________________
99
THE AGE OF LOGIC [The remaining two chapters proceed in an independent manner and they respectively take up the following topics :
(5) refutation of Vijñānavāda (idealism) (6) refutation of Kşanabhangavāda (momentarism)
But as compared to Nayacakra Anekāntajayapatākā is a much poor text so far as it concerns the question of mastering the contemporary systems of philosophy; and for a Svetambara text this was definitely a sign of degeneration. Little wonder that a long gap separated Haribhadra from the next great Svetāmbara authors who wrote on philosophical topics. These authors were Abhayadeva who commented on Sanmati and Vadideva who composed Syadvadaratnākara; however even in their case inspiration and impetus came not from Haribhadra but from the Digambara authors like Prabhäcandra and his great predecessors Vidyānanda and Akalanka, Of course, Prabbacandra himself stood to Vidyānanda is somewhat the same relation as Haribhadra did to Mallavadı - in both cases the later author was an inferior genius. But that is a different question and the fact remains that in the second stage of the age of Logic - a stage covering Haribhadra, Akalanka, Vidyānanda-ideas that historically proved pregnant came not from Haribhadra but from Akalanka and Vidyānanda. It was in the third stage of the age of Logic -a stage covering Prabhacandra, Abhayadeva, Vadideva, Yašovijaya – that Svetāmbara authors once more have a clear lead over their Digambara counterparts. But that again is a different question and will be taken up in due course. For the present let us only remark that Anekānta jayapataka deserved a better tale that history meted out to it.
Akalanka was a typical product of the age of Logic and the whole range of its activities, which was philosophical through and through, carries a meaning. Thus he wrote a commentary on Tattvārthasūtra, a commentary on Āpta mimaisā, four independent texts, viz. Laghiyastraya Nyāyaviniscaya, Pramāṇasangraha, and Siddhiviniscaya, dealing with philosophical topics in general, pramāna, naya and niksepa in particular. Through his commenary on Tattvārtha, the great Tati vārtharajavārtika, Akalanka sought to present the Agamic material in a language and style befitting the age of Logic. But here there was little scope for an originality in content and Akalanka hardly made an attempt in that direction. The case was different with Aptamimārsā where content was considerably expanded by Akalanka in his commentary Astašati. This in a way announted to making good a deficiency that vitiated Āptamīmāmsā. For this text as it originally stood was rather poor in content, though brilliant in form. Lastly, in his independent writings Akalanka continued the creative philosophical activity initiated in Astašati but here the very framework within which the discussion was conducted was the author's own
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
