________________
256
JAIN JOURNAL
contradiction For unless something exists how can it do the duty of accounting for another thing? Mallisena proceeds to elaborate the criticism He challenges the opponent to explain the meaning of mithyarupatva (1) If it means absolute non-existence it is accepting the position of asatkhyātı-which the Vedantist would not take of lest it might expose hun to the charge of being considered šunyavādın (Buddhist) (2) If it means mistake it is viparttakhyāti which too the Advaitist cannot adopt as it involves two reals (3) If it means that it cannot be definitely characterised by either existent or non-existent, 1c, anirvācya, explanation may well be demanded as regards the meaning of anırvācyatva If anırvācyatva =nihsvabhāvatah it will involve sarkhyātı or asatkhyāti according as svabhäva in nihsvabhāvatva is taken to be bhāva or abhāva Again, if nihsvabhāvatva=prarityagocaratva, how can such a word (prapanca) be even talked about Moreover, it will be inconsistent with the hetu prativamānafvad as prariryagocaratva mean aprarityamânatya
Besides the whole argument is pratyakşa-badhira Adopting a some what different form of argument Mallisena makes out a prima facie case for the Vedantin on the ground of pratyaksa, anumana and agama and afterwards attacks each of them
St XIV The problem of the reality of one or many, which is involved in the Vedantin's position discussed under the preceding stanza presents itself in another form what do words sämānva or višeşa express---universal or particular, one or many? Some of Purvamimänsakas, the Advaita Vedantists and Sankhyas are universalists and some of them singularists also The Buddhists are particularists and pluralists and the Vaišeşikas and Naiyāyikas are both According to the Jaina, they are all partially right The first group of thinkers looks to the unity of substance, the second confines their attention to its manifold modes or changes, the third considers both but treates them as separate selfsufficient realities Mallisena points out where each of them errs and what aspect each of them has ignored The last school that of NyāyaVaiseșika comes nearest to the Jaina position , yet does not appreciate the relativity of sămânya and višesa, the universal and the particular, the one and the many
XV
Criticism of Sankhya
St XV Mallisena first gives a summary of the Sankhya system by quoting from Sankhya-karıka and shows that it has gone wrong in the matter of the point mentioned by Hemacandra
