Jain Journal 1989 10

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

Page 16

OCTOBER, 1989
same way, God is the efficient cause (nimitta-karaṇa) of the world. God has created the world out of pre-existing eternal atoms (paramāņus) which are its material cause (upādāna-käraṇa) of the world. So, the inference (anumāna) of a creator God, holds a Naiyāyika, proceeds from the effect-hood (kāryatva) of the world, which is supposed to be the probans (hetu) of the inference in question.
49
But, with a great deal of sophistication and hair-splitting analysis, Gunaratna, a celebrated Jaina philosopher, first tries to prove that the probans (hetu) of this inference (anumāna), namely "being an effect" of the world, (karyatva) hardly makes any sense in the context of the Nyaya-Vaisesika argument. According to him, in the Nyaya context 'being effect' may mean only one of the following four alternatives :
(a) Being constituted of parts.
(b) The co-inherence in the material cause.
(c) Being the object of knowledge in the form 'It is produced'.
(d) Being characterised as what has undergone a change.1
Now, Gunaratna argues to prove that none of these four possible meanings of 'being effect' can stand to the test of logical scrutiny. Take the 4th alternative, namely 'being characterised as what has undergone a change', as the representative. The 4th possible alternative of 'being effect' is 'being characterised as what has undergone a change'-does not stand better. Because, an object may be described to have changed only when it has undergone a state different from what it has at any previous point of time. According to the Naiyayika, the alleged creator, i.e., the Supreme Lord does not create at all times, sometimes He engages Himself in the work of creation and sometimes He does not. So the alleged creator, i.e. God is to be considered a being characterised by transformation. Transformation means nothing but the attainment of a different state by an actually existing thing. Now it must be admitted for the sake of argument that at the time of creation the nature of God, the alleged creator, 'had definitely undergone a change from the time when it did not create'. That is, instead of being the cause of the world, the
1 yattavat kisityader buddhimadhetukatvasiddhaye karyatvasadhanam uktam, tat kim savayavatvam, pragasatah svakaranasaattasamavayah, krtam iti pratyayavisayatvam, vikaritvam vasyat.-Gunaratna, Tarkarahasyadipika, a commentary on Saddarsanasamuccaya, (Asiatic society, 1905), p. 117.