Jaina Epistemology

SR No.: 006738
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Indra Chandra Shastri
Publisher: Parshwanath Vidyapith
Publication Year: 1990
Total Pages: 516
Language: English
Classification: Book_English
File Size: 21 MB

Page 66

History and Sources
41
Sārkarabhāsya. His works deal with the subject independently and can be classed with original works. Anantavīrya's commentary is merely an explanation. It is a simple and authoritative exposition of the ideas already existing in the original text adding nothing new of its own.
ANANTAKIRTI (11th cent.):
He was a contemporary of Vidyānanda and composed three works, which are based on the Siddhiviniscaya of Akalanka. His two works named as Laghusarvajñ asiddhi and Bșhatsarvajñasiddhi appear to be based on the eighth chapter of Siddhiviniscaya. This chapter is known as Sarvajñasiddhi. The third work is based on the chapter of Jivasiddhi and bears the same title It is not available.
MANIKYANANDIN (900 A.D.):
Parīkņāmukha is the only work attributed to Māņikyanandin. But, it has immortalized the author. It is the first aphorism on Jaina logic. Mānikyanandin has put in it the logic of Akalanka in clear and precise terms. It has two commentaries of Prameyaratnamāla and Prameyakamalamārtanda which are widely studied in the Digambara institutions. They serve the purpose of elementary and detailed studies respectively. Pariksā nukha exercises a great influence amongst the logicians, both Śvetāmbaras as well as Digambaras. It is divided into six chapters of Pramāņa, Parokşa, Prameya, Phala and Pramāņābhāsa. Māņikyanandin introduced the condition of 'apūrva' (not already cognized) in his definition of Pramāna and thus excluded the repeating cognition (dhārāvābt jñāna) from the category of pramāga. He might have followed Akalanka in this respect, who adopted it under the influence of Kumārila. But, it was accepted by all the later Digambara scholars while the Svetā mbaras did not concede to it. This is the only point in the definition of pramāni that differentiates the two traditions. Māņikyanandin has also criticised Prajñā kara for his theory of the effect existing before the cause. Parikṣāmukha