Svabhavvada a Study

Author(s): V M Kulkarni
Publisher: Z_Mahavir_Jain_Vidyalay_Suvarna_Mahotsav_Granth_Part_1_012002.pdf and Mahavir_Jain_Vidyalay_Suvarna_
Catalog link: https://jainqq.org/explore/250334/1

Page #1

Svabhāvavāda (Naturalism ) :
A Study
V. M. KULKARNI
HE Svetasvatara Upanisad1 gives a list of first causes of the variety of THE the world according to some thinkers. This list includes Time, Nature, Destiny, Chance ( Accident ), the Elements and Puruga. This paper will confine itself mainly to an investigation of the real nature of the doctrine of Svabhava (Naturalism as opposed to Accidentalism) by scrutinising available references to it in Sanskrit and Prakrit literature.
In the commentary to the Svetasvatara Sankarācārya" explains svabhāva as inherent nature of a thing, as, for instance, heat of fire. In the Buddhacarita Asvaghosa clearly sets forth the views of the supporters of Svabhāvavāda:
1
कालः स्वभावो नियतिर्यदृच्छा भूतानि योनिः पुरुष इति चिन्त्या । संयोग एषां न त्वात्मभावादात्माप्यनीशः सुखदुःखहेतोः ॥ स्वभावानेके कवयो वदन्ति कालं तथान्ये परिमुधमानाः । देवस्यैष महिमा तु लोके येनेदं भ्राम्यते ब्रह्मचक्रम् ॥

-Svetāśvatara I. 2, VI. 1
2 स्वभावो नाम पदार्थानां प्रतिनियता शक्तिः। अझेरीष्यमिव । 3 अग्नेर्यथा ह्योष्णमपां द्रवत्वं तद्वत्प्रवृत्ती प्रकृति वदन्ति ॥
केचित्स्वभावादिति वर्णयन्ति शुभाशुभं चैव भवाभवी च । स्वाभाविकं सर्वमिदं च यस्मादतोऽपि मोघो भवति प्रयत्नः ॥

Page #2

SVABHAVAVADA (NATURALISM) : A STUDY : 11
“...... They teach that there is an essential force of nature at work in the continuance of activity, like the essential heat of fire and the essential liquidity of water. Some explain that good and evil and existence and non-existence originate by natural development (Svabhāva); and since all this world originates by natural development, again therefore effort is vain. That the action of each sense is limited to its own class of object, that the qualities of being agreeable or disagreeable is to be found in the objects of the senses, and that we are affected by old age and afflictions, in all that what room is there for effort? Is it not purely a natural development? The oblation devouring fire is stilled by water, and the flames cause water to dry up. The elements, separate by nature, group themselves together into bodies and, coalescing, constitute the world. That, when the individual enters the womb, he develops hands, feet, belly, back and head, and that his soul unites with that body, all this the doctors of this school attribute to natural development. Who fashions the sharpness of the thorn or the varied nature of beast and bird ? All this takes place by natural development. There is no such thing in this respect as action of our own will, a fortiori no possibility of effort."4
In the Nyāyasūtral Gautama states by way of Purvapaksa that things originate without any cause like the sharpness of thorns. Vātsyāyana, in his commentary to the Nyāyasūtra, explains the sūtra by adding a few examples.
In the Māthara-vrttis to the Samkhya-kārika (v. 61), along with
यदिन्द्रियाणां नियतः प्रचारः प्रियाप्रियत्वं विषयेषु चैव । संयुज्यते यजरयातिभिश्च कस्तत्र यत्नो ननु स स्वभावः ।। अद्भिर्हताशः शममभ्युपति तेजांसि चापो गमयन्ति शोषम् । भिन्नानि भूतानि शरीरसंस्थान्यैक्यं च गत्वा जगदुद्वहन्ति ।। यत्पाणिपादोदरपृष्ठमून्धी निर्वर्तते गर्भगतस्य भावः । यदात्मनस्तस्य च तेन योग: स्वाभाविकं तत्कथयन्ति तज्ज्ञाः ।। कः कण्टकस्य प्रकरोति तक्ष्ण्यं विचित्रभावं मृगपक्षिणां वा । स्वभावतः सर्वमिदं प्रवृत्तं न कामकारोऽस्ति कुतः प्रयत्नः ॥
-Buddhacarita IX. 57 (b)-62 4 Translation by E. H. Johnston, Calcutta, 1936 5 अनिमित्ततो भावोत्पत्तिः कण्टकतेण्यादिदर्शनात् ।
अनिमित्ता शरीराद्युत्पत्तिः । कस्मात् । कण्टकतैक्ष्ण्यादिदर्शनात् । यथा कण्टकस्य तेक्ष्ण्यम् , पर्वतधातूनां चित्रता, ग्राव्णां श्लक्ष्णता, निनिमित्तं चोपादानवच्च दृष्टं तथा शरीरादिसर्गोऽपीति ।
-Nyāyasūtra-Bhāşya IV. 1. 22 6 अपरे स्वभावमाहुः । स्वभावः कारणमिति । तथा हि
येन शुक्कीकृता हंसाः शुकाश्च हरितीकृताः ।

Page #3

12 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
iśvara and Kāla, Svabhāva is mentioned as the cause of the world, of course, from others' point of view and dismissed as non-existent.
In his commentary to the Sāṁkhya-kārikā (v. 61) Gaudapāda? writes: "Others say, Svabhava is cause of the world : By what (or whom) the swan is created white, the peacock of many colours?"; that is, they are so naturally . . . for Pradhana, from its universal creative power, is the cause of even Kala (time); even Svabhava merges into it; and, therefore, neither Käla nor Svabhāva is cause. Praksti (= Pradhāna) alone, therefore, is cause.
Thus according to Gaudapāda Svabhāva merges into the all-embracing cause called PrakȚti.
In the commentarys to Brhatsamhita. (Bhatta) Utpala writes : The world with its variety originates and gets destroyed through Svabhāva alone and none else. They (Svabhāvavādins) declare: “What fashions the sharpness of thorns, and the varied nature of beasts and birds, the sweetness of sugar-cane and the bitter taste of nimba ? All this comes about by Svabhava."
It may be noted, in passing, that this verse bears close resemblance to Asvaghosa's verse cited above.
In the Sarva-Siddhanta-Sangraha' Sankarăcărya briefly states the doctrine of Svabhāva thus:
मयूराश्चित्रिता येन स नो वृत्तिं विधास्यति ॥ ...स्वभावो नाम न कश्चित्पदार्थोऽस्ति यतः प्रजानामुत्पत्तिसङ्गतिः स्यात् तस्माद्यो ब्रूते स्वभावः कारणमिति तन्मिथ्या ।
--Māthara-Vrtti to Sk. 61 7 अपरे स्वभावकारणिकां अवते। केन शुक्लीकृता हंसा मयूराः केन चित्रिताः । स्वभावेनैवेति । ......कालस्यापि
प्रधानमेव कारणम् । स्वभावोऽप्यत्रैव लीनः। तस्मात् कालो न कारणं नापि स्वभाव इति । तस्मात् प्रकृतिरेव कारणं न प्रकृतेः कारणान्तरमस्तीति ।
-Gaudapādabhāsya to Samkhyakārika 61 8 अपरे अन्ये लोकायतिकाः स्वभावं जगतः कारणमाहुः । स्वभावादेव जगद्विचित्रमुत्पद्यते स्वभावतो विलयं याति । तथा च तद्वाक्यम् ।
कः कण्टकानां प्रकरोति तैक्ष्ण्यं विचित्रभावं मृगपक्षिणां च । माधुर्यमिक्षोः कटुतां च निम्बे स्वभावत: सर्वमिदं प्रवृत्तम् ॥
-Bhattotpala's Commentary to Brhatsamhitā. I. 7 9 न कल्प्यो सुखदुःखाभ्यां धर्माधौं परैरिह ।
स्वभावेन सुखी दुःखी जनोऽन्यन्नैव कारणम् ॥ शिखिनश्चित्रयेत् को वा कोकिलान् कः प्रकूजयेत् । स्वभावव्यतिरेकेण विद्यते नात्र कारणम् ।।
-Sarvasiddhantasangraha II. 4-5

Page #4

SVABHAVAVĀDA (NATURALISM) : A STUDY : 13
"In consequence of the existence of pleasure and pain, merit and demerit should not be here in this connection) postulated by others. A man feels pleasure or pain by nature and there is no other cause for it. Who colours wonderfully the peacocks, or who makes the cuckoos coo so well ? There is in respect of these things no cause other than nature."
In his commentary10 to the Visesavaśyakabhasya Maladhări Hemacandra quotes three verses giving the views of Svabhāvavadins. "The supporters of the doctrine of Svabhāva (nature, inner nature, natural development) teach that all things originate without any cause. They do not regard even 'Sva' (own, itself) as cause. What makes the varied nature of lotuses and of thorns and the like? What has fashioned the variegated plumage of peacocks ? Whatever is found in this world is all without cause and due to mere accident. Like the sharpness of thorns human happiness and grief come about by Svabhāva only."
In the course of his discussion about the Svabhāvavada (Introduction to Ganadharavada) Malvania quotes two versesll on Svabhāvavāda as well-known.
"It is due to the all-controlling nature (Svabhāva) that some things are ever-existing, some others ever non-existing and still some others varied in nature. Fire is hot, water is cool, wind is neither hot nor cool
10 de afaristä H1919 Font quela
स्वभाववादिभिस्ते हि नाहुः स्वमपि कारणम् ॥ राजीवकण्टकादीनां वैचित्र्यं कः करोति हि । मयूरचन्द्रिकादिर्वा विचित्रः केन निर्मितः ॥ कादाचित्कं यदनास्ति निःशेषं तदहेतुकम् । यथा कण्टकतैक्ष्ण्यादि तथा चैते सुखादयः ।।
-Maladhāri Hemacandra's Commentary to
Ganadharavada II, v. 1963 Note: The text reads' Frarating laat fafaz:'. Shri Malvania renders it as "The plumage of the peacock is variegated and the moonlight is bright white ..." (Ganadharavāda (p. 45) : Gujarat Vidyasabhā, Ahmedabad). It appears to me, however, that the text originally must have read Hrastarlal fara: '—which reading eminently suits the context. 11 f ar ara facilitaran
विचित्राः केचिदित्यत्र तत्स्वभावो नियामकः ॥ अग्निरुष्णो जलं शीतं समस्पर्शस्तथानिल: । केनेदं चित्रितं तस्मात् स्वभावात् तद्यवस्थितिः ॥ -Quoted by Shri Malvania in his Introduction to
Ganadharavāda, p. 114

Page #5

14 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
(by itself). By whom or what came this variety ? We, therefore, conclude that all this came about by nature (Svabhāva)."
___Of these two verses, the second is quoted in the Sarva-darsanasangraha?, which briefly puts the case of Svabhāvavādins thus :
But an opponent will say, if you thus do not allow adssta, the various phenomena of the world become destitute of any cause. But we cannot accept this objection as valid, since these phenomena can all be produced spontaneously from the inherent nature of things. Thus it has been said :
"The fire is hot, the water cold, refreshing cool the breeze of morn; By whom came this variety ? From their own nature was it born."
In his commentary13 to Uttarādhyayana Sutra (Agadadatta, v. 75) Devendra gives a verse in Prakrit hinting at Svabhāvavāda: "Who paints the peacock? Who provides the swans with their graceful gait? Who infuses the sweet fragrance in lotuses and modesty in those who are born in noble families ?"
In his commentary to Şaddarśana-Samuccayal4 (st. 50), as mentioned by Hiriyanna, Gunaratna quotes as the view of others.:
"Others again say: All the variety of this world is explained by its own nature and there is no karma whatever serving as its basis."
In the Mahābhāratals (śānti-parvan) there are many references to
12 नन्वदृष्टानिष्टौ जगद्वैचित्र्यमाकस्मिकं स्यादिति चेत्-न तद् भद्रम् । स्वभावादेव तदुपपत्तेः । तदुक्तम्
अग्निरुष्णो जलं शीतं समस्पर्शस्तथानिलः ।। केनेदं चित्रितं तस्मात्स्वभावात्तद्व्यवस्थितिः ॥ ---Sarvadarśanasangraha, Cärväkadarśanam, p. 13
(BORI, Poona, ed. 1951) 13 को चित्तेइ भऊरं गई च को कुणइ रायहंसाणं ।। को कुवलयाण गंधं विणयं च कुलप्पसूयाणं ।। -Sukhabodha-Laghuvịtti to Uttarādhyayana Sutra
_ (Agadadatta, v. 75) 14 अन्ये पुनराहु:--मूलतः कमैव नास्ति, स्वभावसिद्धः सर्वोऽप्ययं जगत्प्रपञ्च इति ।
-Gunaratna's Commentary to Saddarśanasamuccaya (st. 50) 15 हन्तीति मन्यते कश्चिन्न हन्तीत्यपि चापरः ।
स्वभावतस्तु नियती भूतानां प्रभवाप्ययी ॥ पश्य प्रह्लाद भूतानामुत्पत्तिमनिमित्ततः । हासं वृद्धि विनाशं च न प्रहृष्ये न च व्यथे ॥ स्वभावादेव संदृश्या वर्तमानाः प्रवृत्तयः । स्वभावनिरताः सर्वाः परितुष्येन्न केनचित् ॥

Page #6

SVABHAVAVĀDA (NATURALISM): A STUDY : 15
the doctrine of Svabhāva; this passage declares how everything comes about by Svabhāva.
The next passages is from the same source describing the ultimate source of material universe. The Mahābhārata records evidence, as pointed out by Hiriyannal7 in support of two opposite views—the ultimate source was conceived as one and as many.
The Bhagavadgitāls contains many passages which lend support to the doctrine of Svabhāva. It is pressed into service to explain the difference in the duties of different castes; and its irresistible force is brought to the forefront now and again to persuade Arjuna to fight.
In the commentary19 to the Sūtrakstānga śīlāňka puts forward by
स्वभावभाविनो भावान् सर्वानेवेह निश्चयात् । बुध्यमानस्य दर्पो वा मानो वा किं करिष्यति ॥ स्वभावालभते प्रशां शान्तिमति स्वभावतः । स्वभावादेव तत्सर्वं यत्किञ्चिदनुपश्यसि ॥
-Mbh, Santiparvan : 25. 16 ; 179. 10-11 ; 222. 27, 35 16 पृथिवी ज्योतिराकाशमापो वायुश्च पञ्चमः ।
एतयोनीनि भूतानि तत्र का परिदेवना ।। केचित्पुरुषकारं तु प्राहुः कर्मसु मानवाः । देवमित्यपरे विप्राः स्वभावं भूतचिन्तकाः ॥ विकारानेव यो वेद न वेद प्रकृति पराम् । तस्य स्तम्भो भवेद्वाल्यान्नास्ति स्तम्भोऽनुपश्यतः ।। प्रकृती च विकारे च न मे प्रीतिर्न च द्विषे । द्वेष्टारं च न पश्यामि यो मामद्य ममायते ।।
-Mbh, Santiparvan : 224. 17; 232. 19; 222. 26, 31 17 Outlines of Indian Philosophy, p. 105.
...............प्रकृतिस्त्वां नियोक्ष्यति ॥ स्वभावजेन कौन्तेय निबद्धः स्वेन कर्मणा । कर्तुं नेच्छसि यन्मोहात् करिष्यस्यवशोऽपि तत् ॥ कार्यते ह्यवशः कर्म सर्वः प्रकृतिजैर्गुणैः ।। प्रकृति यान्ति भूतानि............ ॥ .......स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते ॥
-Bhagavadgitā XVIII. 59-60 ; III. 5; III. 33, V. 14 19 तत्कथमेतज्जगद्वैचित्र्यं घटते ?, तद्यथा-कश्चिदीश्वरोऽपरो दरिद्रोऽन्यः सुभगोऽपरो दुर्भगः सुखी दु:खी सुरूपो
मन्दरूपो व्याधितो नीरोगीति, एवंप्रकारा च विचित्रता किंनिबन्धनेति ?, अत्रोच्यते, स्वभावात् , तथा हिकुत्रचिच्छिलाशकले प्रतिमारूपं निष्पाद्यते, तच्च कुङ्कमागरुचम्दनादिविलेपनानभोगमनभवति धूपाद्यामोदं च,

.

Page #7

16 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
way of the view of others the Svabhāvavada to explain the variety of the world; the doctrine of Svabhāva obviously dismisses the conception of punya and pāpa for explaining the variety of the universe.
In his commentary20 on Praśnavyäkarana Sutra Jñanavimala thus writes about this doctrine: "Some believe that the universe was produced by Svabhāva and that everything comes about by Svabhāva only."
In his commentary21 to Praśnavyākarana Sūtra Abhayadeva attempts to distinguish between YadȚccha and Svabhāva. He explains all kinds of happiness and grief and every event taking place in the world as due to accident, mere chance. Svabhava he explains, after Asvaghosa, as 'natural development'.
Siddhasena Divakaraa, Haribhadra and later Jaina writers hold that
अन्यस्मिस्तु पाषाणखण्डे पादक्षालनादि क्रियते, न च तयोः पाषाणखण्डयोः शुभाशुभे स्तः, यदुदयात्स तादृग्विधावस्थाविशेष इत्येवं स्वभावाज्जगद्वैचित्र्यं । तथा चोक्तम्--
कण्टकस्य च तीक्ष्णत्वं, मयूरस्य विचित्रता। वर्णाश्च ताम्रचूडानां, स्वभावेन भवन्ति हि ।।
-Silanka's Commentary to Sutrakrtanga, folio 21 (a) 20 केचित् स्वभावभावितं जगद् मन्यन्ते स्वभावनैव सर्वः संपद्यते।।
-Jñanavimala to Praśnavyākarana 7, fol. 29 (cited by Basham) कः कण्टकानां प्रकरोति तैक्षण्यं विचित्रभावं मृगपक्षिणां च । स्वभावतः सर्वमिदं प्रवृत्तं न कामचारोऽस्ति कुतः प्रयत्नः ॥
-Gunaratna : Tarkarahasyadipikā to Saddarsana
Samuccaya, p. 13 (cited by Basham) Note : Referring to this verse Basham writes : “Gunaratna quotes a verse which he attributes to the supporters of this doctrine." It will be evident by comparing this verse with Ašvaghoşa's (which is already quoted above) that barring slightly variant readings, it is the
same as that of Aśvaghosa. 21 अनभिसंधिपूर्विकार्थप्राप्तिर्यदृच्छा।
अतर्कितोपस्थितमेव सर्व चित्रं जनानां सुखदुःख जातम् । काकस्य तालेन यथाभिघातो न बुद्धिपूर्वोऽत्र वृथाभिमानः ।। सत्यं पिशाचाः स्म बने वसामो भेरी करापि न स्पृशामः ।
यदृच्छया सिद्धयति लोकयात्रा भेरी पिशाचा: परिताडयन्ति ।। स्वभावः पुनर्वस्तुत: स्वत एव तथा परिणतिभावः । "कः कण्टकानाम्" इत्यादि ।
-Abhayadeva's Commentary to Praśnavyäkarana Sutra 22 काल सहाव णियई पुत्वकम्म पुरिसकारणेगंता ।
मिच्छत्तं तं चेव उ समासओ हुंति सम्मत्तं ।।

Page #8

SVABHAVAVADA (NATURALISM): A STUDY : 17
to look upon any one out of many causes-Kāla, Svabhāva, Niyati, Karma, Puruşakāramas the only cause is wrong and to regard them all as causes ---some more important and some less important-is the right belief.
Before we take up passages refuting Svabhavavāda, it is necessary to examine the interrelation between Yadrcchāvāda and Svabhāvavāda, and Ajīvikism.
YADRCCHĀVĀDA AND SVABHÄVAVADA Yadycchāvāda is also known as Ahetu-Animitta-Akasmāt-vāda. Gautama and Vātsyāyana [Nyayasūtra (iv. 1.22) Bhāsya] give 'Kantakataiksnya' as an illustration of Animittavāda. This illustration has been highly popular with, and very often cited by Svabhāvavādins in support of their doctrine. We would not, therefore, be wrong if we drew the conclusion that Gautama and Vätsyāyana regarded these two doctrines as identical. Svetāśvatara, Siddhasena Haribhadra and many later writers mention these two doctrines separately and distinguish between them. Hiriyanna23 very well brings out the distinction between these two doctrines : "While the one maintains that the world is a chaos and ascribes whatever order is seen in it to mere chance, the other recognizes that things are as their nature makes them'. While the former denies causation altogether, the latter acknowledges its universality, but only traces all changes to the thing itself to which they belong."
SVABHAVAVĀDA: A SMALL SUB-SECT OF AJIVIKISM ?
In the course of his exposition of the doctrine of Niyati Basham writes : "... Hence it appears that the Svabhāvavādins agreed with the Niyativādins on the futility of human efforts. They were classed in the group of Akriyavadins, or those who did not believe in the utility or effectiveness of puruşakāra. It would seem that the Svabhāvavādin differed from the Niyativădin in that, while the latter views the individual as determined by forces exterior to himself, for the former he was rigidly selfdetermined by his own somatic and psychic nature. These ideas have much in common and we suggest therefore that Svabhāvavāda was a small sub-sect of Ajīvikism."21 Granting that "these ideas have much in common" we cannot persuade ourselves to accept Basham's suggestion for from all the references to Svabhavavada culled in this paper we find
23 Outlines of Indian Philosophy, pp. 103-104. 24 History and Doctrines of the Ajivikas, p. 226. GJ.V. 2

Page #9

18 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
that it was more intimately connected with Materialism or Cārvākadarśana. It is much more allied to Cārvākadarśana in as much as both deny a transmigrating soul, whereas Niyativāda believes in an immortal soul. Further, in view of the fact that the Ājivikas ultimately merged with the Jainas—which indicates that they had much in common--it would be more proper to regard Svabhāvavāda as part and parcel of Materialism as has been done by tradition.
SVABHAVAVADA DIALECTIC
That the Svabhāvavada must once have been well-known is evident from the numerous references to it in Sanskrit and Prakrit literature. No detailed exposition of it is to be found in any single treatise. The only account of this doctrine we have is in the prima facie argument or view (Purvapakşa) given in the works of its opponents for purposes of refutation. It is not improbable that the opponents ascribed to the Svabhāvavadin's arguments which were easy of refutation. So we have to be cautious in judging the Svabhāvavādin's powers of logical argument and dialectic skill.
In the course of his commentary to Ganadharavāda25 Jinabhadragani more than once mentions Svabhāvavāda and refutes it. He explains the variety of the world on the basis of the doctrine of Karman, which is
25 होज सहावो वत्थु निकारणया व वत्थुधम्मो वा।
जह वत्थु णत्थि तओऽणुवलद्धीओ खपुष्पं व ॥ अच्चंतमणुवलो वि अहतओ अस्थि नत्थि किं कम्मं । हेऊ व तदत्थिते जो णणु कम्मरस वि स एव ॥ कम्मरस वाभि हाणं होज सहावो त्ति होउ को दोसो । निश्चं व सो सभावो सरिसो एत्थं च को हेऊ ॥ सो मुत्तोऽमुत्तो वा जइ मुत्तो तो न सव्वहा सरिसो। परिणामओ पयं पिव न देहहेऊ जइ अमुत्तो ॥ उवगरणाभावाओ न य हवइ सुहम्म सो अमुत्तो वि । कज्जस्स मुत्तिमत्ता सुहसंवित्तादिओ चेव ॥ अहवाकारणउ चिय सभावओ तोवि सरिसया कत्तो। किमकारणओ न भवे विसरिसया किं व विच्छित्ती॥ अहव सहावो धम्मो वत्थुस्स न सो वि सरिसओ निच्चं । उप्पायट्ठिइभंगा चित्ता जं वत्थुपज्जाया ॥ कम्मस्स वि परिणामो सुहम्म धम्मो सपोग्गलमयस्स । हेऊ चित्तो जगओ होइ सहावो त्ति को दोसो ॥
-Ganadharavāda vv. 1786-1793

Page #10

SVABHAVAVADA (NATURALISM): A STUDY: 19 the cornerstone of Jaina philosophy. Silanka, writing as an advocate of Niyativada, disposes of Svabhävavada as follows:
"Moreover the causing of joy and sorrow cannot be ascribed to inherent character (svabhäva). For is this different from a man or the same as he? If it is different it is not capable of causing the joy and sorrow which befall him, on account of that difference. Nor (if it is) the same (as he). For, if it were, it would be a mere man.
"If happiness is experienced as a result of human activity there should be no difference in the reward (of equal exertion), nor should there be lack of reward when equal effort is exerted, whether by servants, merchants or peasants, etc. Yet it is often seen that even when no means of livelihood such as service, etc., is followed, rich reward is obtained. So nothing is achieved by human effort."
In the Nyayamañjari" Jayanta dismisses this doctrine of Svabhäva and establishes that of Adṛṣṭa or Karman. Jayanta is well-known as a superb writer on Nyaya. This great logician, however, succumbs to the temptation of ascribing a manifestly weak argument to the Svabhāvavādin, who argues: "The opening of a babe's mouth is spontaneous-natural like the blooming of a lotus bud." The Siddhantin refutes it saying that the blooming of a lotus bud is caused by the touch of the sun's rays and that it is not spontaneous or natural.
That the doctrine of Svabhava once enjoyed immense popularity and exerted great influence on the thinkers of those times would be patent to any impartial student of the Bhagavadgita. The Gītā takes recourse to the doctrine of Svabhava in defending the difference in respective func
तथा स्वभावस्यापि सुखदुःखादिकर्तृत्यानुपपत्तिः
यतोऽस्त्रे स्वभावः पुरुषाद् भिन्नोऽभिशो या यदि निनो न पुरुषाश्रिते सुखदुःखे कर्तुमलं तस्माद् भिन्नत्वादिति । नाप्यभिन्नः । अभेदे पुरुष एवं स्यात् तस्य चाकर्तृत्वमुक्तमेव । -Silanka's Commentary to Sütrakṛtānga: folio 31 (a)
यदि पुरुषकारकृतं सुखानुभूयेत ततः सेवकवर्षिकादीनां समाने पुरुषकारे सति फलप्राप्तिर्वसदृश्यं फल्पमातिथ न भवेत् । कस्यचित्तु सेवादिव्यापाराभावेऽपि विशिष्टफलावाप्तिर्दृश्यत इति । अतो न पुरुषकारात् किञ्चिदासाद्यते । -Silanka's Commentary to Sütrakṛtanga: folios 30 (b) and 31 (a) 27 मनु कमकुवासादिवास्वाभाविकमेव शिशोर्मुखविकाशादिकार्थं स्यात्, स्वाभाविकं नाम किमुच्यते किमदेतुकमविद्याततुकमनियतहेतुकं या ।...
न चायपतदृष्टान्तसमाश्रयेण स्वाभाविकमेतद्वालकर कुल शनिमित्तोपसर्पणमिति वक्तुमुचितमनन्तरमेव निरस्तत्बाद ।

-Jayanta's Nyāyamañjarī (Prameyaprakaraņa, pp. 41-42, KSS ed. 1936)

Page #11
20 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME tions of the four different castes and emphatically asserts the inherent and irresistible strength of Svabhava. The Jainas, no doubt, criticize this doctrine of Svabhava in their works of philosophical nature but this criticism applies to it only when Svabhava is presented as the only cause of the variety of the world. The Jainas find a place for this doctrine under their wide umbrella of Syadvada or Anekanta. In this connection we draw the attention of the readers to Silanka's passage28, quoted below, accepting Srabhavavada. ADDENDUM In the Tattvasangraha of Santaraksita with the Panjika (commentary) of Kamalasila who flourished in the first half of the eighth century A.D. we find an exposition as well as refutation of Svabhavika-jagadvada (vv. 110-127). The three verses embodying the Svabhavavada, which are quoted by Maladhari Hemacandra, very well compare with the corresponding verses in the Tattvasangraha (vv. 110-112) and it is not unlikely that they are derived from a common source. Hemacandra reads "Rajivakantakadinam in place of 'Rajivakesaradinam'; 'Mayuracandrikadir va' in place of 'Mayuracandrakadir va --it is gratifying that the emendation in the text of Hemacandra that I have suggested above is supported by the text of the Tattvasangraha; the third verse although identical in thoughtcontent differs in its expression. The verse of Hemacandra is already cited above. Here I quote the verse from the Tattvasangraha : यथैव कण्टकादीनां तैक्ष्ण्यादिकमहेतुकम् / कादाचित्कतया तद्वदुःखादीनामहेतुता // The refutation of Svabhavika-jagadvada by santaraksita may very briefly be summarised thus : "The filaments of the lotus, etc., have the seed, mud and water as the causes. Why then should we search for other causes which are not to be found ? If all things come about by 'svabhava' why should they appear at particular times and particular places only? It is clear, therefore, that they have particular causes for their origin and development. The Svabhavika-jagadvada thus stands refuted by Pratyaksa-pramana itself." 28 तथास्ति स्वभावोऽपि कारणल्वेनाशेषस्य जगतः, स्वो भावः स्वभाव इति कृत्वा तेन हि जीवाजीवभव्यत्वाभव्यत्वा मूर्तत्वामूर्तत्वानां स्वस्वरूपानुविधानात् तथा धर्माधर्माकाशकालादीनां च गतिस्थित्यवगाहपरत्वादिस्वरूपादानादिति, तथा चोक्तम्-कः कण्टकानामित्यादि / -Silanka's Commentary to Satrakrtanga, folio 213 (b)