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
Svabhavavada (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 Sankaracarya" explains svabhava 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 Svabhavavada: 1 kAlaH svabhAvo niyatiryadRcchA bhUtAni yoniH puruSa iti cintyA / saMyoga eSAM na tvAtmabhAvAdAtmApyanIzaH sukhaduHkhahetoH // svabhAvAneke kavayo vadanti kAlaM tathAnye parimudhamAnAH / devasyaiSa mahimA tu loke yenedaM bhrAmyate brahmacakram // -Svetasvatara I. 2, VI. 1 2 svabhAvo nAma padArthAnAM pratiniyatA shktiH| ajherISyamiva / 3 agneryathA hyoSNamapAM dravatvaM tadvatpravRttI prakRti vadanti // kecitsvabhAvAditi varNayanti zubhAzubhaM caiva bhavAbhavI ca / svAbhAvikaM sarvamidaM ca yasmAdato'pi mogho bhavati prayatnaH //

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 (Svabhava); 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 Nyayasutral Gautama states by way of Purvapaksa that things originate without any cause like the sharpness of thorns. Vatsyayana, in his commentary to the Nyayasutra, explains the sutra by adding a few examples. In the Mathara-vrttis to the Samkhya-karika (v. 61), along with yadindriyANAM niyataH pracAraH priyApriyatvaM viSayeSu caiva / saMyujyate yajarayAtibhizca kastatra yatno nanu sa svabhAvaH / / adbhirhatAzaH zamamabhyupati tejAMsi cApo gamayanti zoSam / bhinnAni bhUtAni zarIrasaMsthAnyaikyaM ca gatvA jagadudvahanti / / yatpANipAdodarapRSThamUndhI nirvartate garbhagatasya bhAvaH / yadAtmanastasya ca tena yoga: svAbhAvikaM tatkathayanti tajjJAH / / kaH kaNTakasya prakaroti takSNyaM vicitrabhAvaM mRgapakSiNAM vA / svabhAvataH sarvamidaM pravRttaM na kAmakAro'sti kutaH prayatnaH // -Buddhacarita IX. 57 (b)-62 4 Translation by E. H. Johnston, Calcutta, 1936 5 animittato bhAvotpattiH kaNTakateNyAdidarzanAt / animittA zarIrAdyutpattiH / kasmAt / kaNTakataikSNyAdidarzanAt / yathA kaNTakasya tekSNyam , parvatadhAtUnAM citratA, grAvNAM zlakSNatA, ninimittaM copAdAnavacca dRSTaM tathA zarIrAdisargo'pIti / -Nyayasutra-Bhasya IV. 1. 22 6 apare svabhAvamAhuH / svabhAvaH kAraNamiti / tathA hi yena zukkIkRtA haMsAH zukAzca haritIkRtAH /

Page #3
12 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME isvara and Kala, Svabhava 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 Samkhya-karika (v. 61) Gaudapada? 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 Kala nor Svabhava is cause. Praksti (= Pradhana) alone, therefore, is cause. Thus according to Gaudapada Svabhava merges into the all-embracing cause called PrakTti. In the commentarys to Brhatsamhita. (Bhatta) Utpala writes : The world with its variety originates and gets destroyed through Svabhava alone and none else. They (Svabhavavadins) 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' Sankaracarya briefly states the doctrine of Svabhava thus: mayUrAzcitritA yena sa no vRttiM vidhAsyati // ...svabhAvo nAma na kazcitpadArtho'sti yataH prajAnAmutpattisaGgatiH syAt tasmAdyo brUte svabhAvaH kAraNamiti tanmithyA / --Mathara-Vrtti to Sk. 61 7 apare svabhAvakAraNikAM avte| kena zuklIkRtA haMsA mayUrAH kena citritAH / svabhAvenaiveti / ......kAlasyApi pradhAnameva kAraNam / svabhAvo'pyatraiva liinH| tasmAt kAlo na kAraNaM nApi svabhAva iti / tasmAt prakRtireva kAraNaM na prakRteH kAraNAntaramastIti / -Gaudapadabhasya to Samkhyakarika 61 8 apare anye lokAyatikAH svabhAvaM jagataH kAraNamAhuH / svabhAvAdeva jagadvicitramutpadyate svabhAvato vilayaM yAti / tathA ca tadvAkyam / kaH kaNTakAnAM prakaroti taikSNyaM vicitrabhAvaM mRgapakSiNAM ca / mAdhuryamikSoH kaTutAM ca nimbe svabhAvata: sarvamidaM pravRttam // -Bhattotpala's Commentary to Brhatsamhita. I. 7 9 na kalpyo sukhaduHkhAbhyAM dharmAdhauM parairiha / svabhAvena sukhI duHkhI jano'nyannaiva kAraNam // zikhinazcitrayet ko vA kokilAn kaH prakUjayet / svabhAvavyatirekeNa vidyate nAtra kAraNam / / -Sarvasiddhantasangraha II. 4-5

Page #4
SVABHAVAVADA (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 Visesavasyakabhasya Maladhari Hemacandra quotes three verses giving the views of Svabhavavadins. "The supporters of the doctrine of Svabhava (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 Svabhava only." In the course of his discussion about the Svabhavavada (Introduction to Ganadharavada) Malvania quotes two versesll on Svabhavavada as well-known. "It is due to the all-controlling nature (Svabhava) 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 afarista H1919 Font quela svabhAvavAdibhiste hi nAhuH svamapi kAraNam // rAjIvakaNTakAdInAM vaicitryaM kaH karoti hi / mayUracandrikAdirvA vicitraH kena nirmitaH // kAdAcitkaM yadanAsti niHzeSaM tadahetukam / yathA kaNTakataikSNyAdi tathA caite sukhAdayaH / / -Maladhari 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 ..." (Ganadharavada (p. 45) : Gujarat Vidyasabha, 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 vicitrAH kecidityatra tatsvabhAvo niyAmakaH // agniruSNo jalaM zItaM samasparzastathAnila: / kenedaM citritaM tasmAt svabhAvAt tadyavasthitiH // -Quoted by Shri Malvania in his Introduction to Ganadharavada, 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 (Svabhava)." ___Of these two verses, the second is quoted in the Sarva-darsanasangraha?, which briefly puts the case of Svabhavavadins 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 Uttaradhyayana Sutra (Agadadatta, v. 75) Devendra gives a verse in Prakrit hinting at Svabhavavada: "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 Saddarsana-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 Mahabharatals (santi-parvan) there are many references to 12 nanvadRSTAniSTau jagadvaicitryamAkasmikaM syAditi cet-na tad bhadram / svabhAvAdeva tadupapatteH / taduktam agniruSNo jalaM zItaM samasparzastathAnilaH / / kenedaM citritaM tasmAtsvabhAvAttadvyavasthitiH // ---Sarvadarsanasangraha, Carvakadarsanam, p. 13 (BORI, Poona, ed. 1951) 13 ko cittei bhaUraM gaI ca ko kuNai rAyahaMsANaM / / ko kuvalayANa gaMdhaM viNayaM ca kulappasUyANaM / / -Sukhabodha-Laghuvitti to Uttaradhyayana Sutra _ (Agadadatta, v. 75) 14 anye punarAhu:--mUlataH kamaiva nAsti, svabhAvasiddhaH sarvo'pyayaM jagatprapaJca iti / -Gunaratna's Commentary to Saddarsanasamuccaya (st. 50) 15 hantIti manyate kazcinna hantItyapi cAparaH / svabhAvatastu niyatI bhUtAnAM prabhavApyayI // pazya prahlAda bhUtAnAmutpattimanimittataH / hAsaM vRddhi vinAzaM ca na prahRSye na ca vyathe // svabhAvAdeva saMdRzyA vartamAnAH pravRttayaH / svabhAvaniratAH sarvAH parituSyenna kenacit //

Page #6
SVABHAVAVADA (NATURALISM): A STUDY : 15 the doctrine of Svabhava; this passage declares how everything comes about by Svabhava. The next passages is from the same source describing the ultimate source of material universe. The Mahabharata records evidence, as pointed out by Hiriyannal7 in support of two opposite views--the ultimate source was conceived as one and as many. The Bhagavadgitals contains many passages which lend support to the doctrine of Svabhava. 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 Sutrakstanga silanka puts forward by svabhAvabhAvino bhAvAn sarvAneveha nizcayAt / budhyamAnasya darpo vA mAno vA kiM kariSyati // svabhAvAlabhate prazAM zAntimati svabhAvataH / svabhAvAdeva tatsarvaM yatkiJcidanupazyasi // -Mbh, Santiparvan : 25. 16 ; 179. 10-11 ; 222. 27, 35 16 pRthivI jyotirAkAzamApo vAyuzca paJcamaH / etayonIni bhUtAni tatra kA paridevanA / / kecitpuruSakAraM tu prAhuH karmasu mAnavAH / devamityapare viprAH svabhAvaM bhUtacintakAH // vikArAneva yo veda na veda prakRti parAm / tasya stambho bhavedvAlyAnnAsti stambho'nupazyataH / / prakRtI ca vikAre ca na me prItirna ca dviSe / dveSTAraM ca na pazyAmi yo mAmadya mamAyate / / -Mbh, Santiparvan : 224. 17; 232. 19; 222. 26, 31 17 Outlines of Indian Philosophy, p. 105. ...............prakRtistvAM niyokSyati // svabhAvajena kaunteya nibaddhaH svena karmaNA / kartuM necchasi yanmohAt kariSyasyavazo'pi tat // kAryate hyavazaH karma sarvaH prakRtijairguNaiH / / prakRti yAnti bhUtAni............ // .......svabhAvastu pravartate // -Bhagavadgita XVIII. 59-60 ; III. 5; III. 33, V. 14 19 tatkathametajjagadvaicitryaM ghaTate ?, tadyathA-kazcidIzvaro'paro daridro'nyaH subhago'paro durbhagaH sukhI du:khI surUpo mandarUpo vyAdhito nIrogIti, evaMprakArA ca vicitratA kiMnibandhaneti ?, atrocyate, svabhAvAt , tathA hikutracicchilAzakale pratimArUpaM niSpAdyate, tacca kuGkamAgarucamdanAdivilepanAnabhogamanabhavati dhUpAdyAmodaM ca, .

Page #7
16 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME way of the view of others the Svabhavavada to explain the variety of the world; the doctrine of Svabhava obviously dismisses the conception of punya and papa for explaining the variety of the universe. In his commentary20 on Prasnavyakarana Sutra Jnanavimala thus writes about this doctrine: "Some believe that the universe was produced by Svabhava and that everything comes about by Svabhava only." In his commentary21 to Prasnavyakarana Sutra Abhayadeva attempts to distinguish between YadTccha and Svabhava. 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 anyasmistu pASANakhaNDe pAdakSAlanAdi kriyate, na ca tayoH pASANakhaNDayoH zubhAzubhe staH, yadudayAtsa tAdRgvidhAvasthAvizeSa ityevaM svabhAvAjjagadvaicitryaM / tathA coktam-- kaNTakasya ca tIkSNatvaM, mayUrasya vicitrtaa| varNAzca tAmracUDAnAM, svabhAvena bhavanti hi / / -Silanka's Commentary to Sutrakrtanga, folio 21 (a) 20 kecit svabhAvabhAvitaM jagad manyante svabhAvanaiva sarvaH sNpdyte|| -Jnanavimala to Prasnavyakarana 7, fol. 29 (cited by Basham) kaH kaNTakAnAM prakaroti taikSaNyaM vicitrabhAvaM mRgapakSiNAM ca / svabhAvataH sarvamidaM pravRttaM na kAmacAro'sti kutaH prayatnaH // -Gunaratna : Tarkarahasyadipika 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 Asvaghosa's (which is already quoted above) that barring slightly variant readings, it is the same as that of Asvaghosa. 21 anbhisNdhipuurvikaarthpraaptirydRcchaa| atarkitopasthitameva sarva citraM janAnAM sukhaduHkha jAtam / kAkasya tAlena yathAbhighAto na buddhipUrvo'tra vRthAbhimAnaH / / satyaM pizAcAH sma bane vasAmo bherI karApi na spRzAmaH / yadRcchayA siddhayati lokayAtrA bherI pizAcA: paritADayanti / / svabhAvaH punarvastuta: svata eva tathA pariNatibhAvaH / "kaH kaNTakAnAm" ityAdi / -Abhayadeva's Commentary to Prasnavyakarana Sutra 22 kAla sahAva NiyaI putvakamma purisakAraNegaMtA / micchattaM taM ceva u samAsao huMti sammattaM / /

Page #8
SVABHAVAVADA (NATURALISM): A STUDY : 17 to look upon any one out of many causes-Kala, Svabhava, Niyati, Karma, Purusakaramas 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 Svabhavavada, it is necessary to examine the interrelation between Yadrcchavada and Svabhavavada, and Ajivikism. YADRCCHAVADA AND SVABHAVAVADA Yadycchavada is also known as Ahetu-Animitta-Akasmat-vada. Gautama and Vatsyayana [Nyayasutra (iv. 1.22) Bhasya] give 'Kantakataiksnya' as an illustration of Animittavada. This illustration has been highly popular with, and very often cited by Svabhavavadins in support of their doctrine. We would not, therefore, be wrong if we drew the conclusion that Gautama and Vatsyayana regarded these two doctrines as identical. Svetasvatara, 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." SVABHAVAVADA: A SMALL SUB-SECT OF AJIVIKISM ? In the course of his exposition of the doctrine of Niyati Basham writes : "... Hence it appears that the Svabhavavadins agreed with the Niyativadins 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 purusakara. It would seem that the Svabhavavadin differed from the Niyativadin 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 Svabhavavada was a small sub-sect of Ajivikism."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 Carvakadarsana. It is much more allied to Carvakadarsana in as much as both deny a transmigrating soul, whereas Niyativada believes in an immortal soul. Further, in view of the fact that the Ajivikas ultimately merged with the Jainas--which indicates that they had much in common--it would be more proper to regard Svabhavavada as part and parcel of Materialism as has been done by tradition. SVABHAVAVADA DIALECTIC That the Svabhavavada 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 (Purvapaksa) given in the works of its opponents for purposes of refutation. It is not improbable that the opponents ascribed to the Svabhavavadin's arguments which were easy of refutation. So we have to be cautious in judging the Svabhavavadin's powers of logical argument and dialectic skill. In the course of his commentary to Ganadharavada25 Jinabhadragani more than once mentions Svabhavavada and refutes it. He explains the variety of the world on the basis of the doctrine of Karman, which is 25 hoja sahAvo vatthu nikAraNayA va vatthudhammo vaa| jaha vatthu Natthi tao'NuvaladdhIo khapuSpaM va // accaMtamaNuvalo vi ahatao asthi natthi kiM kammaM / heU va tadatthite jo NaNu kammarasa vi sa eva // kammarasa vAbhi hANaM hoja sahAvo tti hou ko doso / nizcaM va so sabhAvo sariso etthaM ca ko heU // so mutto'mutto vA jai mutto to na savvahA sriso| pariNAmao payaM piva na dehaheU jai amutto // uvagaraNAbhAvAo na ya havai suhamma so amutto vi / kajjassa muttimattA suhasaMvittAdio ceva // ahavAkAraNau ciya sabhAvao tovi sarisayA ktto| kimakAraNao na bhave visarisayA kiM va vicchittii|| ahava sahAvo dhammo vatthussa na so vi sarisao niccaM / uppAyaTThiibhaMgA cittA jaM vatthupajjAyA // kammassa vi pariNAmo suhamma dhammo sapoggalamayassa / heU citto jagao hoi sahAvo tti ko doso // -Ganadharavada vv. 1786-1793

Page #10
SVABHAVAVADA (NATURALISM): A STUDY: 19 the cornerstone of Jaina philosophy. Silanka, writing as an advocate of Niyativada, disposes of Svabhavavada as follows: "Moreover the causing of joy and sorrow cannot be ascribed to inherent character (svabhava). 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 Nyayamanjari" Jayanta dismisses this doctrine of Svabhava and establishes that of Adrsta 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 Svabhavavadin, 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 Gita takes recourse to the doctrine of Svabhava in defending the difference in respective func tathA svabhAvasyApi sukhaduHkhAdikartRtyAnupapattiH yato'stre svabhAvaH puruSAd bhinno'bhizo yA yadi nino na puruSAzrite sukhaduHkhe kartumalaM tasmAd bhinnatvAditi / nApyabhinnaH / abhede puruSa evaM syAt tasya cAkartRtvamuktameva / -Silanka's Commentary to Sutrakrtanga: folio 31 (a) yadi puruSakArakRtaM sukhAnubhUyeta tataH sevakavarSikAdInAM samAne puruSakAre sati phalaprAptirvasadRzyaM phalpamAtitha na bhavet / kasyacittu sevAdivyApArAbhAve'pi viziSTaphalAvAptirdRzyata iti / ato na puruSakArAt kiJcidAsAdyate / -Silanka's Commentary to Sutrakrtanga: folios 30 (b) and 31 (a) 27 manu kamakuvAsAdivAsvAbhAvikameva zizormukhavikAzAdikArthaM syAt, svAbhAvikaM nAma kimucyate kimadetukamavidyAtatukamaniyatahetukaM yA / ... na cAyapatadRSTAntasamAzrayeNa svAbhAvikametadvAlakara kula zanimittopasarpaNamiti vaktumucitamanantarameva nirastatbAda / -Jayanta's Nyayamanjari (Prameyaprakarana, 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 : yathaiva kaNTakAdInAM taikSNyAdikamahetukam / kAdAcitkatayA tadvaduHkhAdInAmahetutA // 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 tathAsti svabhAvo'pi kAraNalvenAzeSasya jagataH, svo bhAvaH svabhAva iti kRtvA tena hi jIvAjIvabhavyatvAbhavyatvA mUrtatvAmUrtatvAnAM svasvarUpAnuvidhAnAt tathA dharmAdharmAkAzakAlAdInAM ca gatisthityavagAhaparatvAdisvarUpAdAnAditi, tathA coktam-kaH kaNTakAnAmityAdi / -Silanka's Commentary to Satrakrtanga, folio 213 (b)