________________
10
VAISHALI INSTITUTE RESEARCH BULLETIN NO. 1
tion of relation. But it is not anything in excess of the individuals. The individuals develop certain characteristics which make them appear as related. The denial of common bond either supplied by the trans-individual universal or trans-individual relation makes the items of the universe objectively independent and unrelated. In these two fundamental conceptions one may not be accused of exaggeration or oversight if one finds essential uniformity between the Buddhist and Jaina philosophers. The law of Anekanta has been rather given a halfhearted recognition in the ontological plane.
The Vedantist monist gives us a unified universe without the individuals. The Samkhya gives us the conception of material universe as a unity in diversity. Dharmakirti does away with the unity and leaves us with pure diversity of diverse individuals. It was expected that this pluralistic bias should have been contested by the law of Anekanta. It is a truth that Buddhist pluralism is not repudiated without prevarication. Siddhasena Divākara did not set himself the task of writing a manual on logic like Dignaga or Dharmakirti. Within the compass of thirty-two stanzas he has given us the salient topics of Jaina logic and epistemology which will continue to be an anthoritative work. His deliberate omissions enforced by the consideration of space and time have been supplied by the commentator Siddharși. We have exploited the essential materials provided by this commentary and also have added our own data. The present exposition may be regarded as an expanding commentary on comparative and critical lines.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
