________________
( 175 )
After Kundakunda, Samantabhadra tries to explain it further with the help of examples. This is referred to by Karnakagomin in the Pramūnavārtika Svarsttiţikalt and Durvekamiśra in the Hetubinduţikaloka. According to Samanta. bhadra, the triple characters abide with a substance at one and the same time. They are not mutually independent. Utpada can never exist without vyaya and dhraurya. The other two characters too are mutually dependent. Samantabhadra uses an example to clarify this view. If a jar made of gold is turned into a crown it will please a man who has an attachment to the crown, but it will displease a man who dislikes the crown, wlule the third man who is netural about the crown but is interested in the gold, will have no objection to it at all. Here origination, destruction, and permanence abide in one reality. Another example is presented to make this controversial point clearer. He says : he who takes a vow to live on milk, does not take curd, he who takes a vow to live on curd, does not take milk; and he who takes a vow to live on food other than supplied by a cow, takes neither milk nor curd. Thus Sanatabhadra cancludes that utpāda, vyaya, and dhrauvya inay exist in a relative sense, 17 Kundakunda has also given such example in this conneetion. 18
The etymology of the word dravva itself indicates that a thing is permanent-in-change taking a new form simultaneously with the disappearance of the previous form. 19 This view was also accepted by Durvekamióra according to Krdanta section.20 Santaraksita21 and Arcata22 lave also recorded this conception in their respective works.
Trayatmakavāda and Arthakriyavāda,
in Buddhist Literature The arthakriyakāritva ( causal efficency ) is the essence of the doctrines of Bheda vāda, Abhedavāda, and Bhedābhedavāda. The Satkūryayada of Sankhyas, A satkāryavada of Naiya. yikas and Buddhists and Sadasatkāryavāda of Jainas are wellknown to us in this respect. Here we are concerned only with the views of the Buddhists and Jainas.
