________________
JAINA ONTOLOGY
the naigama, sangraha, vyavahara and rjusutra nayas. In Nayamṛtatarangini we get a connected critique of Advaita-vedanta alone61 but on a number of questions - more or less fundamental - the Nyaya-Vaiseṣika positions have been here examined in details; (even momentarism, the basic Buddhist doctrine, here comes in for criticism at due place), 62 It is these incidental but in their own way important and in any case most elaborate - discussions that constitute the most difficult part of Nayamṛtatarangini and this means that even this text in the parts directly explanatory of the original is comparatively easy of comprehension. A thorough perusal of these texts should go a long way towards dispelling much misconception that prevails regarding Jaina philosophy in general and the doctrine of Anekāntavada in particular.
164
As has alreday been hinted, Tarkabhāṣa and Jñanabindu, Yasovijaya's writings on epistemology, do not contain much that has a decisive bearing on ontological questions. For these texts are devoted to a specific discussion of the problems of epistemology and logic. Only we have to note that in Tarkabhāṣa Yasovijaya so develops his argument that he has been able to incorporate in it not only what Akalanka has said in this connection but also what Jinabhadra has said, Moreover, along with pramana this text also deals with naya and nikṣepa, and these latter two topics are definitely a part of the discussion on Anekantavāda. In Jñānabindu, on the other hand, the epistemological problems have been dealt with exclusively on the model of Jinabhadra, But even here we get a brief incidental discussion of pramanasvatastoaparatastva63 and a detailed incidental critique of certain positions maintained by Advaitavedanta64, a performance that is independently Yasovijaya's own. Finally, in this text Yasovijaya discusses a problem on which Jinabhadra and Siddhasena take two diametrically opposite positions, viz. the problem whether kevalajñāna and kevaladarśana proceed simultaneously or alternately. The noteworthy point is that Yasovijaya here undertakes a detailed defence of Siddhasena's side of the case, without at all considering Jinabhadra's point of view65.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
