Traverses on Less Trodden Path of Indian Philosophy and Religion

Author(s): Yajneshwar S Shastri
Publisher: L D Indology Ahmedabad

Page 17

Traverses op less trodden path...
The Jainas try to reconcile, these opposite views on causality by applying anekanta method. They point out that the Sänkhya view is correct in some respects, for, so far as the substance underlying the effect and the cause is concerned, it is the same; it persists in its immutability through the cause and the effect, which are two modes of its expression, therefore, in a very real sense, the effect is existent even before its emergence as an effect. On the other hand, effect is also a new creation (as Naiyāyikas and some Buddhists hold) in some respects, because it has its owo significance, own practical efficiency and all those features which pertain to a real effect were not in evidence before its emergence.88 The Jainas, thus, admit the partial validity of both the Sãokhya and Nyaya-Vaiseșika views. From the stand-point of its underlying substance, the effect exists in the cause before its production; from the consideration of the effect as a mode, it is new creation, not existent before its actual production. To cite an instance, a 'jar' is separate from as well as identical with the cause, i.e. 'clay'. It is identical with clay because, clay has a potentiality to produce a 'jar' and 'jar', when it is produced, is not without the essence of clay, It is also different, because, before its production as a 'jar', there was merely clay and the ‘jar' was not in a manifested form. It has no practical efficiency to carry out work as a 'jar'. Thus Siddhasena rightly pointed out that, the Nyaya.Vaišeşikas and the Bauddhas are right in so far they point out the faults and fallacies of the Sankhya view of causality and the Sankhyas are correct in so far as they criticise the Nyāya-Vaigesikas and Bauddhas. But when these two views of causality are adjusted to gether in compliance with the anekānta method, the result will be the true insight.88
Even Advaita Vedāntins' views of causality is one-sided and it can be reconciled with the help of anekanta. It is true as Vedāntins hold that effect cannot be described in language, it is inexpressible. But indescribability does not mean, unreal or false. Indescribability of the effect is not absolute, it is indescribable only in some respects. Effect is neither absolutely real por absolutely unreal. It is both real and unreal.87
The problem of universal and particular is, again, one of the most controversial problems in the field of philosophy. According to Advaita Vedānta, there is only one highest universal (mahäsämānya) in which
25 Sanmatitarka, 1. 27, pp. 29-30. 26 (a) Ibid., I. (b) Anekantavāda, Harisatya Bhattacharya, Pub : Jaina Atmananda Sabha, Bhavnagar,
1953, pp. 177-178. 27 Ibid., 178-180.