________________
9. SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT
227
Mimāînsã theories were not likely to wield any great influence. Be that as it may, having established the existence of an Omniscient Being, the Naiyāyikas turn against the Buddhists and the Jainas, and deny that the Buddha or the Arhat can ever be called omniscient; and their attitude, on the whole, is one of hostility towards the non-Brahmanical systems, Váoaspati says in his Nyāyavārtika-tātparya-tīkā that Buddha and Rşabha are known to be the authors of the Buddhist and Jaina scriptures respectively; but as they are not the creators of the universe, like God, how can they be regarded as omniscient?In his commentary on the Yogasūtra Bhāsya also (1. 24, 25) he rejects the claims of the founders of systems like the Buddha, the Arhat, Kapila and others to be regarded as omniscient beings. Further, the Naiyāyikas just mentioned give a new turn to the old Nyaya theory that the Vedas are authoritative, because they are the utterances of a trustworthy person (Apta); and argue therefrom that the Vedas are the utterances of a Trustworthy Being, because they are accepted by the majority of the people (mahājana), and what is not declared by a Trustworthy Being is not accepted by the majority of the people. This is exactly what Udayana says in the Kiranavali commentary on the Prasastapāda Bhāşya. Jayanta also says that it is possible to speak of anything as being declared by a Trustworthy Being (Apta) only when it is well-known among and accepted by the majority of the people. He explains Mabājana i. e. the great mass or the majority as those who follow the Varņāśrama order prevalent in the Aryan country, that is, the Vedic order of society founded on the division of castes and the stages of life, and makes a distinction between Mahājana and Vịnda, the group or the minority, such as the Buddhists. The latter might claim their vinda to be the mahājana in order to establish the authoritative character of their scriptures, but it is not possible to raise a minority (Vịnda) to the status of a majority (Mahājana), and the latter always avoids and never approves any scriptures that are opposed to the Vedas.* Jayanta therefore concludes that scriptures other than the Vedas cannot be regarded as being composed by a trustworthy individual, because they lack support among the large mass of the people,
1 'तत्र शाक्याद्यागमानां बुद्धर्षभादयः प्रणेतार इति स्फुटतरमस्ति स्मरणं न तूक्कलक्षण ईश्वरस्तेषां कर्जेति। न चैते
शौद्धोदनिप्रभृतयः तनुभुवनादीनां कर्तारो येन सर्वशा इति निश्चीयेरन् ।' 2 'आप्तोक्ता वेदाः महाजनपरिगृहीतत्वात् । यत् पुनर्नाप्तोत्तं न तत् महाजनपरिगृहीतम्। 3 HEI G T Rafa yaratiro wala 172 Nyāyamañjarī, Book IV. 4 'बौद्धादयो बुद्धादीनाप्तान् स्वागमप्रामाण्यसिद्धये वदन्ति ते महाजनमपि निजं तत्सिद्धये वृन्दादिकं वदेयुरेव कस्तत्र
प्रतीकारः, उच्यते, चातुर्वर्ण्य चातुराश्रम्यं च यदेतदार्यदेशप्रसिद्धं स महाजने उच्यते.........."चातुर्वर्ण्यचातुराश्रम्य. रूपश्चष महाजनो वेदप्रथमप्रवृत्तः.........."अत एव न निजो महाजन उत्थापयितुं शक्यते वृन्दकादिः किं त्वयमेव
चातुर्वर्ण्यादिमहाजन स चैष महाजनो वेदविरुद्धमागम परिहरत्येव नानुमोदते' Ibid. 5 'अत एवंविधाया महाजनप्रसिद्धरागमान्तरेवदर्शनान्न तेषामासप्रणीतत्वम् ।'
Jain Education International
For Private & Personal Use Only
www.jainelibrary.org
