________________
CHAPTER V
141
joint question just stated, then he is confronted with the following dosas' or fallacies, to which his bhedābhedavāda or dravyaparyāyātmakavāda is said to be liable :
1. Virodha (contradiction); 2. Vaiyadhikaranya or Vyadhikaraṇatā (“transfusion', or 'absence of a common abode '); 3. Anavasthā (regressus ad infinitum); 4. Sankara (confusion); 5. Vyatikara (“Exchange of Natures '); 6. Samsaya (doubt); 7. Apratipatti (non-apprehension); 8. Visayavyavasthāhāni (indeterminability of the true nature).
Excluding the one kārikā attributed to the Naiyāyikas (yaugaiḥ) by Vādideva, viz., samsayavirodhavaiyadhikaraṇyasankaram athobhayadosah / anavasthā vyatikaram api jainamate sapta dosah syuḥ // SRK, p. 738. We do not come across anywhere among the works of the non-Jaina critics, where doşas are fully mentioned. The non-Jaina critics mainly concern themselves with Virodha, although śankara (BBSB, II. 2.33) and Kumārila add Samśaya or Sandigdha (Kumārila has done so in the course of two kās., in defence of "anekatvavada" or "anekāntavāda". See MSV, Vanavāda, kās. 79 and 80. For a reference to this, see infra.) and śāntarakṣita and his commentator Kamalaśila Sankarya (Sankara) to Virodha (TSS, kā. 1722, and PK thereon.) Whether or not the doşas other than Virodha are explicitly mentioned by the opponents of the Jainas, they are presumed to be implied (upalakṣita) by Virodha which is considered to be their main basis (mūlādhara). Hence their individual enumeration and refutation is, however brief, necessary in any polemical examination of the Jaina view. The number and the order of the doşas in this classification are as adopted by Hemacandra and Mallisena (See PMHS, I. 1.30, p. 28, and SM, p. 150 (text)). Some writers like Prabhācandra cite ubhaya (or ubhayadosa) and omit No. 8 (PKM, p. 526) and others like Akalanka, the earliest Jaina logician to defend the Jaina position against such dosas, and Vasunandi, cite ubhaya and abhāva omitting Nos. 7 and 8. (See AGAV, p. 103, and VVAS, on AMS, kā. 20). All these writers retain, in spite of the difference of one or two doşas, a classification of eight doşas. Abhayadeva and Vädideva, however,
