Tattvopaplavasinha

Author(s): Jayrasi Bhatt, Sukhlal Sanghavi, Rasiklal C Parikh
Publisher: Oriental Research Institute Vadodra

Page 21

Xiii
1 attvopaplavasimha
Jayarasi starts witlı the examination of the Science of Naiyāyikas and tries to prove that it cannot stand (pp. 2–22), Then he discusses Mimamsaka and Buddhist views of Pramana as such (22 to 32) and follows it up with the criticism of their respective tens (32-58,58-61). Then comes the turn of the Sankhya view of 40724 (61-64). Then again the Naiyāyikas have to withstand his attack on their theory of 219477 (pp. 64–74). While discussing tara Jayaraši finds it convenient to examinc the various theories about At or soul. In this connection he deals with the Naiyāyika, Jaina, Mimamsaka, Sankhya and Vedānta theories of soul (p. 74-83). Having finished this part of his argument he again turns to the theory
मान, this time of the Bauddhas including their स्वभावानुमान (pp. 82-109). Then the six types of starfa of Mimāmsakas are considered (109-10). Upamāna of the Naiyāyikas and Abhāva of the Mimassakas are briefly dealt with (pp. 110-19) and a reference to Aitihya and Sambhava also inade by saying that they come under *** and 3474147 respcctively.
The last section is directed to the examination of a (113-25) and in that connection the theory of the grammarians especially that of Bhartrhari is also examined (120-23),27 After this detailed criticism Jayarasi comes to the conclusion : argasar atay sifatifataja: Jagitt sterà i
This suinmary account of the main contents of the work clcarly shows the viewpoint of Jayarásibhatta as critical. In fact he has criticized all the varieties and theories of SAINT known to Indian Philosophy of his time. Here a question ariscs whether this method is merely faaral or an honest effort to show that as there are no valid means of knowledge nothing which can be said to conform to reality can be asserted. Vitanda has been defined by Gautamaasस प्रतिपक्षस्थापनाहीनो वितण्डा । The Jalpa (the sort of discussion which uses all sorts of arguments with a view to defeat the opponent) which has no opposite view to establish, is Vitandā. Can we say that 1. has written this work merely for the fun of confounding different dialecticians and that he has nothing to say as a result of all this cogitation ? We do not think so. A careful rcading of the text leaves the impression that J. is as serious a thinker as any
27. The verse 31937-tgada (p. 125 TPS) is found with a variation in the first pada in the Vaiyakaranabhūşhaņasāra of Kaundabhatta p. 202, C. S. S. We are indebted for this reference to Pandit Satyadeva. Mis ra of the Brahmachari Wadi Samskrt College, Ahmedabad.