Pravachanasara

SR No.: 003289
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: A N Upadhye
Publisher: Shrimad Rajchandra Ashram
Publication Year: 1964
Total Pages: 612
Language: Hindi, Sanskrit
Classification: Book_Devnagari
File Size: 16 MB

Page 110

Introduction
6. [p. 81:] THE ATOMIC THEORY.-Matter (pudgala) is a permanent substance belonging to non-sentient class of substances (II, 35). It is of various kinds, concrete and amenable to sense-perception; colour, taste, smell and touch are found in matter from the finer molecule to the gross earth (II, 39 etc.). The matter is either in the form of primary atoms (paramānu) or aggregates (skandha); these aggregates are the lumps of primary atoms. The primary atom has no space-points, i.e., it has no spatial extension; it is the unit of the space-measure, and it cannot be perceived by senses. Primary atoms being arid (rükşa) or cohesive (snigdha) come to form aggregates. Points of aridness or cohesiveness of an atom because of transformation, increasing by one from one onwards, attain infinity. Atoms form aggregates because of their points of aridness and cohesiveness; so atoms whether arid or cohesive, whether having odd or even points, form aggregates when there is the difference of two points, the minimum point being excepted. To explain and illustrate: an atom of one point of cohesiveness or aridness cannot be a party in the aggregatory process; an atom of two points of cohesiveness binds with an atom of four points of cohesiveness or aridness; and that of three points with that of five points. Thus the various aggregatory formations are possible (II, 71-5).
77
KUNDAKUNDA'S VIEW STATED.-Kundakunda does not prove his primary atoms but simply describes them; the reason is quite apparent that he is merely
in his Brhat-saravajñasiddhi it appears that Dharmakirti might have attacked the word dūrārtha etc. used by Samantabhadra. Patrakesari, who flourished possibly earlier than Akalanka, in his Pañcanamaskarastotra, clearly defines Kevelajñana in select words of which akramam (equal to yugapat) reminds us of the attack raised by Siddhasena against the Svetambara canon; he also attempts the proof of omniscience (see verses 4, 18-20 MDJG vol. 13.) The colophon that it is composed by Vidyananda is put possibly by the editor being misled by the identification of Patrakesarī and Vidyananda proposed by Dr. Pathak, but it is now proved to be erroneous. Akalanka (circa middle of the 7th century A.D.) in his Astasati, a commentary on Aptamimämsä of Samantabhadra, explains clearly the position of Samantabhadra particularly with Buddhist attack in view. Kumarila (middle of the 7th century) in his Slokavārtika (p. 80 etc. Ed. Benares) attacks Buddhist Sarvajñata and Jaina Kevalajñāna (verse 141); so far as the attack against the Jainas is concerned he has in view the statements of Samantabhadra and possibly he is acquainted with the view of Akalaňka. Kumārila's views have been fully and thoroughly criticised by Santarakṣita (705-762 A.D.) in his Tattvasamgraha and by Kamalasila (713-763 A.D.) in his commentary on the same. We find some discussion in Prameyakamalamārtaṇḍa of Prabhācandra. Vidyananda, in his Aṣṭasahasri, which is a commentary on Samantabhadra's Aptamimāmsā and completely incorporates Aṣṭasati of Akalanka, elaborately quotes from Ślokavārtika and possibly some other works of Kumarila and Tattvasamgraha of Santarakṣita and attacks their views in detail. We find these discussions in his TattvärthaSlokavārtika which appears to have been given this name after that of Kumārila's work. Abhayadevasüri in his elaborate commentary on Siddhasena's Sanmati Prakarana discusses this topic at a great length. Later some manuals, too, have been written to prove the Sarvajñata, for instance Brhat-Sarvajñasiddhi and Laghu-Sarvajñasiddhi of Anantakirti (Ed. MDJG, vol. I,) the attacks of which are mainly directed against Kumarila and they are much indebted to various authors from Samantabhadra down to Vidyananda. Besides these sources it is likely that there might be discussion in the works of Sumati, Anantavirya, Vādirāja etc. some of which are lost and some still in MSS. Sarvajñată came to be accepted and discussed only as a religious necessity, but in course of time its psychological aspects also have been developed incidentally.