Jain Journal 1968 10

Author(s): Jain Bhawan Publication
Publisher: Jain Bhawan Publication

Page 34

OCTOBER, 1968
(3) The third point is raised that the bhedabhedavāda (identity-indifference) conception which means the substance and its modes cannot be separated from a realistic standpoint, but they are different in name, number, nature, place, etc. from a practical viewpoint is not correct. Therefore, the Jaina view: "All is one, and all is not one (sarvam sarvātmakam na sarvam sarvātmakam) is not helpful to understand their theory.
Dharmakirti tries to clarify this view in critical way by presenting a traditional example of the Jainas. The Jainas explain their theory of the nature of reality with the illustration of a golden-jar (svarna-ghata), where gold is considered the general, and not particular, character. Here Dharmakirti points out why the Jainas do not recognize the jar or pot itself as a general character, since dravyatva is in all of them according to Jainism.9
Arcata refutes the view by saying that the difference between substance and its modes by name, number, etc., and the unity of them into one by place, time, nature, etc., are not simultaneously possible as the nature of reality, since an entity cannot assume more than one character.10
79
He further points out that sanjñā is the cause of an intimation (sanketa) which depends on desires. How then can one differentiate it by name, since it is also one, not two? Words are fictitious. The difference, therefore, would be imaginative. Sankhyabheda also is not possible as there is a difference between vācya (to be spoken) and vācaka (speaker), which is also kalpita (imaginative). Further he says that without the destruction of a substance there would be no destruction of its modes. Hence, they can be identified neither as bheda nor as abheda. If the modes are different from the substance, it would not be connected with them. If they are accepted as non-different, their natures would be one. How then could the lakṣaṇabheda be applied? Karyabheda is also possible as there is no difference in nature.
The theory "substance and its modes are not different (abheda) in place, time, nature" is also defective in Prajnakara's view. He says "position, the form, smell, juce, touch etc. are different in modifications. If the nature stays with substance and modes in the form of dest
8 Pramanavartika, 1.183
• Ibid, 1.184-5.
10 drvyaparyayarupatvat dvairupyam vastunah kila
tayorekatmakatvepi bhedah sanjnadibhedatah-Hetubindu Tika, p. 104.