Kundakunda And Umasvati On Anekanta Vada

Author(s): Jayendra Soni
Publisher: Jayendra Soni

Page 2

JAYANDRA SONI
KUNDAKUNDA AND UMĀSVĀTI ON ANEKANTA-VADA
27
1. Kundakunda on anekanta-vāda
pioneering Digambara thinker who probably lived in the South, with appreciation for his views also coming from the Svetāmbaras. It seerns certain that he was also known as Padmanandin. A.N. UPADHYE has shown that possibly apart from the hame Elācārya, all the other names ascribed to Kundakunda or Padmanandin (Vakragriva, Grdhrapiccha or Mahāmati) go against the tradition of the early epigraphic records. The name Grdhrapiccha erroneously used for him since about the fourteenth century has led to confusion because this name is also an alias for Umásvāti.
Umasväti, on the other hand, is said to have lived in the North. His dates vary from the second to the fifth centuries CE with recent preference for the fourth or fifth centuries. Also in his case biographical details are scanty and both the sects of Jainism claim him as one of their own (with the Digambaras also calling him Umāsvāmin), and both regard his work, in traditional Indian manner, as an authority On Jaina thought. His name too is indelible in history of Jaina philosophy, especially for the pioneering work of the now famous Tattvartha-sutra (TS). If there is anything anyone knows about Jaina philosophy then it is certainly from this work. The problem concerning the first commentary on TS seems to be irreconcilable, hamely whether Umäsväli wrote an auto-commentary, the Swopajna-bhasa, as the Svetämbaras say, or whether Pujyapada's Sarvartha-siddhi ("Attainment of the Meaning of Everything') is the first commentary, as the Digambaras say, written in the fifth or sixth century. In any case both commentaries are available and the Comment by Suzuko OHIRA (1982:42) is relevant here: 'The prime contribution of the Sarvartha-siddhi is that it revised and improved the Bhaswa by way of clearly elucidating its general contents in the current language and concept of the time.
There are at least three crucial areas in Jaina thought for which a comparison of the views of Kundakunda and Umāsvāti may be fruitfully undertaken: anekantavada, pramāna and upayoga. To this may also be added an observation about the humber and exact sequence of the basic Jaina categories (attva/ padártha). In this paper I am concerned with only the first in which the terms nuya and spát play key toles. In other words what I am attempting here is to collect together the most Significant references to naya and/or syāt that can be found of these two thinkers and to compare the ways in which they use (or do not use)
Three works by Kundakunda are especially praised as philosophical masterpieces: Panicastikava-samava-sara (PSS), Pravacana-sara (PS), and Samaya-sára (SS). These works are all in Prakrit and they contain not only one of the carliest interpretations of svad-vida but also give one a good impression of how the Prakrit language was used to express philosophical ideas. For his ideas related to anekantavada reference will be made only to Kundakunda's PS, and PSS. In PSå 2.22-23 Kundakunda says:
davvalfhiena savam davvan tart paijayathiena puno / havadi ya annam anannam takkale tammavallado // 22 // [dravarthikena sarvam dravyan tat paryayarthikena punah / bhavati cânyud anyat tar-kāle tan-mayatvát // - p. 144] *All substances are non-different from the substantial view.point, but again they are different from the modificational view.point, because of the individual modification pervading it for the time being' (p. 394). atthi iti va natthi ya havadi avattavvam idi puno davvam/ paijapena du kena vi tad ubhayam aditham annan và // 23 // [astiti ca nástiti ca bhavaty avaktavyam iti punar dravyam/ paryawena iu kenapi tad ubhayam adistam anyad will - p. 146] According to some modification or the other it is stated that a substance
exists, does not exist, is indescribable, is both or otherwise' (p. 394). The last point is repeated in Kundakunda's PSSå 14:
siva athi natthi uhayam avvallavam puno ya tartidayam/ davam khu sattabhamgam adesa-vasena sambhavadi //14/1 svad asti násty ubhayam avaktavpam punas ca tal-Iritayam / dravvanı khalu sapla-bhangam adeśavasena sambhavarill-p. 9) According as Dravya is viewed from different aspects of reasoning it may be described in the following propositions: 1) Perhaps it is; 2) Perhaps it is not: 3) Perhaps it is both (is and is not); 4) Perhaps it is
them.
See UPADHYE (1935: 5) where he draws his conclusions after discussing the Various names
I have hinted at this in the conclusion below. A slightly more detailed account, using the same biographical information given above, can be found in SONI (2001).
For both texts I am supplying the Prakrit text, with the Sanskrit translation in brackets) from the commentary by Amitacandra (tenth century), with UPADHYE's English translation