Jain Journal 1969 10

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

Page 42

OCTOBER, 1969
85
former being apprehended by the senses ; and in that case there could not be the clear-cut distinction that “the common form is amenable to mystic cognition”.53
dve hi rūpe katham nāma yukte ekasya vastunah. dve tadā vastuna prāpte aparaspararūpatah. parasparātmatāyāmtu tadvairūpyam virudhyate.
The above objections are met by the Jaina philosophers. They say that from the point of view of dravyārthikanaya, reality is the same but from the paryāyārthikanaya standpoint its modes are different from each other. On the basis of the conception of non-absolutism, there is no room for self-contradiction or other defects.54
Word
Santaraksita in the Tattvasangraha refers to a view of Mimamsakas regarding the nature of word with the idea of establishing his own theory. The Mimamsakas hold the view that word is eternal. Hence there is no author of the Vedas. Therefore it is authoritative, reliable, and of divine origin (apauruşeya). In this way they set forth the several views that have been held by various philosophers regarding the exact nature of word. Among them the Jainas are said to have a view that word is atomic in character (paudgalo digambarah).55 In the following kārikā two types of words are mentioned, viz., universal (sāmānya) and particular (višeşa), which are the main features of the Jaina conception of word.
During the establishment of his own view Santaraksita criticised the Mimamsakas' conception, but he did not refute the Jaina conception separately. He proved the falsity of the common types of words, while criticising the view of the Mimamsakas. He set up a theory that the Vedas are not an authoritative and reliable source. Hence word is universal in character and non-eternal in form.
As regards the divine origin of the Vedas (apauruşeyavāda), both Jainism and Buddhism are travellers on one and the same path. The arguments against the Mimamsaka view are adduced by both parties in a similar way, though they are based on their own fundamental principles, and therefore, they differ in some places.
58 Tattvasangraha.
54 For details, see my article "The Anekantavada and Buddhist Philosophers" published in the Vidarbha Samsodhana Mandala Varsika Patrika, 1966.
55 Tattvasangraha, 2310.