Book Title: Facets of Jain Philosophy Religion and Culture
Author(s): Shreechand Rampuriya, Ashwini Kumar, T M Dak, Anil Dutt Mishra
Publisher: Jain Vishva Bharati
________________
282 Anekāntavāda and Syādväda
understand what is good or evil, as it really is. Not understanding what is good or evil, as it really is, if I were to assert that this is good and this is evil, that will be due to my likes, desires, aversions or resentments. If it were due to my likes, desires, aversions, or resentments, it would be wrong. And if I were wrong, it would cause me worry (vighāto) and worry would be a moral danger to me (antarāyo). Thus, through fear of lying (musavädabhayā) and the abhorrence of being lying, he does not assert anything to be good or evil and on questions being put to him on this or that matter he resorts to verbal jugglery and ell-wriggling, saying : I do not say so. I do not say this, I do not say otherwise, I do not say no, I deny the denials (I do not say "no no'')
Idha... ekacco samano vā brāhmaṇo vā idam ti yathābhūtam ti nappajjānāti, idam akusalam ti yathābhūtam nappajjānāti. Tassa evam hoti. Aham kho idam kusalam ti yathābhūtam nappājānāmi idam akusalam ti yarhābhūtam nappājānāmi. Ahan c'eva kho pana idam kusalam ti yathābhūtam appajānanto, idam kusalam ti yathābhūtam appajänanto idam kusalam ti vã vyäkareyyam idam kusalam ti và vyakareyyam tattha me assa chando vā rāgo vä doso va patigho va tam mam' assa musa. Yam mam'assa musā so mam' assa vighäto. Yo mamassa vighato so man' assa antarāyo ti. Iti so musavādabhaya musāvādaparijegucchā n'ev'idam kusalam ti vyākaroti na pana idam akusalan ti vyäkorati, tattha tattha pańham puttho samano vacāvikhepam apajjäti amaravikkhepam : Evam ti pi me no. Tathā ti pi no. Aññathā ti pi me no. No ti pi me no. No no ti pi me no ti27
According to this school, it is imposible to achieve knowledge which is a hinderance to heaven or salvation (Saggassa c'eva maggassa ca antarāyo).28 The second and the third school of sceptics do noi assert anything to be good or evil through fear of involvenient (upädänabhayā) and a fear of interrogation in debate (anuvyogabhayā).
The fourth school of sceptics followed the philosophy of Sañjaya Belathiputta who fails to give à definite answer to any metaphysical question put to him. His fourfold scheme or the fivefold formula of denial is based on the negative aspects which are as follows29
27. D. i. 24-5. 28. DA. i. 155. 29. Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco samano va brahmano va mando hoti momuho. So mandatta
momūhattā tathā tatthā puttho samaño vacavikkhepam apajjati amaravikkhepam.....marana. D. i. 27.
