किं तस्यासत्वाददृश्यशरीरत्वं वान्ध्येयादिवत्, किं वाऽम्यदाद्यदृष्टवैगुण्यात् पिशाचादिवदिति निश्चयाभावात् । अशरीरश्चेत्तदा दृष्टान्तदाान्तिकयोर्वैषम्यम् । घटादयो हि कार्यरूपाः सकर्तृका दृष्टाः । अशरीरस्य च सनस्तस्य कार्यप्रवृत्तौ कुतः सामर्थ्यम् आकाशादिवत् । तस्मात सशरीराशरीरलक्षणे पक्षद्वयेऽपि कार्यत्वहेतोाप्त्यसिद्धिः। किं च त्वन्मतेन कालात्ययापदिष्टोऽप्ययं हेतुः । धर्म्यकदेशस्य तरुविद्युदभ्रादेरिदानीमप्युत्पद्यमानस्य विधातुरनुपलभ्यमानत्वेन प्रत्यक्षबाधित-धर्म्यनन्तरं हेतुभणनात् । तदेवं न कश्चिज्जगतः कर्तेति ।
स्या. म. पृ. २४ (आनन्दशङ्कर ध्रुवजी सम्पादित) From his style it becomes clear that he is influenced by Udayanācarya.
Upādhyāya Yašovijayagani (17th Cen. A.D.)
After Mallişeņa, Upādhyāya Yasovijayagani is a logician of eminence.1 Like Haribhadrasūri, he was also a prolific writer in the history of Jaina
1 For the list of the works and life of Upadhyāya Yašovijayagaņi vide
"Jaina Sahityano Itihāsa" p. 624-646.

Page #24
128 ... . Bharat literature. He fully digested the system of Navya-Nyaya which was propounded by Gangesa Upadhyaya. In all his works of Jaina philosophy we see the stamp of Navya-Nyaya. The following passage from his Nyayaloka will bear this out : ___ यत्तु नरसिंहाकारज्ञाने ज्ञानत्वघटत्वप्रकारकत्वोभयाश्रयज्ञानवैषिष्ट्यधीन स्यादिति तत्तु विषयनिरूप्यं हि ज्ञानं न तु विषयपरम्परा निरूप्यमित्यादिना मिश्रेणैव समाहितम् / यत्तु स्वसंवेदने कृतिसमवाहित्वादिरूपकर्तृत्वाद्यनवभास इत्युक्तं, तदभिप्रायापरिज्ञानात् / आश्रयत्वरूपकर्तृत्वस्य, विषयत्वरूपकर्मत्वस्य विशेषणत्वरूपक्रियात्वस्य च दोषाकलङ्कितत्वात् / अधिकविषयत्वेऽपि च व्यवसायस्यार्थविषयत्वेन प्रवर्तकत्वमविरुद्धम्, इष्टतावछेदकप्रवृत्तिविषयवैशिष्टयावगाहिज्ञानत्वेन प्रवर्तकत्वात् / न चात्र प्रमेयमिति ज्ञानात्प्रवृत्त्यापत्तिः, इष्टतावच्छेदने तद्भिन्ननिष्ठधर्माप्रकारकत्वविशेषणात् / न्यायालोक पृ. 93.