Jainism from the View Point of Vedantic Acaryas

Author(s): Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: B J Institute

Page 10

It is a general misconception that, Sankarācārya and other Vedāntic Ācāryas have misrepresented Jainism in their writings. But this is far from the truth. Vedāntic Ācāryas following the Indian philosophical tradition have presented Jainism as Parvapakşa (prior view). They have presented Jaina doctrines very authentically. While presenting Jainism, Vedāntic Ācāryas have not done any injustice to it. Their criticism of Syādvāda is on account of superficial understanding of it.
Special study has not been done so far to give complete picture of Vedāntic Acāryas' views on Jainism. In these lectures, an attempt is made to fill up this gap, giving detailed arguments given by all these three Vedāntic Ācāryas. In the first lecture Sri Nimbārkācārya and his views on Jainism have been discussed in detail.. Nimbārka is very neglected philosopher in the history of Indian Philosophy. Antiquity of his school is concerned, lots of injustice has been done to this great thinker. Proper attention has not been given by the historians of Philosophy, even to date and works of Nimbārka. On the basis of recent research I felt it necessary to throw some light on Nimbārka's date and works, before presenting his views on Jainism, in this lecture. Nimbārka's commentary is very brief. So, we do not find detailed account of Jainism in his commentary. His immediate follower, Śrinivāsa in his commentary on Vedāntapārijātasaurabha (Brahmasūtra-bhāsya of Nimbārka) presents Jaina doctrines in detail and justifies Nimbārka's criticism of Syādvāda and Dehaparimāņa-vāda, giving detailed arguments. I have covered Śrinivāsa's views also in this lecture. The second lecture is devoted to Śarkarācārya's presentation of Jainism, refutation of Syādvāda and Dehaparimāņavāda. Sri Sankarācārya has presented Jaina doctrines as a prior view (pūrvapaksa) very authentically. He, as a great philosopher criticizes both Syādvāda and Dehaparimāņavāda with logical rigour. Like Dharmakirti and Śāntarakṣita, he took the word 'Syāť in the sense of probability or may be and criticizes it. It seems that Sankara was not familiar
vii