________________
136
JAINA ONTOLOGY
tion - one solid reason why it recommended itself to Akalanka and Vidyananda. Siddhasena and Jinabhadra had doubtless developed numerous elements of Anekāntavāda but they chose to work within the framework of the doctrine of nayas which had obvious limitations. To be sure, these authors also saw to it that this doctrine be so understood that its contribution to Anekāntavāda should be maximum possible, but that did not conpensate for the basic deficiencies vitiating the original doctrine itself. Moreover, these authors did not make serious or sustained efforts to evaluate from the standpoint of Anekantavāda the contemporary systems of Indian philosophy. Even Mallavadi whose study of these contemporary systems was remarkably thorough did not care to evaluate them from the standpoint of Anekantavāda. True, he now and then did criticise a philosophical position from the standpoint of Anekāntavāda but that was not his constant practice. What is worse, he gave the impression that what he was above all doing was to evaluate selected philosophical systems from the stand. point of Anekantavāda even if this evaluation was conducted wit framework of the doctrine of seven nayas and that of twelve categories, viz. vidhi, vidhividhi etc. But as we have already seen, this was not the case and whatever Mallavadi did in this connection was done in a most perfunctory fashion. The situation undergoes as refreshingly welcome change with the advent of Samantabhadra with his Aptamimāṁsā.
Samantabhadra had a clear consciousness of what constitutes the cen. tral contention of the doctrine of Anekantavāda, viz. that a thing must be characterised by two mutually contradictory features at one and the same time. He also realised that the doctrine was applicable rather universally: that is to say, he felt that taking any thing and any feature at random it could be shown that this thing is characterised by this feature as also by the concerned contradictory feature. In order to vindicate his position Samantabhadra examined the following ten pairs of contradictory features :
(i) existence and non-existence (ii) oneness and separateness (iii) permanence and transience (iv) difference between cause and effect, substance and property, etc.'
and identity between cause and effect, substance and property etc.' (v) 'relativity of substance-property relationship' and non-relativity
of substance-property relationship. (vi) 'reliance on reason' and 'reliance on scripture' (vii) 'pan-internalism' and 'pan-externalism (viii) reliance on faith' and 'reliance on endeavour' (ix injury done to other a sin, pleasure given to other a virtue' and
injury done to oneself a virtue, pleasure given to oneself a sin’
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
