Dharmakirtis Criticism Of Jaina Doctrine Of Multiplexity Of Reality Anekantavada

Author(s): Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz

Page 21

Dharmakini's criticism of the Jaina doctrine of multiplexity of reality (anekāntavāda)
21
excluded real thing - various universals, which are based on the exclusion of everything else by virtue of the real thing to be excluded. It is not consistent (to assume that the distinctive nature of the universals is established by virtue of this real thing, because of too far-reaching consequence."
4.1.2. Another Jaina thinker in whose work we come across a refutation of Dharmakīti's account of the universal is Vādinājasūri:
For it is as follows. This criticism, which one wishes to raise against Cour doctrine of multiplexity of reality that states that the real thing consists in positive aspect (P) and in negative aspect (non-P) cannot hold true, to begin with, with respect to such a real thing) that consists in the universal or in the particular, because there is no single universal which is concomitant with [both) yoghurt and (camel) etc. For the universal is the transformation pertaining to likeness, and it is indeed confined to yoghurt etc., there is no other entity at all or anything else associated with it, and independent of it), just like the likeness between something blue and the cognition of it. Therefore, how can oneness between yoghurt and camel be possible, on the basis of which some activity were
possible with respect to one thing (even though the injunction concerning the other [thing were expressed]? The main line of his argumentation is, again, that Dharmakirti misrepresents the Jaina concept of the universal and his criticism might hold valid only with respect to a theory which would understand the universal the way the Jainas do not.
4.1.3. Not only Abhayadeva and Vādirāja, but generally no Jaina text consulted by me refers to any kind of universal (sāmānya) in the sense of a special quality (atisaya), over and above the thing itself, by virtue of which two entities could be associated or dissociated as it is done in the exposition above (vastutvāt, see p. 11). We come across clear statements that deny such an approach, see e.g. Akalanka's Svarūpasambodhana: 'Acknowledge that the essence of the real thing is the thing) itself and the other by virtue of the nature of the real thing." Clearly, atiśaya cannot be considered to correspond to parameters or stand for the dravyārthika and paryāyārthika viewpoints.
Further, Akalanka's riposte to Dharmakīrti (PV 3.182) in his Nyāyaviniscaya points out the general misrepresentation of the main idea behind the doctrine of the seven-fold modal description. His strutegy is to demonstrate that Dharmakirti commits 'the fallacy of criticism' (dūşaņābhāsa):
Your false riposte with respect to the [inferable property of our thesis) is a counterfeit rejoinder (as a formal flaw in discourse to blame) on the enemies of the doctrine of multiplexity of reality, just like one injunction (concerning
both yoghurt and camel] due to the undesired consequence of non-difference of yoghurt and camel.2 He further ironically points out the consequences of Dharmakirti's understanding of anekānta:
19 TBV 243,1211.: athu sajūliyavijatiyavyävrtiam niramsam vastu latsāmarthyabhāvini ca pratyakşe tat tathaiva
pralibhāli, lad ullarakālabhāvinas Iv avastusamnsparsino vikalpāh vyāvartyavastuvasavibhinnavyāvrilinibandhanan
sāmānyabhedän vyāville vastuny upakalpayantah samupajāyante na ladvaśāi iadvyavasthā yuktā, ariprasargāl. NO NViV 2.203 (233,1911.): lathā hi - tad api tadatadātmake vastuni düşanam uddhusyamānam na lävat sāmānya
višesälmake bhuvitum arhari, dadhyādyanvayinah sāmānyasyaikasyābhāväl. sädrsyapariņāmo hi sämūnyam, tac ca dadhyādiparyavasilum eva na kimcid api salvam anyad vā samanvitam asti nilatajjnanayoh sārüpyaval. tat katham
dudhyustruyor ekuivam yala ekacodanāyām unyatrāpi pravruih. " SSam 20ab: sum purumi celi vastu vani vasturüpena bhävaya/ 82 NVI, 371 (79,29-30) = NVi, 2.203 (vol. II 233,2,6):
tatra mith yollaram jātih yarhānekāntavidvişäm / dadliyuştrūder abhedarvaprasangad ekacodanam //