________________
THE AGE OF LOGIC
and above its component parts46. And these instances are not isolated, for the whole of Tattvarthašlokavārtika is strewn with criticisms directed against rival philosophical views and good many of them pursue the theme Anekantavada.
of
153
(iii) Pramāņa
Umāsvati's text devotes a good part of its first chapter to the problem of pramānas and so the corresponding part of Tattvarthaslokavārtika had naturally a lot to say on the question. But the way the discussion is conducted by Vidyananda is masterly. As a matter of fact, it is this part of Tattvarthaslokavārtika that really enables us to form an idea of the full extent of Akalanka's achievements in the field of epistemology. For in this field Akalanka himself was ever making experiments, so to say; more. over, he had to use his independent writings on epistemology also for the purpose of undertaking ontological discussion of all sorts. All this resulted in many crucial concepts having remained neglected or but poorly developed in Akalanka. But Vidyananda was in a more favourable position inasmuch as he had Akalanka's net findings for his starting point. Thus he ably developed the logic of these findings and gave us a reliable picture of what was soon going to become the doctrine of pramanas acceptable to whole Jaina camp. Here again he took detailed notice of rival positions related to the questions under consideration. Thus on the question as to what constitutes pramāṇa Vidyānanda examined the Buddhist and Nyaya-Vaiseṣika positions, on the question as to how cognition itself is cognised he examined the Nyaya-Vaiseṣika and Mimamsa positions; similarly, on the questions of defining pramāna he examined the Buddhist and Mimamsa positions while on the question of classifying pramaņas he examined the Buddhist, Nyaya. Vaiseṣika and Mimamsa positions. Again, he undertook a positive defence of Akalanka's list of pramānas and sought to demonstrate that it alone was free from both omissions and superfluities; similarly, he evaluated the content of each and every pramaņas posited by Akalanka. Certainly, many if not most of these questions had been touched upon by Akalanka himself but Vidyananda's treatment of them was extremely elaborate. Of course, Akalanka's epistemological texts were commented upon by others before as well as after Vidyananda; (e. g. Anantavirya who commented on Siddhiviniscaya came before Vidyananda, while Prabhacandra who ented on Laghiyastraya and Vadiraja who commented on Nyaya-viniscaya came after him). And yet it is Vidyananda who deserves to be called the commentator of Akalanka's epistemological texts even if he formally commented on none of them. For it is his treatment of the problem that deserves to be considered a creative continuation of Akalanka's findings. However, since it on the whole falls outside the purview of ontological discussions we proceed with it no further.
J. O...20
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
-
comm
www.jainelibrary.org
