Jaina Theories of Reality and Knowledge

SR No.: 001608
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Y J Padmarajiah
Publisher: Jain Sahitya Vikas Mandal
Publication Year: 1963
Total Pages: 444
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, Epistemology, & Anekantvad
File Size: 23 MB

Page 160

CHAPTER V
141
joint question just stated, then he is confronted with the following dosas' or fallacies, to which his bhedābhedaväda or dravyaparyāyātmakavāda is said to be liable :
1. Virodha (contradiction); 2. Vaiyadhikaranya or Vyadhikaraṇatā ('transfusion', or 'absence of a common abode'); 3. Anavasthā (regressus ad infinitum); 4. Sankara (confusion); 5. Vyatikara ('Exchange of Natures '); 6. Samśaya (doubt); 7. Apratipatti (non-apprehension); 8. Vişayavyavasthāhāni (indeterminability of the true nature).'
1. Excluding the one kārikā attributed to the Naiyāyikas
(yaugaiḥ) by Vādideva, viz., samsayavirodhavaiyadhikaraṇyasankaram athobhayadoşah / anavastha vyatikaram api jainamate sapta doşāḥ syuḥ // SRK, p. 738. We do not come across anywhere among the works of the non-Jaina critics, where doşas are fully mentioned. The non-Jaina critics mainly concern themselves with Virodha, although Sankara (BBSB, II. 2.33) and Kumārila add Samsaya or Sandigdha (Kumārila has done so in the course of two kās., in defence of "anekatvavada" or "anekāntavada". See MSV, Vanavāda, kās. 79 and 80. For a reference to this, see infra.) and śāntarakṣita and his commentator Kamalaśīla Sankarya (Sankara) to Virodha. (TSS, kā. 1722, and PK thereon.) Whether or not the dosas other tha Virodha are explicitly mentioned by the opponents of the Jainas, they are presumed to be implied (upalaksita) by Virodha which is considered to be their main basis (mūlādhāra). Hence their individual enumeration and refutation is, however brief, necessary in any polemical examination of the Jaina view. The number and the order of the doşas in this classification are as adopted by Hemacandra and Mallişeņa (See PMHS, I. 1.30, p. 28, and SM, p. 150 (text)). Some writers like Prabhācandra cite ubhaya (or ubhayadoşa) and omit No. 8 (PKM, p. 526) and others like Akalanka, the earliest Jaina logician to defend the Jaina position against such doşas, and Vasunandi, cite ubhaya and abhāva omitting Nos. 7 and 8. (See AGAV, p. 103, and VVAS, on AMS, kā. 20). All these writers retain, in spite of the difference of one or two dosas, a classification of eight doşas. Abhayadeva and Vadideva, however,