________________
( 89 )
not be the clear cut distinction that he commion form is amenable to sense cognition and the uncommon foram is amenable to mystic cognition."100
The above objections are met by the Jaina philosophers. They say that from the point of view of dravyärthikanaya, reality is the same but from the paryayarthikanaya standpoint its modes are different from each other, On the basis of the conception of non-absolutism, there is no room for selfcontradiction.100
The Nature of word
Santaraksita in the Tattvasangraha refers to a view of the Mimamsakas regarding the nature of the word with the idea of establishing his own theory. The mimarsakas hold the view that the word is eternal. Hence there is no author of the Veda. Therefore it is authoritative, reliable, and of divine origin (apauruşeva In this way, they set forth the several views that have been held by various philosophers regarding the exact nature of word Among them the Jainas are said to have held the view that the word is atomic in character (andgalo Digambarash 102 In the following kärikā two types of words are mentioned, viz Universal (Sāmānya) and particular Vileṇa) which are the main features of the Jaina conception of reality.
While the establishing of his own view, Śantarakṣita criticised the Mimamsakas' conception, but he did not refute the Jaina conception separately. He proved the falsity of the common types of words, while criticising the view of the Mimämiskas. He set up a theory that the Veda is not an authoritative and reliable source. Hence word is universal in character and noneternal in form.
As regards the divine origin of the Veda (apauruṣeyavāda) both Jainism and Buddhism are travellers of one and the same path. The arguments against the Mimamskas' view are adduced by both parties in a similar way, though they are based on their own fundamental principles, and therefore, they differ in some places.
