________________
So also Ratnaprabhasūri and Mallisena. Ratnaprabhasūri (XIth A.D.) wrote Syādvāda-ratnākara-vārttika which was a shorter commenṭtary on the Syadvada-ratnākara.
Mallişena (1292 AD.) is the author of the Syādvādamanjarī which is a commentary on Anya-yoga-Vyavacchcdika-dvātrimśikā of Hemacandra.
In the decadent period of this age we have Maladhāri Rājasekhara (1348 A.D.), Jñānacandra (1350 A.D.) and Gunaratna (1409 A.D).
Akalankadeva (8th Cent. A.D.) in his Nyāyaviniścaya defines anekānta thus:
upayogau śrutasya dvau syādvāda-naya-saṁjñitau/ syādvādaḥ sakalādeśo nayo vikala-sankayā//
anekātmakārtha-kathanaṁ syādvādaḥ yathā pudgalaḥ dharmo dharma ākāśaḥ kāla iti. tatra jīvo jñāna-darśana-viryasukhair asādhāraṇaiḥ amūrttatvā-sankhyata-pradeśatva-sukṣmatvaiḥ sattvaprameyatvā gurulaghutva-dharmatva-guṇitvādibhiḥ sādhāraṇaiḥ anekāntaḥ tasyajīvasyādeśāt pramāṇaṁ syādvādaḥ.5
In a very modern book entitled Jaina-siddhanta-dīpikā of Gaṇādhipati Tulsi, anekānta is defined in a lucid way as -
sāmānya-viseṣa-sadasan-nityānityavācyācya-dyanekāntātmakam (X. 29)
i. e., '(The cognizable object is) universal-cum-particular, existentcum-non-existent, eternal-cum-noneternal, expressible-cum-nonexpressible and is thus indeterminate (in terms of formal contradiction).
Satkari Mukherji and Nathmal Tantia in their notes (PPIXX-X9) have explained the sutra thus.
'Anekānta means not ekānta. Anta literally means end or extreme. Thus 'being' is one extreme and ‘non-being' is the other extreme of predication. This also holds good of eternal and non-eternal, and so on, which are given in formal logic as contradictories. According to pure logic, these oppositions are exclusive of one another and they cannot be
तुलसी प्रज्ञा अंक 139
24
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
