Reals on the Jaina Metaphysics

SR No.: 001619
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Harisatya Bhattacharya
Publisher: Shatnidas Khetsy Charitable Trust Mumbai
Publication Year: 1966
Total Pages: 430
Language: English
Classification: Book_English, Philosophy, Religion, & Epistemology
File Size: 8 MB

Page 50

The Problem of Reals
35
as an ultimate principle evolving the non-psychical modes. The Jainas point out that if, as contended by the Sāmkhya philosophers, the evolutes, Mahat, Ahamkāra etc., are not different from the Pradhāna so far as their essence is concerned, you cannot speak of any causal relation between them! For the same reason viz. that the Praksti and its evolutes are identical, it is illogical to say that the former is different from the latter. In other words, if you say that the non-psychical things and the Prakrti have the identical nature, you cannot in the same breath say that the former are हेतुमत्, अनित्य, अव्यापि, सक्रिय, अनेक, आश्रित, लिंग, सावयव and aan, while the latter is quite the opposite of these.
Then again, how can the Pradhāna which is eternal be the cause of the non-psychical phenomena ? If in producing the effects, the Pradhāna be supposed to change its nature, then the Sāṁkhya theory about the immutability of the nature of Praksti is contradicted. If on the other hand, the Pradhāna be supposed not to change its nature in producing the effects, then it is inexplicable why the order of evolution is as it is and not otherwise. Nor can it be said that the Praksti changes not the whole but only a part of its nature, in producing the effects; because it has been supposed to be one Whole, not constituted of any parts. Then again is an evolute, Ahamkāra, for instance, identical in nature with the evolvent, Mahat? In that case, there is no evolution, but continuation of one and the same thing. If again the evolute be different in nature from the evolvent, you cannot say that the former evolves from the latter. The Jaina philosophers criticise the circiare of the Sāṁkhya philosophers and point out that the five reasons given in support of the theory by the Sāṁkhya thinkers may as well be used in a way so as to establish the opposite
___1 यत् यस्मात् सर्वथार व्यतिरिक्तं तत् तस्य कार्य कारणं वायुक्तम् भिन्नलक्षणत्वात्तयोः।
(27*HITE)