________________
THE AGE OF LOGIC
161
In the course of his defence of Anekāntavāda Yašovijaya heavily depends on the old texts like Anuyogadvāra, Āvasyakaniryukti, Tattvarthasūtra (sabhāsya) Sanmati and Viseșāvašyakabhāşya, to a considerable extent also on Sanmatitika and Syädvadaratnākara. As a matter of fact, his one endeavour is to offer such an account of naya, niksepa and saptabhangi as should be consistent not only with itself but also with the texts in question taken together. The project was certainly ambitious inasmuch as these texts were composed by authors equipped with different intellectual capacities and living under different conditions. Naturally, therefore, Yasovijaya had his moments of doubt and vacillation but on the whole he managed to fulfil his ambition to a much greater extent than a lesser author could have done For instance, Anuyogadvāra gave him an account of nayas in which a succeeding naya was conceived as somehow more refined than the preceding one but this account was not formulated in terms of the doctrine of universals and particulars; on the other hand, Sanmati and Višeşāvašyakabhasya (particularly the latter) would categorise nayas on the basis of their stand on the question of universals and particulars. Yasovijaya did his best to combine into one the essentials of these two rather mutually divergent accounts. Thus according to an example cited in Anuyogadvāra the naiga. manaya gives the name "prasthaka' to a prasthaka as it stands while the sangrahanaya gives this name to it only when it is actually undertaking measurement-of-grain this being the specific function of a prasthaka); on the other hand, Viseşāvasyakabhāşya argues that the naigamanaya posits the reality of both universals and particulars while the sangrahanaya posits the reality of universals at the cost of particulars. Keeping all this in mind Yasovijaya suggests that the essence of sangraha lies in the renunciation of particulars or in the renunciation of lack of refinement', 53 the former alternative doing justice to the Višeşāvasyakabhāsya account, the latter to the Anuyogadvārı account. Again, the doctrine of Saptab hangi was available to Yasovijaya in two versions - in the version of Sanmati directly and in that of Aptamimāṁsā through Syadvādaratnākara. In his treatment of the question, therefore, he usually follows the first version while frequent enough also lending support to the second.54 As a matter of fact, through Syadva. daratnākara Yašovijaya came in contact with many notions which were current only among the Digambaras, but by treating this text as basically authoritative Yasovijaya gave these notions a due place in his repository of ideas that was otherwise for the most part drawn from the Svetāmbara sources. For instance, the Syādvādaratnakara account of naigamanaya is based on Vidyananda's account of it given in Tattvarthaslokavārtika but no earlier Svetambara text is familiar with the same; Yasovijaya was in a good position to make use of this account along with the corresponding account available to him from old Svetāmbara texts.55 As for the Digambara notions
J. O..21
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
