Central Philosophy of Jainism Anekanta Vada

Author(s): Bimal Krishna Matilal, Nagin J Shah, Dalsukh Malvania
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 41

VIII
SUBSTANCE AND QUALITY :
TWO MAIN STANDPOINTS Siddhasena Divākara has pointed out that there are two fundamental nayas 'standpoints' that can be derived from the teachings of Mahāvira.54 They are expressed cryptically as follows: 1) Dravyāstika, the “substance exists" standpoint, and 2) Paryāyāstika, the "modification exists" standpoint. The first has been called the standpoint of substance and the second the standpoint of change or modification. Alternatively, the first one may be called the viewpoint of generality, and the second one the viewpoint of particularity or differentiation. All the other standpoints, according to Siddhasena, fall under these two heads.
Traditionally, the Jainas talk about seven(or six) types of standpoints. This was by way of taking into account the different philosophical views prevalent in classical India. Siddhasena observed that the methodology of standpoints was intended to explain the truths of the Jain. canons :
"The 'pure' naya methodology consists in the exposition of the (Jaina) canons. (But) if it is not correctly applied it ruins both parties."55
Siddhasena's warning about the incorrect employment of the naya methodology is reminiscent of a similar warning from Nāgārjuna regarding the misunderstanding of the 'Emptiness' doctrine :56
"Like a snake caught at the wrong end, or like a craft learnt in the wrong manner, the 'emptiness' doctrine may destroy the stupid person when it is misunderstood by him.”
Siddhasena was probably the first in the Jaina tradition to synthesize the Samkhya view with the Buddhist view : Thus, he observes :57
"The system of philosophy taught by Kapila is a representation of the only substance exists' viewpoint, and that which is taught by the son of Suddhodana (the Buddha) is an exposition of ‘only
modification exists' viewpoint." Regarding the Vaiseșika system, Siddhasena comments that it employs both viewpoints. But still the Vaišeşikas do not employ a pure, flawless methodology:58