Impact of Nyaya and Vaisesika School on Jaina Philosophy

SR No.: 269078
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Sagarmal Jain
Publisher: Z_Sagar_Jain_Vidya_Bharti_Part_6_001689.pdf
Publication Year: 2003
Total Pages: 7
Language: English
Classification: Article & Jainism
File Size: 331 KB

Page 5

190
of Tattvärthasútra and differences in this regard continued up to the period of Višeşāvasyaka-bhâsyai.e. 7 century AD. Regarding definitions of dravya, guna and kāla, we find some similarities in Uttarādhyayana-sūtra, Vaiseșika-sūtra as well as Tattvärthasūtra. Scholars are of the opinion that the Tattvārthasūtra and its autocommentary have some influence of Vaišeşika-sūtraand Yoga-sútra. When we talk of the impact of Nyāya-Vaiseșika school on the metaphysical doctrine of Jainism, we should not forget that Jainas have of course borrowed some of the terminologies/ideas of NyāyaVaiseșika school but they incorporated them in their own way with required modifications and not as it is. For example, regarding substance, which possessed of guna (attributes) and paryāya(modes) Jainas are very clear in their concept that guna and paryaya are not two different entities as the Nyāya holds but they are two aspects of the same Reality and they are interchangeable in ditferent relations. Similarly, Jaina also not admit the destruction of all gunas with the destruction of a dravya and the emergence of all the guņas a new with every new dravya, as the Nyāya holds.
So far as the impact of Nyāya school on Jaina epistemology is concerned, Jaina philosophers have adopted some ideas of Nyāya school in Toto and some ideas in their modified form. As I have already discussed, the doctrine of five-fold knowledge (pañcajñāna) has its origin in the philosophy of Lord Pārsva (8 cent. BC) that is why we do not find any impact of Nyāya School on this doctrine. Even in Tattvārthasútra (3"cent. AD), while establishing these five types of knowledge as pramāna, we do not irace any conceptua} impact of these schools on it. In the beginning of Christian era, when the discussions regarding the nature and types of pramāņas took place in different schools of Indian philosophy; the Jaina thinker Umāsvāti defined those five types of knowledge or knowledge itself as pramāņa. Tattvartha-sūtra accepts only two types of pramāņai.e. pratyaksa (direct) and paroksa (indirect) and satisfy himself by dividing these five types of knowledge into two. At the