Dvadasharam Naychakram Part 3 Tika

SR No.: 001110
Original Sutra Author: Mallavadi Kshamashraman
Author: Sighsuri, Jambuvijay
Publisher: Atmanand Jain Sabha
Publication Year: 1988
Total Pages: 252
Language: Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari, Nay, & Nyay
File Size: 20 MB

Page 19

INTRODUCTION
(By Prof. Dr. J.W. de Jong, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia)
In his introduction to the first volume of the present edition of Mallavādin's Nayacakra and Simhasūri's Nyāyāgamānusărint, Erich Frauwallner stressed the difficulties of reconstructing the text of the Nayacakra on the basis of Simhasūri's commentary. He remarked that Muni Jambuvijaya's reconstruction of the original makes it possible to follow Mallavādin's trends of thought also in passages where absolute certainty cannot be achieved. Frauwallner's preface was written in 1958. The first part, comprising the first four chapters, appeared in 1966. The second, comprising chapters five to eight, appeared in 1976, two years after the death of Frauwallner. The present volume comprises the last four chapters. Only now has it become possible to have some idea of the scope of the work achieved by Muni Jambuvijaya in editing this important and difficult text, the basic structure of which has been explained by Frauwallner in his introduction and by Muni Jambuvijaya in his Sanskrit introduction to the first part.
In the ninth chapter, Mallavădin studies the relationship between the universal (sāmānya) and the particular (vićeşa) and rejects the following four possibilities: difference (bheda), identity (abheda), identity and difference (bhedābheda) and neither identity nor difference (abhedābheda), and opts for the relation of inexpressibility ekatvānyatvobhayatvānubhayatvapratişedhena ca pradhānopasarjanabhāvo'pi pratişiddha eva/tasmat sarvathaivāvaktavyataiva/dravya-guna-karana-kāryādişv apy evam eva (760-6). The tenth chapter refutes the theory of inexpressibility and the existence of viseşa and sāmānya: na viseşaḥ samudāyatvāt rathādivat (779.3); na sāmānyakhyaḥ arūpăditvät khapuspavat (780.2). The concept of samudāya, which plays such an important role in the Sarvāstivāda school of Buddhism, is refuted in terms similar to those used by the Sautrāntikas, who considered that an object is not an assemblage (samudāya) of really existing atoms but only something nominally existent (samvítisat): rathaḥ śabdavikalpato vastuviparītaḥ samvrtisan sabdärthamätram eva samsårånubandhavat (782.7-8). Mallavādin next refutes the theory of the existence of the effect (sat käryam), considering two alternatives, i.e. the existence of both cause and effect and the existence of the effect alone. In the same way he refutes the existence of an atman which is separate and different from the five skandhas. Atman is only a designation given to the group of the five skandhas just as the word 'heap' (rāśi) is used for an accumulation: skandhebhyo 'nya ātmā nästi, kim tarhi? samvętyā tatsamudāye prajñāpyate tatsantāne vā, yathă rāśivat sārthavad ityādidrstāntāḥ (787.15-16). The wrong notion of the self is the result of the ""-conceit (ahammāna) ahammånakusalasamskärănuśayād 'ätmāsti' ityahamkärah pravartate (788.4-5).