________________
82
INTRODUCTION
(from Gāthā No. 3089 onwards) we find arguments in support of Kramavāda and other arguments refutiug mainly the Abhedavāda. The arguments in favour of Abhedavāda in Sanmati are refuted in Višeşāvasyaka Bhāşya and vice versa. Examining these arguments critically we find that all the arguments advanced by Sanmati in establishing its own doctrine have not been refuted in toto by Višeşanavati; similarly, all the arguments in support of Kramavāda as well as all the objections to its own doctrine have not been refuted by Sanmati. We have stated before ( p. 6 ) that the fact that Siddhasena and Jinabhadra were contemporaries, or that Jinabhadra preceded Siddhasena, is not quite true. Now the question arises, if according to Abhayadeva; Jinabhadra was the first exponent of the doctrine of Kramavāda, the arguments advanced by Kramavāding must have been those of Jinabhadra and Siddhasena must have answered them in his Sanmati; but if Jinabhadra was not the first exponent of Kramavāda there must have been other advocates of Kramavāda before Siddhasena. Similarly, we must try to determine as to what person was before Jinabhadra when he advocated the doctrine of Kramavāda. Our critical study has convinced us that Jinabhadra was not the first exponent of Karmavāda doctrines. Even before Jinabhadra, there must have been many Ācāryas advocating the doctrine of Kramavāda. It may be that they did not compose any work dealing with this doctrine but their pet arguments must have been a current coin at the time of Jinabhadra and must have been taught and traditionally
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
