________________
Vol. XVIII, No. 3
115
identical with verbal testimony or the SB is separate from the verbal testimony ? In the case of former alternative the verbal testimony may not be a cause for the establishment of the SB due to the lack of the relation of cause and effect (Kārya-kāraṇa bhāva). The second alternative is also impossible here, because if we accept two things like the SB and the verbal testimony, then the advaita "non-duality" character of the SB will no more exist. It is needless to say here again that the grammarians accept the SB as "non-duality”, and says every thing is produced from it viz.;
tad-āgamasya niścetum sakyam jatu parikșakaiḥ /
nacāgamastato bhinnan samasti paramarthataḥ 1/27 To refute the objection of the Jain logicians, the grammarians may argue that Verbal Testimony is the Vivarta of the SB. However, Vidyānandi nicely rejects this type of argument of the grammarians. According to him if the Verbal Testimony or will be the Vivarta “appearance" of the SB like other things, then this means of knowledge will be treated as avidyā, which is asat. Now he asks the opponents that an asat, i.e. the Verbal Testimony may not be a cause for a sat one i.e. the SB viz. tad-vivartastva vidyātma tasya prajñāpakah katham 28 Thus the verb as testimony may not be a case to prove the existence of the SB.
In the Tattvärthaślokavārttika, Vidyānandi not only rejects the existence of the SB, but directly attains Bhartshari quoting his first verse from the Vākyapadīya.. He also opines that there is no such type of Brahman who is without beginning or end, whose very essence is the word, who is the cause of the manifested phonemes, who appears as the objects from whom the creation of the world proceeds viz.
tato naiva param brahmastyānādinidhanātmakam /
Vivarte tvarthabhävena prakriyā jagato yataḥ 1/29 Thus the Jaina logician rejects the existence of the SB, which is, according to the grammarians, the real cause of this universe. They not only reject the existence of the SB, but who argue that the world is not engulfed with words "Sabdamaya". According to them--since the SB is eternal in character, how any change "vivarta or pariņāma" is possible with that? Again, they think-if the gramm
ans argue that at the time of change the SB leaves its own quality or not? As the SB is eternal, the first alternative does not seem to be possible and if the second will be accepted, then, as all the things are engulfed with the SB, a dwarf "Vadhira'' will be able to listen everything after seeing the things produced from the SB-viz., rüpa samvedana samaya vadhirasya śabda-samvedana prasanga etc. /30
Like this, the Jainas studied the philosophy of grammar in
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
