Jaina Ontology

SR No.: 001565
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: K K Dixit
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad
Publication Year: 1971
Total Pages: 222
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, Canon, & Agam
File Size: 15 MB

Page 119

106
JAINA ONTOLOGY
ginal phenomenon. Of course, he himself would not lay much claim to originality and in a way this will not be a case of false modesty. For indeed the chief merit of Yašovijaya's writings lies in making clear to us the meaning of the cardinal utterances — often obscurely worded and often mutually conflicting- of the old masters from the author of Anuyogadvāra down to the author of Syadvādaratnākara. But the context for his doing so is his own creation and that is something marvellously original. It is in this sense that Yašovijaya's independent writings, even if essentially of the nature of an exegesis on old text-passages, are genuinely independent; and it is in this sense that they well stand comparison with Akalanka's independent writings.
In the background of this elementary acquaintance with the authors of the age of Logic let us try to work out its general characteristics. Taken as a whole the age exhibits the following chief tendencies:
(i) to vindicate the doctrine of Anekantavada (ii) to establish a particular doctrine of pramānas (iii) to evaluate the non-Jaina philosophical views (iv) to defend the traditional Jaina philosophical views
The first tendency was the earliest to emerge. As a matter of fact, it had made its appearance as early as the third stage of Āgamas itselfthat is to say, as soon as the doctrines of naya and nikṣepa were first formulated. In the first stage of the age of Logic these doctrines were further refined and the doctrine of Saptabhangi first formulated. With the formula. tion of the Saptab hangi doctrine the issue was finally clinched and in future it became one endeavour of all Jaina authors to demonstrate how a thing could be possessed of two mutually contradictory features at one and the same time - this demonstration amounting to a vindication of the doctrine of Anekāntavāda. Things were something different with the doctrine of pramānas. Here no radical departure from the tradition was intended till as late as the time of Akalanka who himself in his Rajavartika offered just the traditional account of jñanas, to be precise, Umäsvati's slightly modified version of this account. It was in the independent writings of Akalanka that a new docrine of pramāņas was first envisaged and it soon became the doctrine acceptable to the entire Jaina camp. However, as the example of Yašovijaya vividly shows even a late Jaina author could find no difficulty in undertaking an elaborate defence of both the tradional account of jñānas and Akalanka's doctrine of pramanas. So the tendency to establish a doctrine of pramānas has to be divided into a pre-Akalarka phase and a post. Akalanka phase. As for the third tendency noted above, viz. the tendency to evaluate the non-Jaina philosophical views it was certainly a most note. worthy feature of the age of Logic. But in an early author like Siddhasena