Jain Journal 2005 07

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

Page 23

JAIN JOURNAL: VOL-XL, NO. 1 July 2005
[but not any one of them alone]. Since all these stattvas) cannot produce anything independently, it should be admitted that in their combined form they can produce the effect. Some believe that svabhāva and niyati are the property of karman; and some say that all matters have the same property.
K.K. Dixit is of the opinion that Haribhadra seems to agree with kālādisāmagrīvāda, the syncretic doctrine. If the first three doctrines claiming Time, svabhāva and niyati be called by the general name, kārya-kāraṇatāvāda, Haribhadra seeks to synthesize kāryakāramatāvāda and karmavāda. The last verse appears to suggest that some philosophers admitted karmavāda within the frame of niyati and svabhāva, while some others admitted karmavāda under all circumstances.?
In LTN Haribhadra refers to many more claimants to the title of jagatkārana (1.47ff, 2.16ff.) but does not offer such a syncretic view. Earlier authors like Jinabhadragani (sixth / seventh century) too refute svabhāvavāda (taking it to be a namesake for accidentalism) but refrain from advocating syncretism. On the other hand, Samantabhadra (sixth century), Siddhasena Divākara and Sīlānka follow the syncretic tradition current among the Jain philosophers regarding svabhāva.
There is a hint in the Gañadharavāda to show that Jinabhadragani associated svabhavavāda with materialism:
ahava sahāvam mannasi viņņāņa ghanāiveyavuttāo / taha bahudosam goyama ! tānam ca payanamayamattho //
7. Ibid., pp. 45, 53, "Ţippani”. Dixit also notes that the difference between
svabhāvavāda and niyativāda is of a minor nature (ibid., p. 8). See also Basham, p. 226. However, Basham's view that “svabhāvavāda was a small sub-sect of Ajīvikism” (p.226) is, in my opinion, quite unifounded. The doctrine was not associated with any of the religious or philosophical schools known to us.
8. For a detailed exposition of Haribhadra's view, see Bhattacharya 2001.
9. GV, 2.25 (1643), p. 131. The verse is followed by a refutation of svabhāvavāda.
Svabhāvavāda is again mentioned in 5.237-45 (1785-93).