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-VAISESIKA LITERATURE J. N. JAITLEY Historical Position of Jainism : All the existing Indian philosophical systems excepting the Carvaka have their close connection with the chief ancient religions of India, viz. Brahmana or Vedic, Jaina and Bauddha. When we examine the literary work of these three religions we find that Acaryas 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 Misra and Arcata, though followers of Brahmanism, wrote commentaries on the Hetubindu of Dharmakirti, a famous Buddhist logician. The Jainacaryas 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 Jainacaryas to the NyayaVaisesika literature. At the outset one is tempted to ask the question as to why the Jainacaryas 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 Mahavira, the twentyfourth Tirthankara of Jainas. Some scholars take it as far back as Parsvanatha, the twentythird Tirtharkara, who is generally placed in the 8th Century B.C. In the history of Indian culture Jainas and Buddhists are known as Sramanas. A sort of antagonism between Sramanas and Brahmanas appears to have become part of the old tradition. The compound STAT brAhmaNam according to the Panini rulel yeSAM ca virodhaH zAzvatikaH 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 Sramana sects in 1 Patanjala Mahabhasya, P. 539,

Page #2
106 Bharatz their early relation to Brahmanical schools as well as the historical developments of their churches. I shall limit myself to Jainas though the general problem of the rise of Sramanas pertains to all the Sramana sects. The Sutrakstanga1 of Jainas and the Brabmajala-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 Sramana. Of these sects the historicity of the three Sramana sects, viz. those of Jainas, Bauddhas and Ajivakas is generally accepted by the scholars. There is however a controversy about the origin of these Sramana sects. The older view is that these Sramana 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 Brahmanas and Upanisads. 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 Sramana sacred texts has given birth to the hypothesis of the independent origin of these Sramana sects. Not only that, but this study has also suggested the possibility of some of the Vedic sects like Sivism, schools like Sankhya-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 Nandi 47. 2 BJS. in DN enumerates 62 schools under the chief eight heads viz. (1) Thaifa, (2) arteft*, (3) tarafa, (4) 37#fara94, (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) acorar, (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 Vadas excepting ucotats and bhatavAda come under the head of kriyAvAda while except bhatavAda 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 Brahmanas 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 Panini 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 Pujana2 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 Pujana 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 Pujana also must have been assimilated in the language of the Aryans. In later times not only did Pujana 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 Pujana of Ganapati acquired its priority in every type of Yajana. D. R. Bhar.darkar3 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, Brahmanas, Sutras, Pitakas and Agamas. There he shows the origin of Sivism to lie in the non-Vedic Vratya 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 Brahmanic 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 Sramana 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 Sramana sects. His chief grounds are the constant occurrences of the term Sramana-Brahmana in Buddhist Pitakas and Asoka's inscriptions, as well as in legends, poetical maxims and parables found in the Mahabharata as well as in Puranas. He closely examines the Pita-Putra Samvada, Tuladhara-Jajali Samvada, Madhubindu parable and other such Samvadas and compares them with their different versions found in Jaina Agamas and Buddhist Jatakas. 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 Mahabharata 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 Saokhya and Yoga schools, as we have seen above might have been non-Vedic in origin. When some of the Vedic Brahmanas were convinced of the Nivittipara path or asceticism and left ritualism, the schools which accepted the authorities of Vedas and also the superiority of Brahmanas by birth got slowly assimilated in the Vedic cult. Probably amongst Sramana sects the Sankhya was the first to accept the authority of the Vedas and the superiority of Brahmanas by birth and perhaps this may be the reason why we find Sankhya teachings reflected in early Upanisads. Whatever may be the case, this brief survey points to one fact and that is that by the time of Mahavira and Buddha, the Sramanas were a powerful influence affecting the spiritual and ethical ideas of the people. By the process of assimilation the Nivstti outlook became a common ideal both among the thinkers of the earlier Upanisads as well as among the Sramana thinkers. However, the Sramana 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 Brahmanas 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 Agamas as well as in Asoka's inscriptions to Sramana-Brahmana do not indicate any enmity but imply that both are regarded as respectable. It is only in Patanjali's Mahabhasya which is later than Asoka that we find the compound Sramana-Brahmanam suggesting enmity. This may be the result of a contest of centuries between Sramanas and Brahmanas. Whether we accept this protestant-theory of the origin and rise of the Sramanas or the theory of their independent pre-Vedic origin, one thing is clear that there was a great ferment of Sramana-thought in or * about the period of the earliest Upanisads and Aranyakas, i.e. about 800 B.C. As we have said above the history of Jaina church also does not start with Mahavira but it goes as far back as Parsva, i.e. 800 B.C. The Jaina Agamas which are the earliest source for the life and teachings of Mahavira point to one fact very clearly and that is that the Jnataputra Vardhamana had to make his way through a crowd of Sramana and Vedic "Titthiyas" or "Tirthikas". Another point which becomes clear from Agamas is that Vardhamana's method was to harmonize and assimilate as much of different contending sects as was consistent with his main ideal of Moksa. This peculiar trait of Mahavira's method seems to be responsible for giving his school the name and character of Anekantavada and Syadvada. The essence of these Vadas 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 Anekanta 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 Svetambara 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 Agamas represent more or less the earliest records of the teachings of Mahavira.

Page #6
110 Bharati 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 Sutrakrtanga 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. saMti paMca mahabhUyA ihamegesi mAhiyA / sU. 1-1-1-8. puDhavI Au teU vA vAu AgAsapaMcamA / sU. 1-1-1-7 ee paMca mahabbhUyA tebhyo egotti AhiyA / 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 Carvaka.1 It is well known that Carvaka 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. jahA ya puDhavIthUme, ege nANAhi dIsai / evaM bho kasiNe loe, vinnU nANAi dIsai || sU. 1-1-1-9. (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 Atma 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 Carvaka school. The commentator Silanka is of the same opinion. The view of tajjIva-taccharIravAdin is referred to in verse No. 11 and 12 of the same chapter, i.e. 1-1-1. The commentator Silaika commenting on them clearly states sAmprataM tajjIvataccharIravAdimataM pUrvapakSayitumAha. Even though the view of tajjIva taccharIravAdin 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 Carvaka while verse No. 11 and No. 12 refer to -107 vAdimata For A. C. Sen's criticism vide SSJL, page 19 foot-note No. 71.

Page #7
. Contribution of Jaina Writers etc. 111 The commentator Silanka attributes this view to Atmadvaitavadins. It clearly refers to one of the Upanisadic views. kuvvaM ca kArayaM ceva, savvaM kuvvaM na vijjai / evaM akArao appA evaM te u pagabhiA // sU. 1-1-1-13 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 Akarta. Silanka 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 Atmasasthavada referred to in verse No. 15 to Sankhyas, who accept the authority of Vedas, and to Saivadhikarins. Atmasasthavadins 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 Carvaka. The commentator Harsakula mentions Vaisesikas as the Atmasasthavadins. However the existing systems of Sankhya and Vaisesika accept more than these six elements. It seems that probably this view may refer to the older schools of Sankhya and Vaisesika types. 'ce khaMdhe vayaMtege bAlA u khaNa joinno| STUOTT STOOOTT UTATE 1 2 3ET 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. Silanka 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 Dhatus, viz. earth, water, fire and air. "Similarly regarding the creation of the world the Sut. refers to Tavarakiranavada and Prakstikaranavada in the following verse : IsareNa kaDe loe pahANAi thaavre| oftarafta mara yag: Huferg 1 7. 8-8-3 According to Silanka, these Isvarakaranavadins are Naiyayikas and Vaisesikas while Pradhana is held as the cause of this world by the Sankhyas.

Page #8
112 Bharati On the same line other Agamas like Sthananga, 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 Anuyogadvara refers to the different schools by their particular names as follows : kaNagasattarI vesiyaM vaisesiyaM baddhasAsaNaM kAvilaM logAyataM saTriyantaM mAThara purANa vAgaraNa nAugAi. The Nandisutra also refers to the same schools with the addition of Bhagavayam and Payanjala, i.e. Bhagavata and Patenjala. Thus later Agamas clearly refer to Vaisesika, Lokayata, Kapila and others. Nyaya-Vaisesika 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 Nyaya and Vaisesika schools of thought with which we are here more directly concerned. The Sthananga observes : ahavA heU caubihe paNNatte, taM jahA jAvate, thAvate, vaMsate lUsate; ahavA heU cauvvihe paNNatte, taM jahA paccakkhe, aNumANe, ovamme Agame; ahavA heU cauvvihe paNNate taM jahA atthitaM atthi so heU 1, atthittaM Natthi so heU 2, NatthittaM atthi so heU 3, NatthittaM Natthi so heU 4. sthA. sU. 338. 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 Thavate or Sthapaka is an argument whose aim is to establish a thesis, but the aim of other Hetu viz. Javate, Vansate and Lusate or Yapaka, Vyansaka and Lusaka is to defeat anyhow the opponent either by confusing him or by silencing him.3 These Yapaka, Vyansaka and Lusaka may be compared with the Avijnatartha Nigrahasthana, Avisesasama Jati and Samanyacchala respectively of Nyayasutra. Thavate or Sthapaka is a valid argument. In the second instance, the word Hetu is used in the sense of Pramana and therefore they are identical with Pramanas of 'Nyayasutra', viz. Pratyaksa, Anumana, Upamana 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 Avijna artha, 5-1-23 for Avisesasama and 1-2-13 for Samanyacchala. 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 Vaisesika Hetus:-- sthAnAGga sUtra vaizeSika sUtra. hetu-sAdhya (1) vidhi-vidhiH saMyogI, samacAyI, ekArtha samavAyI 3-1-3 and bhUto bhUtasya 3-1-13 (2) vidhi-niSedha bhUtamabhUtasya 3-1-13 (3) niSedha-vidhi abhUtaM bhUtasya 3-1-11 (4) niSedha-niSedha __ kAraNAbhAvAt kAryAbhAvaH 1-2-1 Similarly Bhagavati states : se ki taM pamANaM ? pamANe cauvihe paNNatte; taM jahA paccakkhe, aNumANe, ovambhe, Agame jahA aNuogadAre tahA NeyavvaM pamANaM / bhagavatI 5-3-131-32 Anuyogadvara also observes the same Pramanas as referred to by Bhagavati. In addition to it, it also describes in detail the three types of Anumana which are explained in Nyayasutra as Purvavat, Sesavat and Samanyatodrsta.1 It observes :.. se kiM taM aNumANe ? aNumANe tivihe paNNatte taM jahA puvvavaM sesavaM diTThasAhambhavaM / anu. pR. 211 / Then further it describes each of these Anumanas one by one. Describing Puvvavam or Purvavat it states : mAyA puttaM jahA naLaM juvANaM puNarAgayaM / 'kAi paccabhi jANejjA punvaliGgeNa keNai // anu. .. 211-12 . A mother recognizes her lost young son on return with the help of some marks previously known. This is nothing else but Pratyabhijnana of later writers. . Sesavat is of five types. They are as follows: - se kiM taM sesavaM? sesavaM paMcavihaM paNNattaM; taM jahA (1) kajjeNaM, (2) kAraNeNaM, (3) guNeNaM, (4) avayaveNaM, (5) Asa eNaM, anu. 6. 212. 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 : (1) saMkhaM saddeNaM bheri tADieNaM, vasabhaM DhakkieNaM, moraM kiMkAieNaM hayaM hesieNaM and so on 1 Ibid 1-1-5. 15

Page #10
114 Bharati (2) taMtavo paDassa kAraNaM. Na paDo taMtu kAraNaM, vIraNA kaDassa kAraNaM Na kaDo vIraNA kAraNaM, mippiDo ghaDassa kAraNaM Na ghaDo mippiDa kAraNaM // . 3) suvaNNaM nikaseNaM, puppha gaMdheNaM, lavaNaM raseNaM, mairaM AsAyaeNaM, vatthaM phAseNaM // (4) mahisaM siMgeNaM, kukkuDaM sihAeNaM, hatthi visANeNaM, varAhaM dADhAe, moraM piccheNaM, AsaM khureNaM vagdhaM naheNaM and so on (5) aggi dhUmeNaM, salilaM vallAgaNaM, vuddhi abbhavikAreNaM kulaputtaM sIlasamAyAreNaM // - anu. pR. 212-13 Drstasadharmya or Samanyatodrsha is of two types, (1) Samanyadrsta and (2) Visesadrsta. Both are illustrated as follows : (1) se kiM taM sAmaNNadiLaM ? jahA ego puriso tahA vahave purisA, jahA vahave purisA, tahA ego puriso| jahA ego karisAvaNo tahA vahave karisAvaNA, jahA vahave karisAvaNA tahA ego krisaavnno| anu. pR. 214 This is a generalisation from one to many and many to one on the ground of similarity and therefore it is called Samanyadusta or Dsstasadharmya. (2) se jahANAmae kei purise kaMci purisaM, bahUNaM purisANaM majjhe puvvadiTuM paccabhijANijjA ayaM se purise| bahUNaM karisAvaNANaM majjhe puvvadihra karisAvaNaM paccabhijANijjA ayaM se karisAvaNe, anu pR. 215 This is a Pratyabhijnana or recognition of a particular from many which are similar and therefore it is called Visesadssta Drstasadharmya. This may be distinguished from Pratyabhijnana or Purvavat by the absence of any reference to similar things. Comparing the above mentioned Anumanas with those in Nyayasastra we find that the names of these three types are identical with those in Nyayasutras of Gautama. But the Sutras neither explain nor illustrate them, so we cannot say whether there was any identity of explanation. The Bhasya of Vatsyayana explains and illustrates these three types in a different way, for example it explains Purvavat as follows: yatra kAraNena kAryamanumIyate, yathAH-meghonnatyA bhaviSyati vRSTiriti / athavA pUrvavaditi yatra yathA pUrva pratyakSabhUtayoranyataradarzanenA'nyatarasyApratyakSasyAnumAnaM, yathA dhUmenAgniriti / nyA. bhA. 1-1-5. Both these illustrations of Purvavat come under the head of Sesavat of Anuyoga--the former under the second type Karanena and the latter under the fifth type Asaena or Asrayena. In the same way the explanation and illustration of Samanyatodrsta given by Vatsyayana in his Bhasya

Page #11
Contribution of Jaina Writers etc. 115 come under the third type of sesavat Gunanam because Bhasya infers soul from its quality like desire etc. 1 The two types of Drgtasadharmya as explained in Anuyoga represent respectively Upamana and Pratyabhijnana of Nyayasastra. As regards the categories, the Uttaradhyayanasutra (28-5) enumerates three categories, viz. Dravya, Guna and Paryaya as the objects of knowledge. However in Vaisesikasutra too the term 'Artha' is applicable to only Dravya, Guna and Karma.2 Anuyoga also refers to these categories 3 The definition of Paryaya .as given by Uttaradhyayana is also comparable with the division of Anekasrita Gunas by Prasastapada. Uttaradhyayana4 defines Paryayas as follows : ekattaM ca puhattaM ca saMkhA saMThANameva ca / saMjogA ya vibhAgA ya pajjAvANaM tu lakkhaNaM // 28-3 Prasastapada enumerates the following quality as Anekasrita Gunas : saMyoga-vibhAga-dvitva-dvipRthaktvAdayo'nekAzritAH // pra. bhA. guNanirUpaNa.. Following the Agamas, the Niryuktis and Bhasyas like those of DasaVaikalikasutra, Avasyakasutra and other works also show continuous familiarity with Nyaya and Vaisesika schools of thought. The few references given below will prove the same. Acarya Bhadrabahu (300 B.C.) in his Dasavaikalika-Niryukti discussing Anumana enumerates the five Avayavas and two types of ten Avayavas of an Anumana.5. The five Avayavas, viz. Pratijna, Hetu, 1 NBh 1-1-5 ? cf. VS 8-2-3. 9 Anu. 124. 4 However the general definition of Dravya, Guna and Paryaya in Uttar. is as follows : guNANabhAsao davvaM egadavvassiyA guNA / lakkhaNaM pajjavANaM tu ubhao assiyA bhave // 28-6 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 Guna. While the modern scholars like Pt. Dalasukha Malavania understand more than one Dravya and see the consistency of the definition of Paryaya 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 Bharati Drstanta, Upasamhara and Nigamana are identical with the similar five, viz. Pratijna, Hetu, Udaharana, Upanaya and Nigamana of Nyaya school1 and Pratijna, Apadesa, Nirdarsana, Anusandhana and Pratyamnaya of Vaisesika school. However his enumeration of two types of ten Avayavas3 is different from the one given in Vatsyayana Bhasya.4 Bhadrabahu in his Niryukti5 also states that in Vada or debate merely Pratijna and Udaharana or Pratijna, Hetu and Udaharana are enough. Even though the Agamas do not refer to any tradition about the origin of Vaisesika school, Jinabhadragaai Ksamasramana (6th Cen. A.D.) in his Visesavasyaka Bhasya 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 Vaisesika 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 Rasis, Jiva and Ajiva. Rohagupta to defeat him said that there were three Rasis, 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 Visesavasyaka mentions the following as the tenets of this Nihnava or schism of Rohagupta : bhU-jala-jalaNAnila naha-kAla-disA''yA maNo ya dvvaaii| . maNNaMti naveyAiM satarasa gaNA ya ime aNNe / / 64-TH-FET-14T Bar-fPage #13
Contribution of Jaina Writers etc. icchA - dosa - pattA kambhaM tayaM ca paMcadihaM / ukkhevaNa- makkhevaNa pasAraNA kuMcaNaM gamaNaM // sattA - sAmaNNaM piya sAmaNNa visesiyA disesoya / samavAyo na payatthA chacchAttIsappabhedA ya // 117 (1) Bhu-earth, (2) Jala-water, (3) Jalana-fire, (4) Anila-air, (5) Naha-sky, (6) Kala-time, (7) Disa-direction, (8) Aya-soul and (9) Mano-mind are the nine Dravyas. (1) Rupa-colour, (2) Rasa-taste, (3) Gandha-odour, (4) Fasa-touch, (5) Samkha-number, (6) Parimana-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 Gunas. (1) Ukhevana-tossing up, (2) Akhevana-tossing down, (3) Pasarana-spread, (4) Akuncana-contraction and (5) Gamana-gait are the five Karmas. (1) Sattasamanya-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 Vaisesika school. The This discussion based upon the references from the Agamas, the earlier Niryuktis and Bhasyas clearly point to the fact that the Jainas continuously kept themselves familiar with the schools of thought other than their own. Their familiarity with Pramanas, Hetus, Avayavas and other topics of Nyaya school as well as with the Vaisesika categories of Dravya, Guna, Karma, Samanya, Visesa and Samavaya became of great use to them in systematizing and putting their school of thought in line with Brahmanical and Buddhist schools. Jaina Darsanikas showing the influence of Nyaya-Vaisesika schools: Now we shall take up the works of a few prominent Jaina Darsanikas in which the influence of Nyaya-Vaisesika schools of thought and literature is clearly seen. 1 Dr. A. B. Dhruva also in his intropuction of Syadvada-Manjari (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: anye tu vyAcakSate mahAsAmAnyaM dravyatvAdi sAmAnyavizeSaH pRthivItvAdi / According to Vaisesika Samanya is of two types, Para and Apara.

Page #14
118 Bharati Vacaka Umasvati and Kundakundacarya (2nd-3rd Cen. A.D.): The Tattvarthasutra by Umasvati (200-300 A.D.) is the first work in Sanskrit where all the principles of Jainism are embodied in Sutra form. There is a Bhasya on these Sutras which is also attributed to Umasvati. There has been some discussion about the authorship of this Bhasya but it is now accepted as Umasvati's work by eminent scholars of Jainism like Pt. Sukhalalji.1 In these Sutras we find the following parallels with the Vaisesika school. Tattvartha. defines Dravya as guNaparyAyavad dravyam (5-37) while Vaisesika defines the same as kriyAguNavad dravyam (vai. sU. 1-1-15) Tattvartha defines Guna as dravyAzrayA nirguNAH guNAH (5-40) while Vaisesika defines it as dravyAzrayya guNavAn (vai. sU. 1-1-16) Tattvartha defines Kala as vartanA pariNAmaH kriyA paratvAparatve ca kAlasya (5-22) while Vaisesika defines it as aparasminnaparaM ciraMkSipramiti kAlaliGgAni (bai. sU. 2-2-6). Similarly the division on the basis of Sadharmya or similarity and Vaidharmya or dissimilarity of Pudgalas etc. shows the use of this peculiar method of Vaisesikas by Umasvati. In his Bhasya establishing Nayavada he shows the different views regarding the number of categories as follows: __yathA sarvamekaM sadavizeSAt / sarvaM dvitvaM jIvAjIvAtmakatvAt / sarvaM tritvaM duvyaguNa paryAyAvarodhAt / sarvaM catuSTayaM caturdarzana-viSayAvarodhAt and so on (1-35) This passage when compared with the following passage of Nyaya-Bhasya will show Umasvati's close familiarity with Nyaya-Bhasya. Enumerating Sankhyaikantavadas, Vatsyayana observes : sarvamekaM sadavizeSAt / sarvaM dvedhA nityAnityabhedAta / sarvaM tredhA jJAtA jJAnaM jnyeymiti| sarvaM caturdhA pramAtA'pramANaM, prameyaM pramitiriti / evaM yathA sambhavamanye'pIti / nyA. bhA. 4-1-41 . In the works of Kundakundacarya (about 2nd Cen. A.D.) who is one of the earliest Digambara writers on Jaina philosophy, we find the use of some peculiar technical Vaisesika terms like Artha, 2 Ayutasiddha, 3 Murta and Amarta,4 which leaves no doubt about Vaisesika influence. Kundakurdacarya in one of the verses of his Pravacanasara observes : davvANi guNA tesiM pajjAyA aTThasaNNayA bhnniyaa| (1-87) i.e. the term Artha is applicable to Dravya, Guna and Paryaya. He in his Pancastikaya states that Dravya and Guna 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 kSiti jalajyotiranilamanasAM kriyAvatta vaparatvAparatvavegavatvAni /

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 Asatkaryavada2 of Nyaya and Vaisesika schools of thought from the Paryayarthika view point of Jainism. In showing the division of different substances on the basis of Sadharmya and Vaidharmya, though the Vaisesika-Sutra does not mention the ground of Murtatva and Amurtatva, the Prasastapada-Bhasya does so. As we have stated, Umasvati does adopt the method of Vaisesika in showing the division between different substances. He considers the ground of Rupi and Arupis in that division. Kundakundacarya instead of Rupis and Arupi adopts the terms Murta and Amurta4 of Prasastapada. Thus the work of Umasvati and Kundakundacarya show an intimate knowledge of Nyaya and Vaisesika concepts and also adaptation of some terms to suit their needs. After Umasvati and Kundakundacarya, both the sects of Jainism. Svetambara and Digambara, have produced eminent Acaryas in every century up to Upadhyaya Yasovijaya (17th Cen. A.D.). As we are here mainly concerned with the contribution of Jaina writers to Nyaya-Vaisesika literature, we shall first take up only a few prominent Acaryas 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 Divakara (4th-5th cent. A.D.):5 Let us first take Siddhasena Divakara of the Svetambara sect. It is known that another word for Jainism is Anekantavada. This term Anekantavada as far as I know is not found in the earlier Agamas. The idea of course was known to the early thinkers of Sramana period, but the term that was more in vogue was Syadvada. It was however after Siddhasena Divakara, the first systematizer of Jain logic, who put the doctrine of the Agamas in a methodical form, that the term Anekantavada became more popular and in course of time became a synonym for Jainism. Siddhasena Divakara put forth two works one in Praksta Sanmati-TarkaPrakarana and the other in Sanskrit 'Nyayavatarasutra'. 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 Prasna" in Gujarati) by Pt. Sukhalalaji BV Vol. III, p. 152.

Page #16
120 Bharati works he wrote 32 Dvatrimsikas or 32 treatises, each containing 32 verses. Out of these 32 Dvatrimsikas only 21 are available at present. In these Dvatrimsika No. 12 deals with the Nyaya school while No. 14 with the Vai esika school. All these works show Divakara's intellectual vigour and profound scholarship. Now we find that in Nyayasutra and its Bhasya the term Ekantal is used to suggest an extreme view which by that very reason is regarded as unacceptable in them. The following passage of the Bhasya will show that Anekanta point of view was also known to the Nyaya school of thought. te khalvime saGakhyakAntA yadi vizeSakAritasyArthabhedavistArastha pratyAkhyAnena vartante pratyakSAnumAnAgamavirodhAtmithyAvAdA bhavanti / athA'bhyujJAnena vartante / samAnakArito'rthasaGagraho vizeSakAritazcArthabheda ityevamekAntatvaM jahatIti / te khalvete tattvajJAnasfadar IIT: geferat fat i F241. F. 8-8-63 There are two other topics which may also be mentioned here. The word Vibhajyavada was also known in the sense of Syadvada and Anekantavada to Indian philosophers. Siddhasena Divakara uses the word Bhayana or Bhajana? in the sense of Anekanta. Vatsyayana in his Nyaya-Bhasya uses the word Vibhajya-Vacaniya3 in the sense of viewing an object from different view points. Siddhasena Divakara in the Sanmati-Tarka-Prakarana enumerates the following six characteristics of the soul which are also worth comparing with those mentioned in the Nyayasutra4 and the Vaisesikasutra 5. atthi AviNAsadhambhI karei veei atthi nivvANaM / . atthi ya mokkhovAyo cha sammatassa tthaannaaii|| 3-35 / The points of similarity discussed above clearly point to the influence of the earlier Nyaya-Vaisesika thought on Siddhasena Divakara. According to Jaina tradition, Siddhasena Divakara was a learned Brahmana Pandita. He was converted to the faith of Jainism by VIddhavadi. In the light of this tradition we should not be, in any way surprised if he utilized his Brahmanic learning for organizing and defending his new faith. Acarya Samantabhadra (5th Cen. A.D.): In the same age, the Digambara sect produced a great Acarya in Samantabhadra. Aptamimamsa, Svayambhu-Stotra and Yuktyanusasana 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 Aptamimamsa deals with Saptabhangi on the Anekanta line. Applying Saptabhangi Prakriya, he refutes the views of different schools. In this connection the following verse of the Aptamimansa is worth comparing with NS 4-1-43 which refutes the different Sankhyaikantavadas. ekAneka vikalpAdA vuttaratrApi yojayet / prakriyAM bhaGginImenAM nayanayavizAradaH // A. mI. kA. 23 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 Aptamimamsa shows that Samantabhadra adopted the terms Pragabhava and Pradhvansabhava of the Vaisesika school to suit the needs of Jaina philosophy. Refuting Bhavaikantavadins, he states ___ kArya dravyamanAdi syAt prAgabhAvasya nihnve| pradhvaMsasya ca dharmasya pracyave' nantatAM vrajet // kA. 10 Akalankadeva and Acarya Haribhadrasuri (7th-8th Cen. A.D.): After Acarya Samantabhadra, the Digambara-Acarya Akalankadeva and the Svetambara-Acarya Haribhadrasuri are in their respective sects well-known logicians. Akalankadeva (7th Cen. A.D.) wrote a commentary Astasata on the Aptamimarsa of Samantabhadra and a commentary, Tattvartharajavartika on the Tattvarthasutra of Umasvati. But his independent contribution to Jaina logic lies in his three works, Laghiyastrayi, Nyayaviniscaya and Pramanasangraha popularly known as AkalankaGrantha-Trayi. Of these three works his Nyayaviniscaya is divided into three chapters, Pratyaksa-Prastava, Anumana-Prastava and PravacanaPrastava. This type of division shows the influence of Tri-Pramanavadins on Akalanka. In the realm of Indian Darsanas, the Sankhyas are known to have three Pramanas, viz., Pratyaksa, Anumana and Agama; but Sankhyas are not generally drawn upon for the theory of Pramanas. The only other source which we can refer to, would be Nyaya and Vaisesika schools. Though Nyaya school includes Upamana and accepts four Pramanas, Vatsyayana in his Nyayasutra Bhasya refuting different Sankhya theories states TEUTETTATANT factare att vara 11 and thus gives importance to three Pramanas. Kanada in his Vaisesikasutra nowhere mentions the number of Pramanas. He however defines two Pramanas, Pratyaksa and Anumana, but mentions Sabda in an independent Sutra 1 Nbh. on NS 4-1-43. 16

Page #18
122 Bharati etena zAbdaM vyAkhyAtam ( vai. sU. 3-2-3 ), implying thereby that its definition is included in Anumana. He, however, indirectly accepts Agama-Pramana in the following Sutras:- tasmAdAgamikam and ( vai. sU. 2-1-17) tasmAdAgamikaH ( vai. sU. 3-2-8 ) 1. Prasastapada, however, discusses only two Pramanas including Sabda in Anumana; but it appears that a commentator named Vyomasiva and some followers of Kanada seem to have interpreted his view as propounding three Pramanas. This becomes clear from the fact that Vyomasiva in his Vyomavati clearly propounds three Pramanas, and also from the statement of Hemacandra in his Pramanamimamsa3 that the Vaisesik@s are Tri-Pramanavadins. Among Naiyayikas, Bhasarvajna in his Nyayasara recognizes three Pramanas. All this, as we have said above, shows that prior to Vyomsiva there must have been an old tradition of Vaisesikas professing three Pramanas. 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-Vaisesika schools professing three Pramanas. This has to be said because the Jaina tradition of Pramanas was different and he has not followed it in his dialectical method. Before we come to Acarya Haribhadrasuri (8th Cen. A.D.), a reference may be made to Acarya Mallavadi (circa 6th Cen. A.D. approx.) the reputed author of Dvadasara or Nayacakravala popularly known as DvadasaraNayacakra. 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-Ksamasramana. The date of Simhagani-Ksamasramana is not yet finally settled but he is probably not later than Haribhadrasuri. Of the work Dvadasara only one verse has uptil now been discovered. yattUcyate ityAdiyAvat saptamyabhidhAnena darzayati [ darzitaM ] iti sUtrArthaH kaTanyAkhyAtaH 'sadasatorvaidharmyAt (nyA. sU. 4-1-48) dvA. na. ca. TI. pU. 610 1 Sankara Misra in his Upaskara commenting on the Sutra 2-1-17 states yasmAdvizeSAkAreNa nAnumitiH tasmAd vAyuriti nAma Agamikam / Agamo vedaH, tataH siddhamityarthaH / Similarly commenting on Sutra 3-2-8 he states f nAnumeyaH, dRSTasAmAnyadRSTayorliGgayorabhAvAt / 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 Vaisesika Sutras. However this is altogether a new name. It should be noted that as shown above Simhagani also' quotes Nyaya-Sutras. ___ idAnIM sUtrakAramataM samarthayatA vAkya-bhASya-TIkAkArANAM matAni samAhRtya pradhAnAnugAmitvAccheSANAM sUtrakAramatamevetthaM dve[dU]SayitumAha tatvopanilanayAt sadAdyabhidhAnArtha kAraNa[Ne samavetasya vastuna uttarakAlaM sattAsambandha iti bahUnAM matam / vastvastU tyutpattikAla eva iti tu vAkyAbhiprAyo'nusRto bhASyakAraiH / siddhastha vastunaH svakAraNaH svasattayA ca sambandhaH iti prazastamatomatera bhiprAyaH / asmadabhiprAyasteSAM trayANAmapyasatyateti / kasmAt ? paraspara viruddhArthatvAt..."kumAra brahmacAripitRtvavat / dvA. na. ca. TI. pR. 301 Here from the phrase arathETA4TETTI we can say that there was a Vakyakara, Bhasyakara and a Tikakara. In short there must have been three types of commentaries on Vaisesika Sutras viz. Vakya, Bhasya and Tika. Of these three Vakya is a new type not hitherto known. Bhasya may be probably a Bhasya on Vaisesika Sutras. As he quotes the opinion of Prasastamati separately, here Bhasya may mean perhaps some Bhasya other than that of Prasastapada. Tika means the Tika 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 Nyaya and Vaisesika literature. Acarya Haribhadrasuri who is known as Yakinimahattara-Sunu 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 Nyaya and one to Vai esika schools. In his Sastravartasamuccaya we find that he, after refuting Isvarakartrtva theory, makes peace with it by viewing a Tirthaikara in the terms of Isvara and Karta. 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 Jambuvijayaji, the learned Editor of Dvadasara. 2 The following verses of Sastravartasamuccaya shows his adaptation of the idea of Isvaratva and Jagatkartstva : IzvaraH paramAtmaiva tadukta vrata sevanAt / yato muktistatastasyAH syAd guNabhAvataH / / tadanAsevanAdeva yatsaMsAro'pi tattvataH / tena tasyApi kartutvaM kalpyamAnaM na duSyati / / kartA'yamiti tadvAkye yataH keSAJcidAdaraH / atastasthAnuguNyena tasya kartRtvavedanam // pAramaizvarya yuktatvAnmata Atmaiva cezvaraH / sa ca karteti nirdoSaH kartRvAdo vyavasthitaH // zA. vA. sa. kA. 208-207

Page #20
124 :- Bharati Like Siddhasena Divakara, Acarya Haribhadrasuri was also a learned Brahmana Pandita before embracing Jainism and therefore probably felt some inner necessity of reconciling his former philosophical outlook with his new faith.-a1 Vidyananda (9th Cen. A.D.), Prabhacandra (9th 10th Cen. A.D.) and Abhayadevasuri (11th Cen. A.D.): After Akalankadeva, in Digambara sect there follow two logicians, Vidyan anda and Prabhacandra. Vidyananda wrote a voluminous, commentary, Astasahasri on the Aptamamamsa of Samantabhadra, Prabhacandra wrote similar commentaries--Nyayakumudacandra on Laghiyastrayi of Akalanka and Prameyakamalamartanda on Pariksamukhasutra of Manikyanandi. Abhayadevasuri of the Svetambara sect wrote a very big commentary Tattvabodhavidhayini popularly known as Vada-Maharnava on Sanmati-Tarka-Prakarana of Siddhasena Divakara. These Acaryas exhibit in their works a mastery of style and exposition which shows their thorough study of works like Nyaya-Tatparyatika of Vacaspati Misra. In fact Siddhasena Divakara 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 Nyaya and Vaisesika schools in particular. The stamp of Nyaya-Vai esika logic will be clearly visible in the following passages of Atsasahasri by Vidyananda where he defines the terms Pragabhava and Pradhvansabhava from the Jaina point of view : RjusUtranayArpaNAddhi prAgabhAvastAvatkAryasyopAdAna pariNAma eva pUrvo'nantarAtmA (a. . 7. C. 800) 774100||IIGUTUSTU cataratata TECH: 1 37. 9. q. 80$ In the Prameyakamalamartanda Prabhacandra also defines the above terms as follows: __yadabhAve hi niyamataH kAryotpattiH sa prAgabhAvaH / , prAgantarapariNAmaviziSTaM mRdravyam / 4. 8. HT. T. 888 yad bhAve hi niyatA kAryasya vipattiH sa pradhvaMsaH madadravyAnantarottarapariNAmaH / 1. F. AT. T. 888 The Tattvabodhavidhayini or Vada-Maharnava of Abhayadevasuri 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 Nyaya and Vaisesika works along with his knowledge of other Darsanas. 1 -a. For the list of Haribhadrasuri's works vide "Jain Sahityano Itihasa' (Gujarati) p. 159.

Page #21
Contribution of Jaina Writers etc. 125 The following passages from an unknown work on the Vaisesika school show his detailed study of the school. yadapyAtmano vibhutvasAdhanaM kaizcidupanyastam / adRSTaM svAzrayasaMyukte AzrayAntare karma Arabhate, ekadravyatve sati kriyAhetu guNatvAt, yo ya ekadravyatve sati kriyAhetuguNaH sasa svAzrayasaMyukte, AzrayAntare karma Arabhate yathA vegaH, tathA cAdRSTam, tasmAt tadapi svAzrayasaMyukte AzrayAntare karma Arabhate iti / na cAsiddhaM kriyAhetuguNatvam ; agnerUddhajvalanam, vAyostiryakpavanam, aNumanasozcAdyaM karma devadattavizeSaguNakAritam, kAryatve sati devadattasyopakAsatvAt pANyAdiparispandavat, ekadravyatvaM caikasyAtmanastadAzrayatvAt, ekadravyamadRSTam vizeSaguNatvAt zabdavat / . ekadravyatvAt ityucyamAne rUpAdibhirvyabhicArastanivRttyarthaM 'kriyAhetuguNatvAt' ityuktm| 'kriyAhetuguNatvAt ityucyamAne muzalahasta saMyogena svAzrayAsaMyuktastambhAdicalanahetunA vyabhicAraH tannivRttyartham 'eka dravyatve sati' iti vizeSaNIyam / ekadravyatve sati kriyAhetu guNatvAt' ityucyamAne svAzrayAsaMyukta lohAdikriyAhetunA'yaskAntena vyabhicAraH tannivRttyarthaM guNatvAt ityabhidhAnam sammati. TI. 5124-paM. 15 This is clearly the view-point of the Vaisesikas. yastvAha 'sadupalambhakapramANagamyatvaM SaNNAmastitvamabhidhIyate tacca SaTpadArthaviSayaM jJAnaM tasminsati sat iti vyavahArapravRtteH / evaM jJAnajanitaM jJeyatvam ; abhidhAnajanitam abhidheyatvam / ityevaM vyatirekanibandhanA sssstthiisiddhaa| na cA'navasthA, na ca SaTapadArthAntara vyatiriktapadArthAntaraprasaktiH, jJAnasya guNapadArthe'ntarabhAvAt / sanmati. TI. pR. 5661-paM. 14 He, at various places, refers also to Nyayasutra, Vaisesikasutra, their authors Aksapada and Kanada, Prasastamati, the author of Vaisesikabhasya and many others. Vadi Devasuri (11th-12th Cen. A.D.) abd Acarya Hemacandra (12th Cen. A.D.) After Abhayadevasuri we come to two great logicians of the Svetambara sects, Devasuri and Acarya Hemacandra. Devasuri got the epithet Vadi because he in an open debate held at the court of Siddharaja Jayasimha, a Solanki king of Gujarat, defeated a great dialectician named Kumudacandra of the Digambara sect. Vadi Devasuri's Pramananayatattvalokalankara with his own commentary Syadvadaratnakara is an epoch-making work on Jaina logic. The following passages from this work will show not only his detailed study of Nyaya and Vaisesika schools, but also his mastery over the dialectical method. zaGkaranyAya bhUSaNakArAvAcakSAte 'yo hi bhAvo yAvatyA sAmayA gahyate tadabhAvo'pi tAvatya vetyAloka gahaNasAmagrayA gRhyamANaM tamastadabhAva eva' tadapi na kiJcit tayograhaNa sAmagryA gRhyamANasyAlokasyaiva tadabhAvatAprasaGgenA naikAntika vAt / syA. ra. 5. 852. paM. 8

Page #22
126 Bharati yamapi pUrvamatArocakitayA kandalIkAraH svakIyaM mArgamutpekSAMcakre 'rUpavizeSo'ya matyantaM tejo'bhAve sati sarvataH samAropitastama iti pratIyate' iti so'pi kApathaH / nizAdA vatyanta tejo'bhAve satyapyadhikaraNabhUtalAdi vastumAtrasyApyanupalasdhyA rUpa vizeSAnupapatteH / upalabhyamAna eva hi kambau pItatAropaH pratIta iti / syA. 2. pR. 852-paM 20 yathAtra vyomazivenopAdezi 'tadetadasat, bhaasaambhaavruuptvaacchaayaayaaH| tathApi yatra yatra vArakadupyeNa tejasaH sannidhiniSidhyate tatra tatra chAyeti vyavahAraH / vArakadupyagatAM ca kriyAmAtapAbhAve samAropya pratipAdyate chAyA gacchatIti / anyathAhi vArakadravyakriyApekSitvaM na syAt' iti so'yaM paGgosturaGga vegavinirjayamanorathaH / mukhyArtha bAdhAyAM hi satyAmAropaH pratiSThAM prApnoti / syA. ra. pu. 853-paM. 11 In the above cited passages, to prove that "Tamas' or Darkness is an independent substance, he refutes Nyaya and Vaisesika viewg. He quotes the views of different Naiyayikas like Sankara Misra, Nyayabhusanakara, Kandalikara and Vyomaiva and then refutes them. His style of refutation resembles that of the famous logician Jayanta Bhatta, who while arguing ridicules the opponents. Acarya Hemacandrasuri, a Junior contemporary of Devasuri, was a versatile genius. He left no branch of learning without his contribution and therefore he is known as Kalikalasarvajna. Anyayoga-Dvatrimsika and Pramanamamamsa are his works on Jaina logic. Of these, Pramanamamansa is not available in its complete form. It consisted of six Adhyayas but only two Adhyayas are available. A passage from the available part is enough to show his deep study of Nyaya-Vai esika school and his scholarship. naiyAyikAstu "indriyArtha sannikarSoMtpannaM jJAnamapyapadezyamapyabhicAri vyavasAyAtmakaM pratyakSam" (nyA. sU. 1-1-4) iti pratyakSalakSaNamAcakSate / atra pUrvAcAryakRtavyAkhyAvaimukhyena saGakhyAvadbhistrilocanavAcaspatipramukhairayamoM samarthitaH yathA 'indriyArthasannikarSotpannaM jJAnamapyabhicAri pratyakSamityeva prtyksslkssnnm| 'yataH' zabdAdhyAhAreNa ca yattadonityAbhisambandhAduktavizeSaNaviziSTaM jJAnaM yato bhavati tat tathAvidhajJAnasAdhanaM jJAnarUpamajJAnarUpaM vA pratyakSaM prmaannmiti| asya ca phalabhUtasya jJAnasya dvayI gatiravikalpaM sakkilpaM ca / tayorubhayorapi pramANarUpatvamabhidhAtuM vibhAgavacanametad avyapadezyaM vyavasAyAtmakam' iti / tatrobhayarUpasyApi jJAnasya prAmANyamupekSya 'yataH' zabdAdhyAhAraklezenA'jJAnarUpasya sannikarSAdeH prAmANya samarthanamayuktam / kathaM hyajJAnarUpAH sannikarSAdayo'rtha paricchittau sAdhakatayA bhavanti vyabhicArAt ? satyapIndriyArthasannikarSe'rthopalabdharabhAvAt / jJAne satyeva bhaavaat| sAdhakatamaM hi karaNamapyavahitaphalaM ca taditi / sannikarSo'pi yadi yogyatAtiriktaH saMyogAdisambandhastahi sa cakSuSo'rthena saha nAsti, aprApyakAritvAttasya / dRzyate hi kAcAbhrasphaTikAdivyavahitasyApyarthasya cakSuSopalabdhiH / atha 'prApyakAri cakSuH karaNatvAdvAsyAdivaditi Se, ta_yaskAntAkarSaNopalena lohAsannikRSTena

Page #23
Contribution of Jaina Writers etc. 127 vyabhicAraH / na ca saMyuktasaMyogAdiH sannikarSastatra kalpayituM zakyate atiprasaGgAditi / pra. mI. sU. 1-1-29. pR. 22-23 While refuting the definition of Pratyaksa given by the Naiyayikas in the above passage, he draws our attention to the change in the interpretation of the Sutra made by scholars like Trilocana and Vacaspati Misra. His method resembles that of the old Bhasyakaras like Vatsyayana and others. Mallisenasuri (13th Cen. A.D.): Acarya Mallisenasuri, the author of the famous treatise Syadvadamanjari, a commentary on Anyayoga-Dvatrimsika of Acarya 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 Syadvadamanjari his detailed study of Nyaya-Vaisesika systems and their influence on his style are quite patent. The following passage will show the same : yattAvaduktaM paraiH 'kSityAdayo buddhimatkartRkAH kAryatvAd ghaTavaditi' / tadayuktam vyApteragrahAt / sAdhanaM hi sarvatra vyAptI pramANena siddhAyAM sAdhyaM gamayediti sarvavAdisaMvAdaH / sa cA'yaM jaganti sujana sazarIro'zarIro vA syAt / sazarIro'pi kibhasmadAdivadRzyazarIradiziSTa uta pizAcAdivadadRzyazarIraviziSTa: ? prada prathamapakSe pratyakSabAdhaH, tamantareNA'pi ca jAyamAne tRNatarupurandaradhanurabhrAdau kAryatvasya darzanAt prameyatvadivat sAdhAraNAnakAntiko hetuH / dvitIyavikalpe punaradRzyazarIratve tasya mahAtmyavizeSaH kAraNam, AhosvidasmadAdyadRSTavaiguNyam ? prathamaprakAra: kozapAnapratyAyanIyaH, tatsiddhau pramANAbhAvAt itaretarAzrayadoSApattezca / siddhe hi mAhAtmyavizeSe tasyAdRzyazarIratvaM pratyetapyaM, tatsiddhau ca mAhAtmyavizeSasiddhiriti / dvaitIyikastu prakAro na saJcaratyeva vicAragocare, saMzayAnivRtteH / kiM tasyAsatvAdadRzyazarIratvaM vAndhyeyAdivat, kiM vA'myadAdyadRSTavaiguNyAt pizAcAdivaditi nizcayAbhAvAt / azarIrazcettadA dRSTAntadAAntikayorvaiSamyam / ghaTAdayo hi kAryarUpAH sakartRkA dRSTAH / azarIrasya ca sanastasya kAryapravRttau kutaH sAmarthyam AkAzAdivat / tasmAta sazarIrAzarIralakSaNe pakSadvaye'pi kaarytvhetoaaptysiddhiH| kiM ca tvanmatena kAlAtyayApadiSTo'pyayaM hetuH / dharmyakadezasya taruvidyudabhrAderidAnImapyutpadyamAnasya vidhAturanupalabhyamAnatvena pratyakSabAdhita-dharmyanantaraM hetubhaNanAt / tadevaM na kazcijjagataH karteti / syA. ma. pR. 24 (AnandazaGkara dhruvajI sampAdita) From his style it becomes clear that he is influenced by Udayanacarya. Upadhyaya Yasovijayagani (17th Cen. A.D.) After Mallisena, Upadhyaya Yasovijayagani is a logician of eminence.1 Like Haribhadrasuri, he was also a prolific writer in the history of Jaina 1 For the list of the works and life of Upadhyaya Yasovijayagani vide "Jaina Sahityano Itihasa" 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 : ___ yattu narasiMhAkArajJAne jJAnatvaghaTatvaprakArakatvobhayAzrayajJAnavaiSiSTyadhIna syAditi tattu viSayanirUpyaM hi jJAnaM na tu viSayaparamparA nirUpyamityAdinA mizreNaiva samAhitam / yattu svasaMvedane kRtisamavAhitvAdirUpakartRtvAdyanavabhAsa ityuktaM, tadabhiprAyAparijJAnAt / AzrayatvarUpakartRtvasya, viSayatvarUpakarmatvasya vizeSaNatvarUpakriyAtvasya ca doSAkalaGkitatvAt / adhikaviSayatve'pi ca vyavasAyasyArthaviSayatvena pravartakatvamaviruddham, iSTatAvachedakapravRttiviSayavaiziSTayAvagAhijJAnatvena pravartakatvAt / na cAtra prameyamiti jJAnAtpravRttyApattiH, iSTatAvacchedane tadbhinnaniSThadharmAprakArakatvavizeSaNAt / nyAyAloka pR. 93.