Dharmakirtis Criticism Of Jaina Doctrine Of Multiplexity Of Reality Anekantavada

Author(s): Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz

Page 16

Piotr Balcerowicz
grounded in five primary qualities (viz. karmic states (bhāva)). It is endowed with the capability to move in six [directions). It is cognitively apt as having the existence of (viz. as being to apply) the sevenfold modal description. It has eight substrata (viz. qualities). It has nine objects (sc. the nine categories (tattva) [to cognise). It has ten states. It is called the living element.
3.3. The term saptabhangi is occasionally juxtaposed with various 'aberrations' of the anekāntavāda. Some of these are listed by Siddhasena Divākara in STP 3.56-59, who displays an awareness that there is indeed certain, albeit superficial similarity between the Jaina anekantavāda and the Buddhist theory vibhajyavāda (vibhajjavāyam):
The universal should be spoken of from the substance-expressive viewpoint, and the particular (relates to the mode. When these two are brought together (sc, confused), they are defined as the doctrine of conditional analysis.o2
3.4. The idea of syādvāda does not, however, have to necessarily involve the usage of the term 'multiplexity' (anekānta). And indeed, the term occurs only some time later, in the work of Pujyapāda Devanandin (6th c.) for the first time. The sources of the term anekānta can be traced back to the following two passages: (1) The general and particular definition of these (seven viewpoints (naya) enumerated in TS 1.33] should be
formulated. The general definition, to begin with, [states that) a viewpoint is a verbal procedure (formal pronouncement) that aims - with respect to a real thing, which is of multiplex nature - at conveying, in conformity with essence (of the real thing), a particular (property of it) which one intends to establish, by laying emphasis on
[a particular) reason without contradiction [by virtue of which that particular property is established].04 (2) On account of the purpose (which) a real thing, which is of multiplex nature, [is to serve or is to be referred to),
prominence is extended to, or is emphasised, i.e. [prominence] is given to a certain property in accordance with the expressive intent [of the speaker). [The property] which is contrary to that (emphasised property] is notemphasised [property. Since (such a not-emphasised property serves) no purpose (at a particular time), even though it exists, there is no expressive intent [to assert it]; hence it is called subordinate (property]. Since these two kinds of properties) are establish, viz. "because emphasised [property] and not-emphasised (property] are established," there is no contradiction.
3.5. A brief reference to STP 1.36 40 above (p. 15) indicated a use of a series of certain parameters which determine the angle from which the thing under consideration is judged. And this is another
60 PS Sa, 71-72 (p. 123): eko ceva mahappa so duviyappo ttilakkhano hodi/
cadusamkamano bhanido pamcaggagunappadhāno ya // 71 // chakkāpakkamajutto uvautto sattabhangasabbhāvo/
atthäsao navautho jivo dasathānago bhanido // 72 // For a brief comparison of vibhajyavāda and anekāntavāda, see Matilal 1981: 7-11. 62 STP 3.57: davvatthiyavaltavvam sämannam pajjavassa ya viseso/
ee samovania vibhajjaväyam visesemti // 63 See Soni 2003: 34: *As for the word anekānta itself, in the sense in which it can be associated with the theory of
manifoldness unique to the Jainas, it seems that Pujyapāda was the first person to explicitly use it.' 64 SSi 1.33. $ 241, p. 100,7f.: eteșäm sämänyaviseşalakşanam vaktavyam. sämänyalaksanam tävad vastuny anekan
tātmany avirodhena hetvarpanät (cf. TS 5.32] sādhyavićeşasya yäthätmyapräpanapravanah prayogo nayah. SSi 5.32, 8 588, p. 231,91f.: anekāntātmakasya vastunah prayojanavasād yasya kasyacid dharmasya vivakṣayā präpitam pradhanyam arpitam upanītam iti yavat. tadviparītam anarpitam. prayojanäbhävät sato 'py avivaksā bhavatity upasarjanitam iti ucyate. täbhyām siddher "arpitānarpitasiddher" [TS 5.32] nästi virodhah.