________________
158
JAINA ONTOLOGY
had himself done much to mould the thinking of the contemporary Jaina authors interested in pbilosophical problems. Thus most of the questions that Prabhācandra takes up for discussion had come to the notice of Akalanka in practically the same form in which they did to the notice of Prabhācandra. But Siddhasena was a pretty old author to whom philosophical questions did not occur in the same form in which they did to Abhayadeva. As a matter of fact, Abhayadeva broadly shared with Prabhacandra the general framework in which to arrange his philosophical cogitations and yet he chose to express himself by way of commenting on Sanmati. The result is that the distance separating the atmosphere of Sanmatitikā from that of Sanmati is greater than that separating the atmosphere of Nyāyakumudacandra from that of Laghiyastraya. For the rest most of the discussions that occur in Sanmatiļīkā also do in Nyāyakumudacandra (and Prameyakamalamārtanda) and what remains to be done is to see what new points Abhayadeva raises in connection with them. One thing, however, is noteworthy and that about Abhayadeva's epistemological discussions. At one place Abhayadeva creates an occasion for an elaborate treatment of epistemological problems but here he makes almost no use of Akalanka's specific innovations, e.g. his classification of pramäņas. This naturally is a conspicuous difference between Abhayadeva and Prabhācandra, for the latter is a more enthusiastic exponent of Akalanka's new contributions in the field of epistemology. Of course, in his criticism of the Buuddist, Nyāyavaiseșika, Mimāṁsā and Sankhya positions as also in his defencc of a traditional position such as that the visual sense-organ cognises its object without coming in contact with it Abhayadeva has much in common with Prabhācandra. Abhayadeva concludes his discussion by referring to Gandhahasti (i. e. Siddhasena) whose commentary on the relevant aphorisms of Umāsvāti is supposed to convey all necessary basic information on the subject - thus suggesting that Siddhasena is for him what Akalarka is for Prabhācandra52. In any case Abhayadeva's Sanmativika is the first Ŝvetāmbara text in which the post-Dharmakirti philosophical scene of the country is subjected to an extensive survey and criticism from the Jaina standpoint. And that is symptomatic, for it signifies that the Svetāmbaras were now eager to outcome the lag that separated them from the Digabambaras whose ideas on the subject were most upto date. But even Abhayadeva can be said to have taken only the first step in this direction, even if this step was considerably big. For the author who so argued his case that almost no. thing remained to distinguish him from his Digambara camp-followers was Vadideva whom we consider next.
(C) VĀDIDEVA Vadideva wrote his Syadvādaratnākara consciously and closely imitating Prameyakamalamārtanda of Prabhācandra. As we have noted Prameyakam.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
