Mahavira Jain Vidyalay Suvarna Mahotsav Granth Part 1

Author(s): Mahavir Jain Vidyalaya Mumbai
Publisher: Mahavir Jain Vidyalay

Page 465

4: SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
'From the standpoint of substance, a pot is produced from the earth and not from the water. From the standpoint of place, it is produced here (i.e. at the particular place where it is produced) and not elsewhere, in Pāțaliputra, etc. From the standpoint of time, it is produced in the present and not in the past or future. From the standpoint of Bhāva, it comes to have the Mahat-Pariņāma and not the Alpa-Pariņāma (or it comes to have the qualities of redness, etc.).'
The causal theory of the Sāṁkhya is the Satkāryavāda which is deducible from his doctrine of Parināma. It means that the effect preexists in the cause and is only manifested by causal operation. There is no new creation or production of the effect as such. The Jaina, even though accepting the doctrine of Pariņāma, calls his causal theory Sadasatkāryavāda, i.e., the effect is both pre-existent and pre-nonexistent. It is existent in so far as it potentially pre-exists in the cause, and non-existent in so far as its actual manifestation is a novel emergence. Thus the Jaina, too, in the way of the Samkhya, regards effect as manifestation of the abiding entity but the phrase Satkāryavāda being suggestive of 'Ekāratism', the Jaina as an 'Anekāntist brings in Asat along with Sat. He also seems to be influenced by the Vaiseșika logic which emphasises the newness of the effect, though he would not regard manifestation as new creation in the Vaišeşika sense. For the Samkhya, too, it must be noted, the manifestation (abhivyakti) is non-existent (asat) and is brought about by the operation of the Karakas but he does not use the term Asat. Vidyānanda in his Astasahasri draws attention to this by stating that the Jaina view is really meant by the Samkhya even though he does not profess it, and that the Samkhya cannot maintain his Satkāryavāda in an absolute sense without stultifying his whole scheme of metaphysics.
The differences in the application of the theory of Pariņāma between the Sámkhya and the Jaina are due to their differences of view regarding the nature, number and derivation of the original entities. The Sāṁkhya analyses reality in two ways. One, on the principle of 'Sentience' (Cetana), and 'Non-sentience' (Jada) and the second way is to view reality as Pariņāmi and Aparināmi or Kūțastha. He identifies the sentient with the Küțastha and all change, physical and mental, is relegated to the nonsentient Prakrti. The Jaina dualism accepts the first principle of division only, viz., Sentience (Jiva) and Non-sentience (Ajiva) and rejects the second. This is the fundamental difference between the Sārnkhya and the
6
Asta-sahasrī, p. 104.