________________
174
the same hypothesis but only as a contrast to his own theory of the dynamic (pariņāmi) dravya. It is needless to recount the Jaina arguments against ekantadra vyavada since they are largely on the same lines as those of the Buddhist', which have already been noticed earlier except for the difference with respect to the connotation of dravyavada just stated.
The Jaina dialecticians" like Prabhācandra, Hemacandra, Abhayadeva and Mallişena do not merely show, with the Buddhist, the inapplicability of the principle of causal efficiency to the hypothesis of dravyaikāntaväda. They also pursue the consequences of the application of this principle even into the sphere of the Buddhist hypothesis of kṣanikavada, the paryāyaikāntavada or the anityavada' as the Jainas would call it-which maintains that reality is a series
1.
JAINA THEORIES OF REALITY AND KNOWLEDGE
2.
3.
4.
Cf. TBV, p. 729.
See supra, pp. 52-56.
Akalanka is perhaps the earliest Jaina writer to dispute the relevance of the idea of arthakriyäkäritva, in its two modes (to be mentioned presently) to the nityavada or the dravyaikantavada on the one hand and to the kṣanikavāda or the paryāyaikäntaväda on the other. He observes:
arthakriya na yujyeta nityakṣaṇikapakṣayoḥ / kramakramabhyam bhāvānāṁ să lakṣaṇatayā matā //
AGAM (and AGAV thereon), p. 4. See also PKM, pp. 498-499, PMHS, pp. 25-27, TBV, pp. 324-331, 400-403 and 728-729, SM, pp. 18-20, NVVS, p. 91, AVV, p. 202 and SRK, p. 731.
Vācaspatimiśra, Jayantabhaṭṭa and Bhadanta Yogasena are among the early non-Jaina critics of the Buddhist idea of arthakriyākāritva. They all, of course, criticise it from the points of view of their respective doctrines. See NVTT, pp. 554-556, NM, pp. 453 and 464, TSS, kās. 428-434, and PK thereon. ekāntanityavadanitye'pi kramākramābhyām arthakriyāsambhavāt / PKM, p. 499. See also NVVS, pp. 91-92.
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
