Mahavira Jain Vidyalay Suvarna Mahotsav Granth Part 1

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

Page 469

8 : SHRI MAHAVIRA JAINA VIDYALAYA GOLDEN JUBILEE VOLUME
speculations of the Buddha and his followers. Substance, according to this law, was a myth raised up by imagination. The modes alone were real without any underlying unity. One mode replaces another in unbroken succession determined by causal nexus. The unity is replaced by an infinite chain of self-charged moments in this doctrine of pratītyasamutpada which literally means 'origination depending on relevant causes and conditions'. Nothing is independent and self-sufficient in this view. The real is also sūnya, that is, devoid of a character which is selfexplanatory without any reference beyond itself. The concept of unity is a composite act of imagination, called upādāya-prajñapti, that is, a concept (prajñapti) depending upon (upādayo) other constituent concepts. Nāgārjuna, a Madhyamika Buddhist, equates madhyamā-pratipad with these three aspects of the real when he says :
यः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादः शून्यतां तां प्रचक्ष्महे ।
सा प्रज्ञप्तिरुपादाय प्रतिपत् सैव मध्यमा ।। Another aspect of pratityasamutpada and madhyama-pratipad is the non-acceptance of any of a set of two extreme concepts or views. Nāgārjuna pays homage to the Buddha as the promulgator of the negation of all sets of conflicting concepts in the following verses :
अनिरोधमनुत्पादमनुच्छेदमशाश्वतम् । अनेकार्थमनानार्थमनागममनिर्गमम् ॥
यः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पादं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शिवं ।
देशयामास संबुद्धस्तं वन्दे वदतां वरम् ॥ The Yogācāra Buddhist also eulogizes the Buddha's doctrine as the negation of the cognized (grāhya) and the cognizer (grähaka).
Thus, the madhyamă-pratipad, originally a doctrine of life, came to be interpreted by later Buddhist thinkers as a doctrine of reality, from the ontological as well as the epistemological point of view.
Anekānta, on the other hand, was an ontological doctrine from the beginning. It was an attempt to explain causation and also a doctrine of relation. A substance can have different modes and yet preserve its unity and identity with those modes. The criterion of unity is inseparability. There can be distinction without difference. Modes are different among themselves and distinct from the substance, but they are not different from the latter. The relation between substance and modes is identity-cum-distinction. The Buddhist does not agree with the Jaina and consequently fails to find any unity in the knowing, feeling and willing of