Dharmakirtis Criticism Of Jaina Doctrine Of Multiplexity Of Reality Anekantavada

Author(s): Piotr Balcerowicz
Publisher: Piotr Balcerowicz

Page 23

Dharmakini's criticism of the Jaina doctrine of multiplexity of reality (anekäntavāda)
23
Another example of a philosopher who rejects it is Prabhācandrasūris. The existence of any kind of special quality is thus denied, and indeed it is hard to find a trace of it also in earlier Jaina sources.
4.2.3. In opposition to what Dharmakirti claims (vide supra $ 2.2.1.f.), no Jaina text consulted by me speaks of the identity of two unrelated things x = y. Instead, the formulation of the syāt proposition is one of the following:
(a) an incomplete sentence of the sort: 0 (uis ...), o (x is not ... ), etc., in which no explicit predicate is mentioned; (b) a modal statement in which the subject is predicated of in terms of a predicate: 0 (x is P), where P is a property,
0 (x is non-P), etc.: (c) a modal statement-c.g. syāt ghato ghatah, syāt ghato 'ghatah etc. (see $ 3.6.) - that links a member of a class to
the class of the kind oa EA, (a E-A), etc. by virtue of a property P all the members of the class possess;
therefore, this kind of statements can be reduced to the pattern of $ 4.2.3.(b): 0 (x is P), o (x is non-P), etc.; (d) rather rare type: 0 (xis x-related), o (x is non-x-related) etc., where the relation is strictly causal, based on the idea
of the triad: origination (utpäda), cessation (vyaya) and permanence (dhrauvya), e.g. 'a pot is, in a certain sense, a lump of clay (syūd ghalo mrdpindah: 0 (uis X-related)), 'a pot is not, in a certain sense, a lump of clay' (syād ghalo mrdpindo năsti, o x is non-X-related)); what Haribhadrasūri formulates is already implied by the two verses of Prasamurutiprakarana: (204) Whatever is characterised by origination, destruction and permanence, all that with no exception exists. It is predicated of as something existent, something non-existent or otherwise (sc. inexpressible as well as the remaining permutations) on account of whether a particular (property) is emphasised or not emphasised. [205] The production, [caused] by [the substratum) y, is of such an object x which was not there in the substratum ), and is seen presently there in the substratum) y. The opposite of this is the destruction of the object)
4.2.4. In Dharnakūti's account we see absolute absence of the four parameters dravyaksetrakālabhāva (vide supra $ 3.5.) which, at a point, become essential in Jaina exposition of syādvāda.
4.2.5. Dharmakirti does not seem to notice an important distinction between the substantial aspect of dravya and the modal, transient aspect of paryāya that are at the basis of such propositions as syäd asti and syān nästi, respectively, etc. That oversight is unhesitatingly pointed out by Säntisūri in the Nyāyāvatārasütravāritika, while directly referring to Dharmakirti's verse: 'One should not claim the following: ... [PV 3.182], because also the aspect of the mode is to be taken into account. It is only in that way that the seven-fold modal description is [properly] established. For it is as follows: When one wants to express the primary character of the substance, then one asserts: "ris, in a certain sense, [P]." Similarly, [When one wants to express the primary character) of the mode, one [asserts): "ris, in a certain sense, not-[P]." When one wishes to express the contention that both
** NKC, Vol. 2 463,5-6: ...kimcil sat samastasad iti, evam asad api. sampurnaniratiśayas vātmana eva tu vastulvād
nirūpyam - katamat tal kva vā kimcilsallvam asaltvam vā? etarhi nirüpyate - nanv idam eva tad ekasaltāsad asad
api asamarthagavaval. 0 Comp. Haribhudrusüri's account in PRPT. * PRP 204 205: ulpädavi gamanilyalvalaksanam yar tad asli sarvam api /
sad asud vā bhavality anyathārpilānarpitaviseșät // 204 // yo roho yasmin näbhul sampralakäle ca drsyale latra / lenolpädas tasya vigumus tu tusmād viparyāsah // 205 //