Tulsi Prajna 1995 04

SR No.: 524583
Original Sutra Author: N/A
Author: Parmeshwar Solanki
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
Publication Year: 1995
Total Pages: 158
Language: Hindi
Classification: Magazine, India_Tulsi Prajna, & India
File Size: 7 MB

Page 137

TULSI-PRAJNĀ
therefore, that arthakriya is possible only in permanent-in-change character.
18
tatkālam parihṛtya
Afterwards, Durvekamiśra tries to criticise the view of Syadvadakesari not by advancing arguments but merely hurling insults. As a matter of fact, whenever the Buddhist philosophers came across people whose views were different to theirs, especially when they could not refute their theories, they resorted to the practice of ridiculing them by means of ironical speech. It is in this manner that the arguments of the Jainas against the theory of kṣaṇikavāda came to be dismissed by Pandit Durvekamiśra with cursory remarks that a wiseman should disregard the above objects raised by the "Ahrikas" or Digambaras (yadi namabrikoktirupe kṣaṇīya prekṣāvatām). 18 He then tries to show that only the momentary character has a capacity of casual efficiency.
Tarhi karyamapi tadaivotpadyeta'nyada käryot pattirvirudhyata......17
Santarakṣita also refers to a view which seems to belong to the Jaina tradition, but it is attributed to Bhadanta Yogasena, who is claimed by certain scholars to be a Buddhist philosopher. For instance, Bhattacharya says in his introduction to the Tattvasangraha that "nothing definite is known about Yogasena; he is not mentioned in the Nanjio's catalogue of the Chinese Tripitaka nor in any of the Tibetan catalogues." He then tries to prove that Yogasena was a Buddhist philosopher on account of his appellation "Bhadanta" saying: "But the word 'Bhadanta' is always used in the Tattvasangraha to denote a Buddhist, or more preferably a Hinayana Buddhist. Our authors have not made a confusion in this respect anywhere in this book, and on this ground we can take Yogasena to be a Buddhist."19
""
But Santarakśit has not indicated anywhere that the word "Bhadanta" should be limited only to the Buddhist Acaryas. It has been widely used in Jaina literatue as a term of respect to elder Bhikkhus. 20 It is, therefore, not impossible that Yogasena has been a follower of Jainism or has been influenced by its conceptions, as his views against Kṣaṇikavāda represent the Jaina standpoint. Further Santarakṣita did not mention anywhere explicitly the criticism made by Jainas against Kṣaṇikavāda. Moreover, it is unlikely that in such a comprehensive work he should forget to mention the refutation of the Buddhist theory of momentariness by the Jainas, when the Jains were their greatest opponents.
Some schools of thought opposing the doctrine of momentary
*