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 206

CHAPTER VI
187
treats dravya and paryāya (guna) as external or independent' entities. This is why Gunaratna describes this view as : kāņādayaugābhyupagata-parasparaviviktadravyaparyayaikānte, etc.?, although it considers dravya as the substratum (aśraya) of the gunas. The Vaiseșika is the author of this view although it is falsely fathered upon the Jaina also by the Buddhist logicians, Arcața and Durveka.' As a matter of fact, the Jaina thinkers themselves, viz., Siddhasena, Abhayadeva,
1. Cf.: "Though thus dependent upon a dravya, they (guņas) are
conceived as altogether distinct from it, for they can by themselves be known and as such must, according to the doctrine (the Nyāya-Vaišeşika) be independent realities. They are what they are in complete independence of everything including the dravyas to which they belong....”OIP, p. 232. See also TS, p. 82 (notes), where the gunas are characterised
as 'accidents' attaching to substance, the Ens. 2. TRD, p. 231. See also the following f.n. 3. In course of our treatment of ubhayavāda only the Vaiśesika
(the kāņāda) is referred to as the author of the theory, although the Naiyāyika (the yauga) also shares this view in important essentials. Curiously enough Arcata chooses the Jaina as the main target of his criticism against this ubhayavāda in his Dravyaparyayayor anekantavada-khandana HBT, pp. 104-107 (and the Aloka thereon), particularly the kās. 20, 25 and 24. The first two of these kās. have been quoted (infra) and the last one hints that the dravyaparyāyavāda would not be different from accepting a mixed view of kūtasthanityată in regard to dravya and kşananāśita in regard to paryāya, together. (As a matter of fact Ratnakirti categorically affirms that there can be no third possibility beyond the alternatives of kşanikatva and akşanikatva in this regard : kşanikakşaņikaparihāreņa rūsyantarābhāvāt....p. 77, SBNT).
The criticism of the Vaiśeșika view, however, follows immediately the attack on the Jaina. Siddhasena firmly repudiates the falsity (micchättam) of the Vaiseșika position in gā. 49, STP, p. 656. Although the
5.
Sia